Wonder Woman and Hillel - the super hero we need now.

As a young girl I loved the Lynda Carter series Wonder Woman. Not only was she badass, she had brown hair and wore glasses in her Diana Prince alter ego just like me, instead of being blonde like most other female leads. And she was smart!

When Michael Garofalo from StoryCorps called to ask if they could make the interview between my son Josh and me into an animation, I asked if they could make me look like Wonder Woman. He laughed and didn't make any promises. As you can see, I ended up looking more like Marge Simpson, than Lynda Carter, but it's probably closer my reality as a suburban mom :)



Well, the now 24 year-old Josh and I went to see the Wonder Woman movie on Sunday, and I've been thinking about it ever since. I've been happy to watch sexist headlines about director Patty Jenkins called out, and the brilliant Ms. Jenkins taking on tired old sexist tropes:

For example:

Only men love action movies. I spent the weekend watching war movies and political documentaries. When I wasn't watching, I was reading Michael Hasting's book THE OPERATORS, which is, funnily enough, about the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. Michael Flynn figures prominently, which makes it particularly interesting reading at this juncture.

Or only men pay for their girlfriends/wives to go to comic book cons/superhero movies:

Or the "white male director is a discovery, woman/person of color director is a 'gamble' trope, as exemplified by The Hollywood Reporter headline:

Think this stereotyping and framing doesn't matter in terms of business and funding in EVERY SINGLE FIELD? It does, folks. It does.
Here's a little bit of research for you from Sweden that was recently published in the Harvard Business Review.

The TL:DR: This chart:

Now pretty much every woman I've talked to who saw the Wonder Woman movie mentions the No Man's Land scene. And pretty much every woman I've talked to cried during that scene. *raises hand* In an interview with Fandango, director Patty Jenkins spoke about how the best scene in the movie almost didn't happen:

The sequence features Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman bravely marching across a stretch of unoccupied land in order to reach a village on the other side and rescue its people from German forces. It’s an incredible scene and perhaps the highlight of the movie, but Jenkins admits it was kind of a hard sell because Wonder Woman wasn’t fighting anyone or anything.

“I think that in superhero movies, they fight other people, they fight villains,” she said. “So when I started to really hunker in on the significance of No Man's Land, there were a couple people who were deeply confused, wondering, like, ‘Well, what is she going to do? How many bullets can she fight?’ And I kept saying, ‘It's not about that. This is a different scene than that. This is a scene about her becoming Wonder Woman.’”

I was thinking about why that scene affected me so much, and the reasons are complex. For one, there's this, which I just read this morning in Adam Grant's book ORIGINALS: How Non-Conformists Move the World

As a woman who has been writing political opinion (often unpopular political opinion) for the last 14 years, I know how it feels to be in that wilderness. Instead of bullets, you get rape threats or hate mail telling you you're unAmerican or unpatriotic or a terrorist lover or you should die, or you need to get laid, or a blatantly misogynist male Greenwich real estate broker writing several pieces calling you mentally unstable, despite his own issues. But you are still there, often feeling totally alone, but knowing you have to be brave enough to take that step despite the intense flak you know you'll face because as Diana says, "Who will I be if I stay?"

Earlier this week, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote about Trump's "Diplomacy of Narcissism" and how it made him look weak, rather than strong. Since the 80's, the U.S.A has been dominated by Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good, greed is pure" propaganda. Anything that smacks of caring about community and other is labeled "socialism." But Dionne reminds us of Rabbi Hillel's questions:

No Man's Land made me cry from the depths of my neshama (soul) because it was the confirmation of what I've always felt - that we cannot keep walking on by when we see injustice. We cannot keep turning a blind eye. I've spent my entire life wondering how the Holocaust could happen, and the last two years have made me realize exactly how. I've seen people I considered friends turn a blind eye to racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, possible treason and any number of egregious things because they want a tax cut, or they are putting party over country, or they want to be able to keep taking their golf vacations four or five times a year while still paying for their employees health insurance, even though it means that 24 million of us will lose health insurance entirely so they can afford to do so. Or, working class friends who for some reason have bought into the narrative that a serial liar who inherited his wealth, has been notoriously corrupt and who has stiffed working class people over and over and over again has miraculously changed and is now their champion in anything other than empty promises.

This is a time when we all have to ask ourselves: "If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?" And have the courage to take that first step into the breach of No Man's Land.

Eric Trump, Sexism and Misogyny - An Action Call to Men to ASK QUESTIONS instead of TALKING.

