GibCosta

I was listening to Slate's Money Talks podcast when I first visited the online exhibition Economica, and it struck me that I was listening to four male commentators share their opinions on economic recovery. No women economists or policymakers were mentioned in the nearly hour-long recording, and the observations shared were essentially void of the effects that the crash has had on individual people worldwide. While I'm glad that NPR's Planet Money regularly presents a comprehensive set of viewpoints, I still find myself wanting for more in-depth and personal synopses from demographically and politically diverse sources.

Timing aside, my introduction to the International Museum of Women interactive exhibit was fortunate. Economica includes opinion essays by development and policy leaders alongside slideshows and podcasts, and the result is a thorough multimedia presentation on the state of the global economy through a feminized lens. (For the less financially inclined among us, a refresher on economics terms meanings is included.)

The thing that sets the exhibit apart from many displays of public works — beyond the fact that it's available online only in keeping with the San Francisco-based IMOW's virtual offerings — is a call for viewer stories and artwork. User submissions are being solicited and will live alongside curated work, including photo essays by photographers around the world on subjects such as the education of illiterate women in Morocco and China's “floating population” of female migrant workers.

One particularly striking piece is Viviane Dalles' Growing Debt about the effects that the introduction of genetically modified cotton to India has had on indebting farmers and the responsibilities that their widows must take on after their fairly common suicides. But not all of the work presented is dire: a podcast with curator Dr. Masum Momaya and social economist Naila Kabeer describes ways that political organizing has improved women's money-earning potential in both the formal economy.

Clare Winterton, executive director of the social change-oriented IMOW, said the topic of women's money-earning capacity worldwide had been planned as the exhibit to follow last year's “Women, Power and Politics”, which generated participation across 200 countries. The economics project was underway when global markets collapsed, which made looking at the global economy from women's perspectives more timely than the organization could have realized.

Winterton acknowledged that bringing attention to women's contributions and voices hasn't been easy, even as the credit crunch has drawn attention to the personal economic situations of the middle class. (A slideshow on families affected by home foreclosures is forthcoming.) “There were several recommendations to tie in purse-related themes and soften the economic focus, but we think it's important that women can claim having a voice in the economy,” Winterton said.

Momaya, who curated both the economics and politics exhibits, noted that few people have talked about what the economic collapse has meant for women. “Women have been long in crisis, between managing scarcity in their homes and now as more of them become national finance ministers,” she said. “In most of the world, their social role as caretakers has forced them to know how to make a lot out of a little, especially as their countries cut back on education and healthcare in the name of military spending. They've had to be the ones to deal with those cutbacks while ensuring that goods and food are produced, even when they don't see the funds that result.”

In the women's studies field, there is plenty of academic literature about female roles in the political economy. Momaya said that one of the goals in opening the exhibit was making women's perspectives on economic development more accessible. Visibility for these discussions is important, she said, because they are not frequently discussed among non-expert audiences. It's easy to see why: the topic of economic woes and successes can be dry and difficult to visualize for even the most disciplined news follower.

The IMOW team members say that the Web allows their work to be presented in a more didactic format and increases engagement more than a physical exhibit could. In laying out a few main themes (property and wealth, family and fertility, and business leadership among them), they say they've tried to combine both personal and systemic observations of women's work and financial experiences in the online educational content.

If an economics student study guide were to be created and cover the key ideas represented by the participating writers and photographers, Momaya's takeaways would be a good place to start. Because while hearing that only 25 percent of women in the Arab world are part of the paid work force compared with more than 65 percent in the rest of world is striking, understanding the impact such a statistic could have on our economic future is far more pressing. Her observations include:

• Globalization and the economic crisis have different impacts on men and women;

• Even though women don't have an equal share of resources, they “historically have and are creating innovative solutions for scarcity and have always contributed to growth;”
• While investing in women is important, we should recognize the importance of improving traditional economic systems and challenging discriminatory cultural practices if we expect returns on those investments;
• And, most importantly: “The current crisis provides an opportunity to ask what kind of economy we really want — and create it.”

Economica manages to humanize the impact of policymakers' and institutional decisions in graphic and intriguing ways. It uses the most sensible technique to do so: inviting women to tell their stories themselves.

