10 ms·

I'm a woman CEO and it doesn't change anything

157 points by mathouc 12y ago

jawns 12y ago
I know this doesn't really touch on the meat of her column, but I was kind of surprised that Mathilde uses "woman CEO" and "female CEO" interchangeably. Usually people have a strong preference for one or the other. (Personally, I prefer using adjectives as adjectives and nouns as nouns, and don't think there's much of a need to turn "woman" into an adjective.)
- jimmaswell 12y ago
  Eh, adjectives can function as nouns sometimes (females, whites, although doing this sometimes creates an issue such as where it's preferred to say 'x people' instead of 'xes') and nouns tend to easily function as adjectives (laptop mouse, house key). Very malleable language. In French you'd have to say "mouse of the laptop" for example.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Technically and linguistically speaking, "female" is an adjective, and "woman" is a noun. You'd talk about a woman who is a CEO, or a female CEO. Some professions and niches, often in the sciences, use female and male as nouns: i.e., "the female of the species," or "the subject is a Caucasian male, 47." This latter usage is becoming increasingly common, to the point where the exclusively adjectival nature of "male" and "female" is being erased. Meanings and usage are pretty fluid over time. Of course, words like woman, man, female, and male also have connotations above and beyond their technical parts of speech, such as the connotations Mathilde talks about.
  - umanwizard 12y ago
    "linguistically speaking" words mean whatever native speakers use them to mean... the field of linguistics would be pretty boring if it were about writing down mostly-arbitrary rules for people to follow.
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      ""linguistically speaking" words mean whatever native speakers use them to mean... the field of linguistics would be pretty boring if it were about writing down mostly-arbitrary rules for people to follow." I'm not advocating "mostly-arbitrary rules for people to follow." Just pointing out the technical meanings of both terms. I also pointed out that these meanings are fluid and are changing. Obviously usage is subject to change, and if I came across as opposing that, I didn't mean to. I was just addressing the question implied in the parent comment. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        You didn't. Pointing out common usage isn't dictating a Platonic language ideal.
  - WaxProlix 12y ago
    Even if there weren't fluidity, we can still compound nouns all we want in English: `tax`, `income tax`, `income tax return`, `income tax return form`, `income tax return form processor`, `income tax return form processor office`, etc. Not that I think that's what's going on in the article's `woman CEO` examples.
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      In a weird way, I've always admired the German method of just smashing words together when they become commonly associated in compound phrases. It creates some long, ungainly mouthfuls. But at least you never have trouble parsing them in a sentence. :)
  - philwelch 12y ago
    Traditionally, as in decades ago, it was actually considered somewhat vulgar to use terms like "male" and "female" to refer to human beings. The term "woman CEO" would have been preferred for that reason. Somehow I like the aesthetic of "woman CEO" over "female CEO" for the same reason. It seems more dignified and humanistic.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Right; "female" and "male" bring to mind animals and base biology. "Woman" and "Man" distinctly separate us from the animal kingdom.
      - cyorir 12y ago
        Hence why I tend to use "female" and "male." Mankind is not separate from the animal kingdom. Although I suppose male human and female human are the least ambiguous.
        Thrymr 12y ago
        > I suppose male human and female human are the least ambiguous. And make you sound like an alien anthropologist, rather than, well, a human.
        philwelch 12y ago
        "A human"? "Human" is an adjective. The term is "human being".
    - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
      Even these days, many people have a problem with "female". Some people with particularly unsavoury views of women have a particular tendency to use it.
- nazgul 12y ago
  I'm a female executive and I've never, ever heard of that. Seems very strange.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>>Of course there are some drawbacks of being a female CEO. When you’re a woman in charge, you do have to work a bit more to get credibility and have people listen to you... The way my company's CEO, who is also female, put it: "when you're a woman, people in business don't take you seriously until you are successful." I'm a guy, but I see this phenomenon everyday when observing the way my female coworkers are treated by (male) managers. The good-looking ones have it worst, in my opinion: while their looks may give them an advantage in certain situations, they often have to work extra hard to get noticed, and when they do become successful, their success is attributed to their looks instead of their intelligence and hard work.
- facepalm 12y ago
  And we all know male founders are always taken serious from the start. No male founder ever had problems convincing their parents that they are on the right track. People the male founder meets are always convinced his startup is the next Google. Sorry, but I think your observations are just confirmation bias.