With the first woman being confirmed as a candidate for the office of President of the United States, the very same week that the serial sexual predator Roger Ailes was forced to resign from Fox News for allegedly harassing women for decades - enabled by his top staff, it appears, which makes it all the more sinister and revolting, this election is becoming a perfect storm for confronting the sexism and misogyny that most of us women have been facing for our entire lives - in school, in the workplace, in the legal system, in government, on the Internet, in dealing with companies, in advertising, in pretty much every facet of our lives.

Last week, I wrote a piece for CTNewsJunkie after Trump's unsavory campaign manager, Paul Manafort, said that women would vote for his candidate because “They can’t afford their lives. Their husbands can’t afford paying the family bills.”
As a woman who is self-employed, owns my own home, pays my own mortgage and makes my own investment decisions you can imagine I didn't take that very well. I am not alone. But this is the "America" this cave man and his cave man candidate apparently want to "bring back."
This is the "great" America they remember.

Let me tell you, it wasn't so great for women - and what makes me so furious is that I never imagined that the kind of sexism and misogyny that I put up with 30 years ago when I entered the workforce would still be in play - in fact even worse in some cases - when my DAUGHTER would be two years away from graduating college. Thanks to the religious extremists in this country (who ironically, are quick to blame OTHER RELIGIONS for being extremists) women - especially lower income women - in many parts of the country are struggling to find healthcare.

Yesterday, women were "treated" to Eric Trump the young, privileged white son of an older, privileged son, (both men who have got to where they were because they were born into wealth) - say this "Ivanka is a strong, powerful woman. She wouldn’t allow herself to be subjected to it".

Well, she was the boss's daughter and she was subjected to it. Of course, when they found out she was the boss's daughter they apologized. But what about all the women in the world who AREN'T the boss's daughter. What about them, Eric? If your sister, who IS the boss's daughter gets harassed EVEN THOUGH SHE IS THE BOSS's DAUGHTER and she IS a strong woman, how the heck you make such a moronic argument?

VICTIM BLAMING 101.

I'm issuing a challenge to all the men I know - and even those I don't who might be reading this.

I'd like you to go and ask questions of all the women you know. LISTEN.

Don't talk. ASK them about their experiences. Talk to your mom. Talk to your grandmother. Talk to your peers.

Ask them if they've been harassed. Ask them if they've been abused. Ask them if they've been roofied.

Ask them if they were ever put in a situation that made them deeply uncomfortable.

Ask them if random guys tell them to smile on the street, like it's their obligation to smile just to make a random guy on the street happy even if THEIR MOTHER MIGHT HAVE JUST DIED.


LEARN. I would love to hear back what you find out.

An open letter to FAIRWAY management regarding your tasteless, puerile, "Juicy Melons" advert

Dear Fairway Management,

Clearly you have issues with managing your company. After all, you recently had to go through Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, which signals to me that you don't always make the smartest choices.

But for a company trying to emerge from Chapter 11 to send out a sexist advertisement to WOMEN? What the heck are you thinking? I'm not going to post the advert here, because I don't want to give you the viral publicity you were apparently craving. Instead, I'm going to tell you this:

1) I unsubscribed from your email list.
2) I'm informing you that I'm not shopping at any of your stores until you issue an apology to me, my daughter, and to every woman who had to be subjected to that ridiculousness in the year 2016.

But here's the most important part. I'm letting you know just how much money I've spent with your company since you opened in Stamford in October 2010, so you know how much this ridiculous mishegas is costing you:

2010 $1474.44 Store opened in October
2011 $3495.41
2012 $4890.49
2013 $4849.39 includes $559.61 from Fairway Catering for Dad’s shiva
2014 $3965.85
2015 $3799.12 includes $287.15 from Fairway Catering for Mom's shiva
2016 $2088.93

Total $24,563.61


You see, Senior Fairway Management, I know all this because despite having a pair of "juicy melons" attached to my body, I have an MBA in Finance, I own my own house, invest in a financial portfolio, decide what car I'm going to buy, and make many other decisions about my life. I've achieved the success I have in my life while fighting exactly the kind of stupidity, sexism, and discrimination that ridiculous, puerile ad represents on Wall St, in publishing, in agriculture, in journalism, dealing with auto mechanics, dealing with plumbers, dealing with banks, and I never in a million years thought that by the time my daughter would be a few years from entering the workforce, she would STILL being facing this kind of crap.

So I've learned to put my money where my mouth is. When my investment broker disagreed with an instruction I gave him and told me "Ask your father" (even though my father had Alzheimer's at the time and, let me reiterate, I have an MBA in Finance and had worked as a financial analyst) I moved my investments to another firm. And that is what I am doing now.