A few weeks ago, the first women ever was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics*, Elinor Ostrom. Usually I don't bother reading about the rationale behind the Prize, but in this case I was curious. Would her work be different than what we've seen before in economics? Would she bring something new to the very testosterone-filled Nobel Laureates table?
Before I break the nerve-wracking tension on that one, let's just go back to the question: Is there a feminine way of doing business?

When I began putting the material together for my coaching & business program “The Heroine's Journey,” I had already coached entrepreneurs in general, and women entrepreneurs in particular for many years. I thought I had most of it nailed down. What I realized through my research is that the business fundamentals are the same for women and men. Accounting is still accounting. Landing a new account or closing a sale is still the same. Numbers don't cater to gender. BUT, what I came to understand is that while the WHAT is not different, the HOW, and the WHY are. Let's start with the WHY.

Women don't start companies for the same reason men do. Women start businesses as an expression of themselves, as a way to balance family and work, and to be able to be their own bosses. Men start businesses to make money, or because they have an idea (that they believe they can make money on).**

The WHY is worthy of its own article, which I will post in a few weeks. Today I want to focus on the HOW. Do women run businesses differently than men?

If I start a business to make money, my primary goal will be to make as much money as possible. Hence, anything that detracts me from my primary goal will be a problem. Such as for example, creating a business that also is sustainable from a planetary perspective, since I will have to sacrifice some of the potential profits. But if I start a business to create an expression of myself, or find a way to balance work and family, my primary goal will be self-expression, or life-work balance. And if I start a business to make positive change, it's the change that is my primary objective, not making money. This would explain why women traditionally have made less money through their businesses. Their primary objectives are different.

It's obvious that we need both. We won't survive long-term without creating more sustainable business practices that also are built on an underlying ethical foundation. Yet businesses can't survive without having a strong profit-making focus either.

Here I come back to Elinor Ostrom and her findings. Ms Ostrom discovered that people who join together for a long-term goal where their livelihood is at stake, say for example preserving a forest in a developing country, create more efficient social control mechanisms than when individual property owners are asked to do the same. She showed the power of the collective to make choices that are good for everyone, including the planet, which was why she was awarded the Nobel Prize.

What's most important about Ms Ostrom's findings is that she brought a new perspective on decision-making and challenged some of the existing notions on what can bring the most efficient results. And here we have the answer to my question above:

Yes, there is a feminine way of doing business. We have a different rationale for starting a business. And because we are different, we also bring in new perspectives. More often than not these perspectives are more long-term, more inclusive and more responsive to all stakeholders, not only catering to the shareholders. Research also shows that women adapt better to new situations, make better decisions, make better leaders and invest their money more wisely. And this is the reason why we need women to become entrepreneurs — to create a better world. Women bring new perspectives and new solutions to the table. Since money equals power and businesses wield a lot of that power, more women need to start and build successful businesses!

*The prize was shared with a man, Oliver E Williamson.
** See research from SBA, Kaufman Foundation and Catalyst.

Lotta Alsén teaches women entrepreneurs how to make more money, awaken their inner powers and change their world. She has a MSc in International Economics, is
a social entrepreneur, business & success coach and author. Read more at http://www.quickenings.com or follow her blog at http://quickenings.typepad.com

Making money on-line is not easy. It takes hours and hours of time cultivation to build up enough creditability. It take years to build up enough connection through blogging, pay per views, surveys and other sites. If you hold steady, it can bear fruit but it ain't easy.

There is no easy and safe way to earn alot of money on the Internet. The best thing is to build a combination of blogging, surveys and paid to read sites and try to get enough referrals to be meaningful. I am on Associated content, MyLot and I use Inbox dollars and other sites. I use Facebook and Twitter and Black Planet chat rooms to try to drive more traffic.
But really you must get to selling a product, Tshirts or jewelry might work. Many people say they make money through Google adsense and Adwords. I have not seen them bear fruit yet.

I like MyLot. MyLot is a Free speech Community where a Internet surfer can express themselves totally about any subject they wish. There are rules against rudeness, trying to start problems and trying to exploit the system but thats understandable. For me, MyLot is not about the money. Its a place to find the pulse of whats going on with people and get honest feedback. I started out trying to make money but I found I like the banter of discussions back and forth and appreciate it. You can make as much as two cents per discussion you start that gets a response or also by commenting on discussions others have started. Mostly you can find people to share opinions and share part of life with. For instance, a person I thought was a blind, dogmatic fool, I have found through us posting back and forth, is a thoughtful and concerned person who has his point of view.
MyLot has an open vessel of communication that allows views to be expressed and developed to become respected. It allows you to get feedback on personal issues that maybe helpful to get another persons opinion. You can debate the right or the left in politics, you can debate gay rights or civil unions and you can scream that Michael Vick is an @#$hole.