  - glibgil 12y ago
    I don't think they mean parents. I think they mean peers, investors and media.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      Parents were just an example. HN is full of stories of founders having such issues.
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    Male founders are never not taken seriously because they are male. That's the difference.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      How do you determine that being a woman is the reason for somebody not being taken seriously?
microcolonel 12y ago
“We need to start emphasizing the success of women CEOs instead of the womanliness of successful CEOs.” I cried male tears of joy, and when I showed this to my friend, she smiled as well. I'd upvote more than once if I could.
- dominotw 12y ago
  >We need to start emphasizing the success of women CEOs Why? I don't want to emphasize anything. Can these people leave us alone and stop telling everyone what they should be doing. Who do they think they are, I am so sick of this.
  - microcolonel 12y ago
    If you crop the quote like that, you miss the point, which is that if you're going to have a female-positive stance rather than an egalitarian one(I have the latter), you should at least emphasize the success rather than the womanliness. This is so that you are talking about the potential for success regardless of being a woman, rather than the womanliness despite being successful, the latter construing it as though being a woman is incompatible with success.
- vongesell 12y ago
  bullshit. we need to emphasise the maleness of CEO's in power structures as a whole and the homogenic group think this creates.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
leeoniya 12y ago
IMO, to be a successful CEO, women have to give up as much personal life as men do. if raising children is part of the equation, it just depends on how much either sex is willing to give that up for a career. i believe i've read that Elon's family is pretty hard-hit on the available-father standpoint stemming from his ambitions. also, depending on the size of the company, i think women CEOs need to take on some atypically aggressive and assertive business characteristics that are unbecoming of either sex but are typically more acceptable in society for men to step into. could a woman be the next Larry Ellison? certainly yes, but not without first taking on his asshole qualities. the aggressive characteristics that make him a great multi-$bn CEO also make him a pretty hated guy in many circles. there's a difference between business-respect and personal-respect, some people don't give a shit about the latter and will step on their partners' throats to get ahead.
- bane 12y ago
  > i think women CEOs need to take on some atypically aggressive and assertive business characteristics that are unbecoming of either sex but are typically more acceptable in society for men to step into. I agree. I'm going to come out and say it, it's difficult for a woman to step into any kind of leadership position and do the tough things without being perceived as a "bitch". One thing I've observed in women who might be perceived as successful in those roles is that they're able to find the right way of being in charge and overcoming those perceptions. I think it's a subtle attitude or behavior change, and it seems to be a fine line. But I'll also say that for men, they risk being perceived as "an asshole" in much the same way. And demonstrating assertiveness and leadership, being tough when it's needed it also a similar skill. I just think that men have more societal support and a few thousand years more practice and training to figure it out. Women have far fewer role models to pattern after.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    In many circles being an "asshole CEO" is seen as a good thing. c.f. Steve Jobs.
    - 12y ago
Mz 12y ago
So her title says "it doesn't change a thing" and then in the body she admits that there are some differences: Of course there are some drawbacks of being a female CEO. When you’re a woman in charge, you do have to work a bit more to get credibility and have people listen to you; it might be harder to recruit developers and make them trust you; and you will end up going to a few sales meetings where the other person is more interested in you than in your product. There are also some pretty good advantages. It’s sometimes easier to get press coverage, and sales can happen faster. People will usually be keener on lending a hand. And I’m not even talking about all the help I got from fellow female entrepreneurs, especially when I was trying to get things off the ground. I agree with her general sentiment that being a CEO is hard, regardless of gender. I also agree with her agenda that women need more role models of what it looks like to be a successful woman. But I don't think this kind of dismissal of the issues women have is very helpful. Being a woman does change some things. Understanding that "it has its good points and bad points" is a much, much better message than saying "it isn't any different at all" which is what the title says.
- asperous 12y ago
  (imo) Her point here was that its not necessarily harder being a girl ceo/ some things are different but it's a draw. Her point was that these are minor details and that it doesn't change what makes being a ceo so difficult. She wants to make it clear that being a woman ceo isn't some kind of amazing feat (though being a ceo in general is) and that she wants more woman to try it.