Firms like yours need to learn that SEXISM DOESN'T PAY. It costs you money.

I hope for your sake all the bros and sexist idiots that liked that ad make up for the dollars you will lose from pissed-off intelligent, fed-up women like myself.

UPDATE: I decided to update with an image of the ad that was retweeted by Fairway Corporate Twitter referencing that women were upset with this ad and making light of it, with a totally disgusting hashtag:



For all of you at home who might not be aware of the more sordid meaning of the reference, allow me to make your stomach turn:



Again I ask: What sentient being in 2016 would think this is a good marketing strategy - particularly for a SUPERMARKET?

Corporate sexism rant - Part Deux

I had a rant a week or so ago because not long after I signed up for private banking, Chase sent mail to my house (the one upon which I hold the title and the mortgage solely in my name, not to mention the investment account solely in my name, the fact that I WAS THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE PRIVATE BANKING AGREEMENT SOLELY IN MY NAME etc) addressed thusly:

Josh, you might remember, is my son. Not my husband. My college aged son. He is, however, the only person with the name Littman in this household who happens to have the XY chromosome. You will note that this letter wasn't addressed to my daughter (who also has an account at the same bank linked to mine over which I have co-signing authority) and myself. It was addressed to my SON and myself.  Remember this fact for later. It is important and relevant.

After I ranted about this on Twitter, Chase's customer service department asked that I follow them so I could DM them some info. They said they would bump this up to their Executive Office and they were taking it very seriously. 

"Good!" I thought. "So they bloody well should!"  

If you read my previous post, you'll see that this kind of thing is an all too common occurrence for women, and it PISSES US THE FRICK OFF. 

Well, this morning I opened the letter from Chase's Executive Office that was supposed to put this situation to rights and well...to say it didn't is an Understatement of Epic Proportions. 

To say that Ms. DeLeon has missed the point is being kind to missing the point. Technically she is correct. Yes, I am the secondary signer on my son's accounts, because they were set up when he was a minor, so yes, hello, DUH! 

But this is completely missing the MAJOR POINT of my complaint, which is this was a mailing from CHASE PRIVATE BANKING and *I* am the Private Banking Client, NOT my son! He is the secondary client at Chase Private Banking. I am the primary client. He is just along for the ride because HIS ACCOUNTS ARE LINKED TO MINE. I made this very clear in my DM's to Customer Service on Twitter. But somehow that doesn't seem to matter. And it's curious that they sent it addressed to my son and not to my daughter. After all, she has accounts linked to mine, and I'm the secondary signer on her accounts, too? So out of three Littmans living at this address, Chase chose to send this letter addressed not to me, the Private Banking Client, the mortgage holder, the investment account holder, the savings account holder. Not to my daughter, a checking and savings account holder linked to mine over which I am a secondary signer. No, they chose to send it to my son, the male name over which I have secondary signing authority, but then claim that there is no sexism involved at all. 

If this is really Chase's response to an accusation of sexism ie/ we can send letters to your son who isn't the primary client as if he is the primary client, instead of you, the woman, who IS-  and not only that we can tell you you're wrong because when he was of the age to be allowed to set up a checking account, you did so in order to teach him financial responsibility with you as secondary signer, I'm going to start thinking about moving banks. And that investment account I just set up with you guys?  I already have a broker elsewhere who knows better than to be sexist with me. I'm sure he'll appreciate having some extra capital to invest for me, along with the commissions and fees. The ones that you will lose. 

Dear Corporations: It's a new millennium - women aren't goods and chattel

I separated from my now ex-husband in November 2003, and our divorce was finalized in December 2006. When the marital home sold, I bought the current house in which the kids and I reside. I hold the title to this house in my own name, the mortgage is held by me alone, and I have made all the decisions about financing and re-financing this house myself. My ex-husband never lived at this address, was never on any of the mortgages at this address, has had nada to do with this house. 

Yet I still get mail addressed to him here, even ten years after we separated, and eight years after our divorce was finalized. I even get mail addressed Mr and Mrs HIS NAME Littman at this address. 

About two years after the kids and I moved into the house, my son got an invitation to join the AARP. He was 15 at the time, and it was a source of much amusement to me, because I hadn't received my first AARP mailing yet (now I am deluged by them on practically a daily basis). Neither of us could understand why he would be on the AARP mailing list. 

"Maybe they figured that because you're the only male at this address, you're my husband," I joked. 

He looked at me with all the appropriate horror that comment would engender in a 15 year old boy. 