But there is a difference between what I felt was my best discussion topic and what earned the most comments. The most comments were earned for discussions of “Why do beautiful women become lesbians”, “Leave Chris Brown alone”, and Four things Obama must do, He has not done enough”. Each of these discussion earned over 7 comments. Thats the best I've gotten so far. Some of the ones I thought would earn alot more, earned 0 comments. I believe that mylot is one of the freest forms of direct expression on the Internet. It is great to see what the pulse of people are thinking about a particular issue or situation.

Everyone sees the success stories of the young programmers of Facebook and MySpace seemingly getting rich overnight. They are truly the exception and not the rule. For most people, Making money online is a steady and painstaking process, but if you stick with it, it can bear fruit.

online stock trading online stock trading

I was listening to Slate's Money Talks podcast when I first visited the online exhibition Economica, and it struck me that I was listening to four male commentators share their opinions on economic recovery. No women economists or policymakers were mentioned in the nearly hour-long recording, and the observations shared were essentially void of the effects that the crash has had on individual people worldwide. While I'm glad that NPR's Planet Money regularly presents a comprehensive set of viewpoints, I still find myself wanting for more in-depth and personal synopses from demographically and politically diverse sources.

Timing aside, my introduction to the International Museum of Women interactive exhibit was fortunate. Economica includes opinion essays by development and policy leaders alongside slideshows and podcasts, and the result is a thorough multimedia presentation on the state of the global economy through a feminized lens. (For the less financially inclined among us, a refresher on economics terms meanings is included.)

The thing that sets the exhibit apart from many displays of public works — beyond the fact that it's available online only in keeping with the San Francisco-based IMOW's virtual offerings — is a call for viewer stories and artwork. User submissions are being solicited and will live alongside curated work, including photo essays by photographers around the world on subjects such as the education of illiterate women in Morocco and China's “floating population” of female migrant workers.

One particularly striking piece is Viviane Dalles' Growing Debt about the effects that the introduction of genetically modified cotton to India has had on indebting farmers and the responsibilities that their widows must take on after their fairly common suicides. But not all of the work presented is dire: a podcast with curator Dr. Masum Momaya and social economist Naila Kabeer describes ways that political organizing has improved women's money-earning potential in both the formal economy.

Clare Winterton, executive director of the social change-oriented IMOW, said the topic of women's money-earning capacity worldwide had been planned as the exhibit to follow last year's “Women, Power and Politics”, which generated participation across 200 countries. The economics project was underway when global markets collapsed, which made looking at the global economy from women's perspectives more timely than the organization could have realized.

Winterton acknowledged that bringing attention to women's contributions and voices hasn't been easy, even as the credit crunch has drawn attention to the personal economic situations of the middle class. (A slideshow on families affected by home foreclosures is forthcoming.) “There were several recommendations to tie in purse-related themes and soften the economic focus, but we think it's important that women can claim having a voice in the economy,” Winterton said.

Momaya, who curated both the economics and politics exhibits, noted that few people have talked about what the economic collapse has meant for women. “Women have been long in crisis, between managing scarcity in their homes and now as more of them become national finance ministers,” she said. “In most of the world, their social role as caretakers has forced them to know how to make a lot out of a little, especially as their countries cut back on education and healthcare in the name of military spending. They've had to be the ones to deal with those cutbacks while ensuring that goods and food are produced, even when they don't see the funds that result.”

In the women's studies field, there is plenty of academic literature about female roles in the political economy. Momaya said that one of the goals in opening the exhibit was making women's perspectives on economic development more accessible. Visibility for these discussions is important, she said, because they are not frequently discussed among non-expert audiences. It's easy to see why: the topic of economic woes and successes can be dry and difficult to visualize for even the most disciplined news follower.