- cissou 12y ago
  I think her point is that the differences are irrelevant in comparison of the (common) challenges leadership positions generate, so it's not helpful to overemphasize them.
- lyndonh 12y ago
  She didn't emphasise it very strongly, in fact it was a very weak emphasis but she was saying that everyone has a different set of strengths and weaknesses. She might find it easier to get press attention as a woman but a guy could easily have a strength that makes up for this. > But I don't think this kind of dismissal of the issues women have is very helpful I think she knows better than you, unless you are a female CEO. She made the point that sometimes when a woman is doing sales the customer can be more interested in her than the product. But historically, a lot of women in sales have tried to use sexuality to get the sale.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
muglug 12y ago
Sort of cleverly, she just used her gender as a means to tout her app in a national newspaper, while mentioning that being female makes it easier to get press.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- danieltillett 12y ago
  Yes like any smart person she will use all the tools at her command. I wish we would speak more about the role of chance in success rather than how many X chromosomes a person has.
  - Mz 12y ago
    Chance is far more interesting when the discussion is about things like "how to increase your luck surface area." Otherwise, it is kind of hand-wavy dismissal of success as "welp, they got lucky."
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      Yes I agree - we need to discuss those things that allow you to influence your probability of success. We don’t seem to discuss this as frequently as we discuss gender.
      - Mz 12y ago
        Well, I think for some folks, gender is one of the things influencing probability of success. When I write about it, I try to write about how one might get around the problems it creates. There is a low-ish level of interest in that around here.
pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
then why didn't you just say you're a CEO? you are the problem.
aviswanathan 12y ago
We need more female entrepreneurs with attitudes like this. Although awareness for equality issues is undoubtedly important, Collin hits the nail on the head by re-focusing on the undeniable truth: running a company is just plain hard. Sure, being female, minority, short, nontechnical, etc can all be drawbacks, but I'd argue that they all pale in comparison to the difficulty that is successfully running a sustainable company. Full disclosure: I am relatively young (20) male hacker of minority descent, and I used to use some of these factors as excuses but now I treat them as irrelevant. Those things simply don't matter to me (in context of running a company or building a product) because it's not really in my power (and not really my overarching mission) to change the culture of the valley and the rest of the tech world. Just my $0.02.
jrubinovitz 12y ago
Isn't Front YCS14? I would love the author to revisit this another year into the company.
cyphunk 12y ago
We have the questions in the debate concerning demographic bias in business or power completely wrong. These articles should disturb us because they aren't about examining what demographic bias means but a rather they produce fluff pieces meant to distract from the issue by saying "see look, a woman can run a country/company and it's no different." The debate is framed in the context of the glass ceiling, if it exists and if there are barriers to entry. What the debate should be about is the glass floor and the group think that is the result of in homogenic environments. We have way too many articles by women describe how the ceiling works or is broken and way too few from men that look at the problem of the glass floor along the lines of "i'm a man working in a mostly male power structure and here's how this structure creates adverse results." We are so used to accepting the latter we can hardly imagine its effect. Until the entire power structure of a institution mirrors that of the social demographic makeup there is really no reason to take these articles seriously.
marcamillion 12y ago
Bravo. Love this. This statement may come off polarizing, but the same applies to minorities. As a black man, and a Jamaican, other black people and other Jamaicans don't need "black CEOs" to look up to. They just need other CEOs who happen to be black, and other successful entrepreneurs that also happen to be Jamaican. It is for this reason that I don't support things like quotas. Make sure that X% of your executive ranks are female, or black or asian or any other "under-represented" minority. Quotas are bad policy. The more people of minority origins that become successful is the more they will inspire others to do the same. There is a reason so many young black men want to become basketball stars, and why so many Jamaicans are "running" (no pun intended) into athletics. It is because they have realized that they can excel in those fields because of the examples before them. Not that they are anyhow more advantaged in those fields. It is just that the glass ceiling is no longer there. So Kudos to Ms. Collin for writing this article. Well said!