Well, recently my bank suggested I move to their private banking program. I met with a very nice chap, and before I signed on, I told him a very important story about how I feel about men giving me investment advice. 

A few years ago, I had my portfolio with an investment advisor. I wanted him to move my holdings in a certain direction, because as a political columnist I watch what is going on in DC very carefully, and I didn't like what I was seeing. He didn't agree with my assessment, and told me to "ask my father," before acting.

Now there are a few things about this that pissed me off. 

1. I have an MBA in Finance

2. I was, at the time, a woman in my late 40's, with children of my own. 

3. My father was in a nursing home with Alzheimer's, something that this person knew, because I'd bought a long term care policy from him, because of my concerns about developing Alzheimer's myself. 

4. Did this guy realize he was living in the 21st freaking Century?!! OMFG!!!!

As a result of that blatantly patronizing and sexist advice, I moved my entire portfolio away from that establishment, which lost them fees and commissions. 

MORAL OF THE STORY: BEING SEXIST COSTS YOU, CORPORATIONS. LIVE AND FREAKING LEARN. 

Well, yesterday I got some mail from my bank as a result of become a private banking client. Here is how the envelope was addressed. 

Joshua happens to be my son. He isn't the main account holder. I am. In fact, if the bank cared to LOOK AT ITS OWN RECORDS, it would notice that his account is a COLLEGE ACCOUNT. 

But no. Because his is a male name, it takes priority over the actual private banking client, ie/ ME. 

Now my boyfriend, who is a database guy, told me I was overreacting, because "it's just an algorithm." 

But when I posted this on Facebook, the number of FEMALE friends who have been similarly enraged by this was long and equally furious. 

 "(Husband) and I are joint owners of our home and have a joint mortgage, but everything comes to him. With Allstate, we both have homeowner's insurance together, and then I have a policy on my car and my condo. But EVERYTHING comes addressed to him, even for my policies! I've had numerous convos with our agent and he is clearly puzzled as to why it infuriates me."

"Do I know what that feels like! I think most women do."

"My sister-in-law kept her own last name but gets mail to Mr & Ms my-brother's-name all the time. ALL the time. Grrrrr."

Now my boyfriend may be right. It might be "just an algorithm." As one friend commented, "We can't control what the computer does" is what Allstate tells me when they send me emails about my policy that start with, "Dear Hubby's Name...". It's insta-rage for me when I read it."

But here's the thing: WHO CREATES THE ALGORITHMS?* Computers don't program themselves, as any database guy should know. And whoever created the algorithm that takes any male name in a house and puts it FIRST, even though the policyholder, or the main account holder is a woman, even though that name might belong to a child, is not making a wise business decision. 

Here's a case where the marketing people need to go to their programmers and say FIX THIS. 

Because it's long past for "Big Data" to stop considering women as goods and chattel of the male of the species. 

*let's guess: Do we think this one was created by a man or a woman?

Why Google's algorithms are sexist and FAIL

I was sick and tired of getting the same ad from the same wealthy "I'm going to try to buy the CT SEN election again" politician on EVERY. SINGLE. WEBSITE I visit, so I clicked on the Google Adsense button to see if there was some way I could opt out of receiving it. And boy, did I learn some interesting things about myself and Google's algorithm from that experience.

Here's what Google thinks about me:

Yep - apparently, based on my searches, I am a male between the ages of 55-64. On what would Google possibly be making that assumption, I wonder? Because I'm searching Finance? News and Politics? Science?  C'mon Google... I've got some "womanly things" like "Books and Literature" and "Arts and Entertainment". What would it take for me to convince you that I'm a female, Google Geeks? Searching for the Kardashians? Justin Bieber? Breast implants? Shoes? 

This makes me furious - because it's so inherently sexist. Why does a keen interest in politics automatically make me male? Women often bear the brunt of the political policies wrought by men for ideological reasons - be it cutting social services, defunding Planned Parenthood, or...well, I could go on. We need to be politically aware and active to protect ourselves and our children's futures. 

As for finance - well, look what a smashing job the Old Boys Network has done with our financial infrastructure. Is it any wonder that I take an interest in what's going on when the future financial stability of the country has been in the hands of people who are so grossly dishonest, greedy and incompetent, presided over by an enabling Congress? 

If that makes me a man, well, send me my Man Card. And while you're at it Google Geeks, how about you guys do the dishes and cook and do the grocery shopping and laundry and all many things I do as well as my "manly" interests, while working my freelance jobs and raising two children with better values than any of these so called "men" appear to have. 

And PS Google Ad Geeks:  - I'd really like to not see that ad again.  Even if it is from a woman.