The IMOW team members say that the Web allows their work to be presented in a more didactic format and increases engagement more than a physical exhibit could. In laying out a few main themes (property and wealth, family and fertility, and business leadership among them), they say they've tried to combine both personal and systemic observations of women's work and financial experiences in the online educational content.

If an economics student study guide were to be created and cover the key ideas represented by the participating writers and photographers, Momaya's takeaways would be a good place to start. Because while hearing that only 25 percent of women in the Arab world are part of the paid work force compared with more than 65 percent in the rest of world is striking, understanding the impact such a statistic could have on our economic future is far more pressing. Her observations include:

• Globalization and the economic crisis have different impacts on men and women;

• Even though women don't have an equal share of resources, they “historically have and are creating innovative solutions for scarcity and have always contributed to growth;”
• While investing in women is important, we should recognize the importance of improving traditional economic systems and challenging discriminatory cultural practices if we expect returns on those investments;
• And, most importantly: “The current crisis provides an opportunity to ask what kind of economy we really want — and create it.”

Economica manages to humanize the impact of policymakers' and institutional decisions in graphic and intriguing ways. It uses the most sensible technique to do so: inviting women to tell their stories themselves.

A few weeks ago, the first women ever was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics*, Elinor Ostrom. Usually I don't bother reading about the rationale behind the Prize, but in this case I was curious. Would her work be different than what we've seen before in economics? Would she bring something new to the very testosterone-filled Nobel Laureates table?
Before I break the nerve-wracking tension on that one, let's just go back to the question: Is there a feminine way of doing business?

When I began putting the material together for my coaching & business program “The Heroine's Journey,” I had already coached entrepreneurs in general, and women entrepreneurs in particular for many years. I thought I had most of it nailed down. What I realized through my research is that the business fundamentals are the same for women and men. Accounting is still accounting. Landing a new account or closing a sale is still the same. Numbers don't cater to gender. BUT, what I came to understand is that while the WHAT is not different, the HOW, and the WHY are. Let's start with the WHY.

Women don't start companies for the same reason men do. Women start businesses as an expression of themselves, as a way to balance family and work, and to be able to be their own bosses. Men start businesses to make money, or because they have an idea (that they believe they can make money on).**

The WHY is worthy of its own article, which I will post in a few weeks. Today I want to focus on the HOW. Do women run businesses differently than men?

If I start a business to make money, my primary goal will be to make as much money as possible. Hence, anything that detracts me from my primary goal will be a problem. Such as for example, creating a business that also is sustainable from a planetary perspective, since I will have to sacrifice some of the potential profits. But if I start a business to create an expression of myself, or find a way to balance work and family, my primary goal will be self-expression, or life-work balance. And if I start a business to make positive change, it's the change that is my primary objective, not making money. This would explain why women traditionally have made less money through their businesses. Their primary objectives are different.

It's obvious that we need both. We won't survive long-term without creating more sustainable business practices that also are built on an underlying ethical foundation. Yet businesses can't survive without having a strong profit-making focus either.

Here I come back to Elinor Ostrom and her findings. Ms Ostrom discovered that people who join together for a long-term goal where their livelihood is at stake, say for example preserving a forest in a developing country, create more efficient social control mechanisms than when individual property owners are asked to do the same. She showed the power of the collective to make choices that are good for everyone, including the planet, which was why she was awarded the Nobel Prize.

What's most important about Ms Ostrom's findings is that she brought a new perspective on decision-making and challenged some of the existing notions on what can bring the most efficient results. And here we have the answer to my question above:

Yes, there is a feminine way of doing business. We have a different rationale for starting a business. And because we are different, we also bring in new perspectives. More often than not these perspectives are more long-term, more inclusive and more responsive to all stakeholders, not only catering to the shareholders. Research also shows that women adapt better to new situations, make better decisions, make better leaders and invest their money more wisely. And this is the reason why we need women to become entrepreneurs — to create a better world. Women bring new perspectives and new solutions to the table. Since money equals power and businesses wield a lot of that power, more women need to start and build successful businesses!

*The prize was shared with a man, Oliver E Williamson.
** See research from SBA, Kaufman Foundation and Catalyst.

Lotta Alsén teaches women entrepreneurs how to make more money, awaken their inner powers and change their world. She has a MSc in International Economics, is
a social entrepreneur, business & success coach and author. Read more at http://www.quickenings.com or follow her blog at http://quickenings.typepad.com