157 points by mathouc 12y ago

jawns 12y ago

I know this doesn't really touch on the meat of her column, but I was kind of surprised that Mathilde uses "woman CEO" and "female CEO" interchangeably. Usually people have a strong preference for one or the other. (Personally, I prefer using adjectives as adjectives and nouns as nouns, and don't think there's much of a need to turn "woman" into an adjective.)

jimmaswell 12y ago
Eh, adjectives can function as nouns sometimes (females, whites, although doing this sometimes creates an issue such as where it's preferred to say 'x people' instead of 'xes') and nouns tend to easily function as adjectives (laptop mouse, house key). Very malleable language. In French you'd have to say "mouse of the laptop" for example.
jonnathanson 12y ago
Technically and linguistically speaking, "female" is an adjective, and "woman" is a noun. You'd talk about a woman who is a CEO, or a female CEO. Some professions and niches, often in the sciences, use female and male as nouns: i.e., "the female of the species," or "the subject is a Caucasian male, 47." This latter usage is becoming increasingly common, to the point where the exclusively adjectival nature of "male" and "female" is being erased. Meanings and usage are pretty fluid over time. Of course, words like woman, man, female, and male also have connotations above and beyond their technical parts of speech, such as the connotations Mathilde talks about.
- umanwizard 12y ago
  "linguistically speaking" words mean whatever native speakers use them to mean... the field of linguistics would be pretty boring if it were about writing down mostly-arbitrary rules for people to follow.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    ""linguistically speaking" words mean whatever native speakers use them to mean... the field of linguistics would be pretty boring if it were about writing down mostly-arbitrary rules for people to follow." I'm not advocating "mostly-arbitrary rules for people to follow." Just pointing out the technical meanings of both terms. I also pointed out that these meanings are fluid and are changing. Obviously usage is subject to change, and if I came across as opposing that, I didn't mean to. I was just addressing the question implied in the parent comment. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      You didn't. Pointing out common usage isn't dictating a Platonic language ideal.
- WaxProlix 12y ago
  Even if there weren't fluidity, we can still compound nouns all we want in English: `tax`, `income tax`, `income tax return`, `income tax return form`, `income tax return form processor`, `income tax return form processor office`, etc. Not that I think that's what's going on in the article's `woman CEO` examples.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    In a weird way, I've always admired the German method of just smashing words together when they become commonly associated in compound phrases. It creates some long, ungainly mouthfuls. But at least you never have trouble parsing them in a sentence. :)
- philwelch 12y ago
  Traditionally, as in decades ago, it was actually considered somewhat vulgar to use terms like "male" and "female" to refer to human beings. The term "woman CEO" would have been preferred for that reason. Somehow I like the aesthetic of "woman CEO" over "female CEO" for the same reason. It seems more dignified and humanistic.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Right; "female" and "male" bring to mind animals and base biology. "Woman" and "Man" distinctly separate us from the animal kingdom.
    - cyorir 12y ago
      Hence why I tend to use "female" and "male." Mankind is not separate from the animal kingdom. Although I suppose male human and female human are the least ambiguous.
      - Thrymr 12y ago
        > I suppose male human and female human are the least ambiguous. And make you sound like an alien anthropologist, rather than, well, a human.
        philwelch 12y ago
        "A human"? "Human" is an adjective. The term is "human being".
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    Even these days, many people have a problem with "female". Some people with particularly unsavoury views of women have a particular tendency to use it.
nazgul 12y ago
I'm a female executive and I've never, ever heard of that. Seems very strange.

enraged_camel 12y ago

>>Of course there are some drawbacks of being a female CEO. When you’re a woman in charge, you do have to work a bit more to get credibility and have people listen to you... The way my company's CEO, who is also female, put it: "when you're a woman, people in business don't take you seriously until you are successful." I'm a guy, but I see this phenomenon everyday when observing the way my female coworkers are treated by (male) managers. The good-looking ones have it worst, in my opinion: while their looks may give them an advantage in certain situations, they often have to work extra hard to get noticed, and when they do become successful, their success is attributed to their looks instead of their intelligence and hard work.

