Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Women in Business’ Category

‘Politically Dressed’_ First Daughters’ Fashion, Inauguration Edition – ABC News By SHUSHANNAH WALSHE (@shushwalshe)
Jan. 18, 2013
ABC News with Lauren A. Rothman  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psJXJ0vazUs&feature=share&list=FLaTq937NRvndeAN0g-Gpb2Q

To schedule an interview with On-Air Political Style Expert
Lauren A. Rothman, please contact:
Phone: +1.202.631.8878
Email: lauren@styleauteur.com
Web: www.styleauteur.com
Twitter: twitter.com/styleauteur
Facebook: facebook.com/styleauteur
TV Clips: styleauteur.com/press

Most eyes will be on the president Monday when he is sworn in at his second inauguration, but standing beside him and the first lady will be their daughters, Malia and Sasha.

“Politically Dressed” went to Saks Fifth Avenue and spoke with political fashion expert Lauren Rothman about what the first daughters may wear to their father’s swearing in.

No matter what they wear, like the adorable bright pink and blue outfits from J. Crew four years ago it will fly off the shelves.

As Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, Jenna and Barbara Bush, and other young daughters of presidents have done before, Malia and Sasha are sure to be by their parents’ sides for many of the other inauguration events, but they aren’t the young girls we saw four years ago. They are hitting their teen and tween years now. Malia is 14 and Sasha is 11.

Rothman predicted some “hot trends” for the Obama girls like lace, full skirts, tweed, mixing patterns and even neon (see all the trends by watching “Politically Dressed” above).

“You are always going to see them in that full skirt,” Rothman said. “That flirty skirt is really is one of the first daughters’ signature style statements.”

She added that people may see a coordinated Obama family.

“I think the girls are probably going to have a few options and on the day of [the inauguration] will really decide how the first family is going to coordinate,” Rothman said. “I think everyone will want to know what they are wearing and how they’ll replicate it.”

Rothman added that all these trends are good for your average teen, as well, saying they will keep their moms happy, too.

“The full skirt is great because it really hides a multitude of sins,” Rothman said. “It cinches in a tiny waist and it doesn’t let anybody see what’s underneath. So for kids, it’s safe for mom because mom doesn’t feel it’s too tight. It’s not a miniskirt. But it’s also good for girls who are just starting out, and kind of putting their long legs out there, and want to have a little coverage and don’t want to show off too much of their figure.”

Don’t forget the accessories: a cross-body bag and a fun flat are perfect for their age and, really, any age.

“This is the most important part of all these trends, is you don’t want the girls to grow up too fast,” Rothman said.

Follow @Styleauteur on Twitter & ‘Like’ Styleauteur on Facebook

Read Full Post »

Women Do It Better – article from Barrons

The world is full of illusion. What we generally think the truth is and what is actually happening on the ground is often at odds. Smart investors know how to arbitrage the difference between this fact and perception to make a financial killing. In the world of charitable giving, insights into what is myth and what fact improves the philianthropic industry and makes for a more wholesome society.

Which is why I encourage a look at some myth busting facts emerging from The 2011 Study of High Net Worth Woman’s Philanthropy by The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, a report commissioned by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. The 911 men and women in the study had an average net worth of $12.2 million and average annual income of $639,924.

Consider: “Contrary to popular belief that men predominantly control philanthropic dollars within a household, the survey found that in nearly 90% of high net worth individuals, women are either the sole decision-maker or at least an equal partner in charitable decision-making.” (Just 14.6% of the men in couple relationships, and 10.6% of the women, said the couple consciously made “separate decisions” about charitable gifts.) Furthermore, “findings show that single women are more likely to give to charity, and give at a higher level than single men across all charitable subsectors and some income levels.”

Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. The primary motivation (81.7%) for women to give to charitable causes is that they are “moved” by how a gift can “make a difference”; 70.9% of the men needed to be so “moved” before opening their wallets.

Once moved, however, women turn into tough donors. They are far more insistent the organization they are giving to is “efficient” (women 80.5%, men 69.2%), and their gifts somehow “give back to the community” (women 78.2%, men 63.3%). Furthermore, women tend to give more to organizations where they do volunteer work (women 65.7%, men 49.8%), possibly because they have an insider’s view that the organization getting their dollars meets their more stringent criteria.

In fact, women spend much more time kicking the tires and conducting due diligence on charities than do men. “High net worth women (78.4%) are statistically significantly more likely to have a strategy for giving and/or a budget for their giving than men (71.9%).”

Men, those loyal dogs, are in contrast far more likely to “support the same organizations/causes annually” than their female counterparts (men 67.9%, women 59.5%). They are also more inclined to stay the course even when they are going through a tough financial patch. More women than men need to “feel financially secure” before they give (women 77.1%, men 69.5%).

Intriguing stuff. It’s another slice of the apple giving credence to the financially prudent virtues articulated In Praise of Housewife Economics.  But it also confirms a less attractive trait that was detected in the ultra high net worth Chicago study mentioned in The Wealth Disconnect.

For all their expressed concerns about the truly needy – and a few wealthy individuals who distort the overall picture through their outsized generosity – wealthy men and women generally are rather parsimonious about materially helping the indigent with real dollars.

Indiana University figures that the very wealthy of both sexes only give 4.7% of their charitable donations to “organizations that provide food and shelter”. Non-profits that provide “youth or family services” get 8.8%. The biggest recipients are always “foundations, trusts and funds” (22.1%) and “education” (19.3%), reinforcing the view that the wealthy give more to opera houses and their rich alma maters, gifts that benefit other rich folk, than they ever give to those truly in need.

What am I missing here? Is there some sound intellectual reason for this disconnect – such as a profound belief that a handout for food and shelter is a short term fix for which these wealthy donors are looking for longer term solutions – or do the very wealthy really not care about those less fortunate than they are?

Scoundrels exist in all walks of life, of course, but I have to say the narcissistic worldview that consistently emerges from these giving stats does not jive with the wealthy individuals I hang out with. Or maybe I am just kidding myself. Perhaps there is a real difference between the charitable public personas of the very wealthy and what actually happens, in the privacy of their boudoirs, when they actually write their 501 (c) (3) checks.

If any of you can explain this disconnect, or know of some good analytical studies that can help shed light on this anomaly, would love to hear about it. But no need to write in that the wealthy employing workers is a virtue in itself and the best answer to helping those less fortunate – we know that already. What we’re trying to find here is an explanation for a black hole in the philanthropic industry.

Or, failing that, face the cold facts.

Read Full Post »