facepalm 12y ago
And we all know male founders are always taken serious from the start. No male founder ever had problems convincing their parents that they are on the right track. People the male founder meets are always convinced his startup is the next Google. Sorry, but I think your observations are just confirmation bias.
- glibgil 12y ago
  I don't think they mean parents. I think they mean peers, investors and media.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    Parents were just an example. HN is full of stories of founders having such issues.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  Male founders are never not taken seriously because they are male. That's the difference.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    How do you determine that being a woman is the reason for somebody not being taken seriously?

microcolonel 12y ago

“We need to start emphasizing the success of women CEOs instead of the womanliness of successful CEOs.” I cried male tears of joy, and when I showed this to my friend, she smiled as well. I'd upvote more than once if I could.

dominotw 12y ago
>We need to start emphasizing the success of women CEOs Why? I don't want to emphasize anything. Can these people leave us alone and stop telling everyone what they should be doing. Who do they think they are, I am so sick of this.
- microcolonel 12y ago
  If you crop the quote like that, you miss the point, which is that if you're going to have a female-positive stance rather than an egalitarian one(I have the latter), you should at least emphasize the success rather than the womanliness. This is so that you are talking about the potential for success regardless of being a woman, rather than the womanliness despite being successful, the latter construing it as though being a woman is incompatible with success.
vongesell 12y ago
bullshit. we need to emphasise the maleness of CEO's in power structures as a whole and the homogenic group think this creates.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

leeoniya 12y ago

IMO, to be a successful CEO, women have to give up as much personal life as men do. if raising children is part of the equation, it just depends on how much either sex is willing to give that up for a career. i believe i've read that Elon's family is pretty hard-hit on the available-father standpoint stemming from his ambitions. also, depending on the size of the company, i think women CEOs need to take on some atypically aggressive and assertive business characteristics that are unbecoming of either sex but are typically more acceptable in society for men to step into. could a woman be the next Larry Ellison? certainly yes, but not without first taking on his asshole qualities. the aggressive characteristics that make him a great multi-$bn CEO also make him a pretty hated guy in many circles. there's a difference between business-respect and personal-respect, some people don't give a shit about the latter and will step on their partners' throats to get ahead.

bane 12y ago
> i think women CEOs need to take on some atypically aggressive and assertive business characteristics that are unbecoming of either sex but are typically more acceptable in society for men to step into. I agree. I'm going to come out and say it, it's difficult for a woman to step into any kind of leadership position and do the tough things without being perceived as a "bitch". One thing I've observed in women who might be perceived as successful in those roles is that they're able to find the right way of being in charge and overcoming those perceptions. I think it's a subtle attitude or behavior change, and it seems to be a fine line. But I'll also say that for men, they risk being perceived as "an asshole" in much the same way. And demonstrating assertiveness and leadership, being tough when it's needed it also a similar skill. I just think that men have more societal support and a few thousand years more practice and training to figure it out. Women have far fewer role models to pattern after.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  In many circles being an "asshole CEO" is seen as a good thing. c.f. Steve Jobs.
  - 12y ago

Mz 12y ago

So her title says "it doesn't change a thing" and then in the body she admits that there are some differences: Of course there are some drawbacks of being a female CEO. When you’re a woman in charge, you do have to work a bit more to get credibility and have people listen to you; it might be harder to recruit developers and make them trust you; and you will end up going to a few sales meetings where the other person is more interested in you than in your product. There are also some pretty good advantages. It’s sometimes easier to get press coverage, and sales can happen faster. People will usually be keener on lending a hand. And I’m not even talking about all the help I got from fellow female entrepreneurs, especially when I was trying to get things off the ground. I agree with her general sentiment that being a CEO is hard, regardless of gender. I also agree with her agenda that women need more role models of what it looks like to be a successful woman. But I don't think this kind of dismissal of the issues women have is very helpful. Being a woman does change some things. Understanding that "it has its good points and bad points" is a much, much better message than saying "it isn't any different at all" which is what the title says.

asperous 12y ago
(imo) Her point here was that its not necessarily harder being a girl ceo/ some things are different but it's a draw. Her point was that these are minor details and that it doesn't change what makes being a ceo so difficult. She wants to make it clear that being a woman ceo isn't some kind of amazing feat (though being a ceo in general is) and that she wants more woman to try it.
cissou 12y ago
I think her point is that the differences are irrelevant in comparison of the (common) challenges leadership positions generate, so it's not helpful to overemphasize them.
lyndonh 12y ago
She didn't emphasise it very strongly, in fact it was a very weak emphasis but she was saying that everyone has a different set of strengths and weaknesses. She might find it easier to get press attention as a woman but a guy could easily have a strength that makes up for this. > But I don't think this kind of dismissal of the issues women have is very helpful I think she knows better than you, unless you are a female CEO. She made the point that sometimes when a woman is doing sales the customer can be more interested in her than the product. But historically, a lot of women in sales have tried to use sexuality to get the sale.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

muglug 12y ago

Sort of cleverly, she just used her gender as a means to tout her app in a national newspaper, while mentioning that being female makes it easier to get press.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
danieltillett 12y ago
Yes like any smart person she will use all the tools at her command. I wish we would speak more about the role of chance in success rather than how many X chromosomes a person has.
- Mz 12y ago
  Chance is far more interesting when the discussion is about things like "how to increase your luck surface area." Otherwise, it is kind of hand-wavy dismissal of success as "welp, they got lucky."
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    Yes I agree - we need to discuss those things that allow you to influence your probability of success. We don’t seem to discuss this as frequently as we discuss gender.
    - Mz 12y ago
      Well, I think for some folks, gender is one of the things influencing probability of success. When I write about it, I try to write about how one might get around the problems it creates. There is a low-ish level of interest in that around here.

pg_is_a_butt 12y ago

then why didn't you just say you're a CEO? you are the problem.

aviswanathan 12y ago

We need more female entrepreneurs with attitudes like this. Although awareness for equality issues is undoubtedly important, Collin hits the nail on the head by re-focusing on the undeniable truth: running a company is just plain hard. Sure, being female, minority, short, nontechnical, etc can all be drawbacks, but I'd argue that they all pale in comparison to the difficulty that is successfully running a sustainable company. Full disclosure: I am relatively young (20) male hacker of minority descent, and I used to use some of these factors as excuses but now I treat them as irrelevant. Those things simply don't matter to me (in context of running a company or building a product) because it's not really in my power (and not really my overarching mission) to change the culture of the valley and the rest of the tech world. Just my $0.02.

jrubinovitz 12y ago

Isn't Front YCS14? I would love the author to revisit this another year into the company.

cyphunk 12y ago

We have the questions in the debate concerning demographic bias in business or power completely wrong. These articles should disturb us because they aren't about examining what demographic bias means but a rather they produce fluff pieces meant to distract from the issue by saying "see look, a woman can run a country/company and it's no different." The debate is framed in the context of the glass ceiling, if it exists and if there are barriers to entry. What the debate should be about is the glass floor and the group think that is the result of in homogenic environments. We have way too many articles by women describe how the ceiling works or is broken and way too few from men that look at the problem of the glass floor along the lines of "i'm a man working in a mostly male power structure and here's how this structure creates adverse results." We are so used to accepting the latter we can hardly imagine its effect. Until the entire power structure of a institution mirrors that of the social demographic makeup there is really no reason to take these articles seriously.

marcamillion 12y ago

Bravo. Love this. This statement may come off polarizing, but the same applies to minorities. As a black man, and a Jamaican, other black people and other Jamaicans don't need "black CEOs" to look up to. They just need other CEOs who happen to be black, and other successful entrepreneurs that also happen to be Jamaican. It is for this reason that I don't support things like quotas. Make sure that X% of your executive ranks are female, or black or asian or any other "under-represented" minority. Quotas are bad policy. The more people of minority origins that become successful is the more they will inspire others to do the same. There is a reason so many young black men want to become basketball stars, and why so many Jamaicans are "running" (no pun intended) into athletics. It is because they have realized that they can excel in those fields because of the examples before them. Not that they are anyhow more advantaged in those fields. It is just that the glass ceiling is no longer there. So Kudos to Ms. Collin for writing this article. Well said!