Considering that my company is all about entrepreneurial tools, and has some great business planning tools and content, I was interested to read what John Warrillow had to say about market research and writing a business plan. I immediately agreed with the tweet, that market research is critical before you write your plan. Much to my horror, the title to the article is actually: When Writing a Business Plan is a Waste of Time . I jumped right into the article, to see what this writer had to say, and why he was proposing that business plans were a waste of time. The more I read, the more horrific the article got. It turns out that this writer wrote a very bad plan, with very bad assumptions, and took a very long time to do it. He didn’t research his plan, and didn’t understand basic assumptions that he could have easily researched for his industry. Instead, he started out with the premise that he wanted to make 1 million dollars in his first year, rather than researching, understanding industry ratios, and understanding what it would take to sell his product to his market. Seriously? I mean who doesn’t want their startup to reach a million dollars in the first year? I also would love to have a perfectly flat stomach, and could just wish it, without understanding what it actually takes to get that flat stomach at my age after three children.

Just because his assumptions were bad, not researched and poorly thought out does not mean that it was the plan’s fault. He should have spent more time researching and less time writing a perfect document. There are places that give you information about standard ratios in an industry, such as customer acquisition cost and average percentage of revenue that needs to be spent on marketing. All plans are guesses, but there is a difference between a completely uneducated guess with no research, and one that is made with a lot of thought, research and information (an “educated” guess).  After reading his article and sharing it with a few co-workers, we started coming up with a few more titles where we can blame the tool rather than the user:

• When using a bat is a waste of time. This article could complain about how the bat just didn’t do the job- it never hit the ball. Why bother using the bat if it is never going to hit the ball?
• When being on a diet is a waste of time. This article could complain that a diet of Twinkies and Bon Bons didn’t make the writer lose weight. Why bother going on a diet if the diet doesn’t work?
• When driving a car is a waste of time. This article could complain about how driving a car without proper directions is a waste of time. That the only thing driving the car did was make the driver get lost and miss out on activities planned for the day. After all, getting lost was definitely the car’s fault.
• When using a MAC produces terrible design. The writer of this article could complain that even after buying a MAC, he still could not produce beautiful designs, and using PhotoShop was still hard. I mean, really, isn’t it a given that if you buy a MAC, everything you do looks beautiful?
• When running shoes don’t make you run fast. The writer can complain that they bought the “right” running shoes, but they still did not win the race. I mean really, what gives, shoes?

You get the point. So, does John Warrillow really believe that writing a business plan is a waste of time? Or does he understand that using a headline like that will attract more readers and get more traffic to his article? Does he really believe that a startup should not plan at all, just jump in blind and see what happens? That there is no value in planning and understanding the business that you are getting into? A good business plan will never be completely right. It will always be a moving target that helps you prioritize what you need to do, and understand what works and what does not. A good business plan will help you set the right goals and objectives, and then measure results. If you can write a plan that is completely right, then you should be a stockbroker and make a lot of money because clearly you can see the future. But for the rest of us, planning is a way to make sure that we are on track. It is also a disciplined way to do the right research and make sure you are using the proper assumptions to plan your business. Please don’t do what John did–pick a random assumption out of the air, and then build your plan around it. Take the time to research your business and your industry, and you will find that you write the right plan and help your business tremendously.

That being said I do NOT agree with his proposed solution. He says:

“A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” he says. “Education may be the only thing people still believe in in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”

He is challenging whether higher education is worth the investment. He particularly doesn’t think that the elite universities in the U.S., like Harvard, Stanford and Princeton, are worth the investment. Which is a very interesting point of view coming from a billionaire with two Stanford degrees. He can get Stanford degrees, but he doesn’t think that other people should? It is a very strange line of thinking. He can’t really speak to why he had the success that he had. Was it pure smarts and being in the right place at the right time ? Or did his Stanford education and connections help? It’s hard to imagine that the latter is not true. But I will give Thiel credit; he is trying to put his money where his mouth is. This is what Thiel wants to do (as outlined in the TechCrunch article):

Thiel’s solution to opening the minds of those who can’t easily go to Harvard? Poke a small but solid hole in this Ivy League bubble by convincing some of the most talented kids to stop out of school and try another path. The idea of the successful drop out has been well documented in technology entrepreneurship circles. But Thiel and Founders Fund managing partner Luke Nosek wanted to fund something less one-off, so they came up with the idea of the “20 Under 20″ program last September, announcing it just days later at San Francisco Disrupt. The idea was simple: Pick the best twenty kids he could find under 20 years of age and pay them $100,000 over two years to leave school and start a company instead.

The irony of course is that most of the kids he will end of taking, are all dropping out of IVY league schools.  So clearly he believes that those schools are where the most talented kids are. And if that is the case, then why are these schools bad? I also have a big problem with the idea that higher education serves no purpose, and instead these kids should just be given the “right place” and the “right time” with resources to start amazing companies. But without the education, what do they lose? What skills will he find these kids don’t have? One of the biggest reasons I think everyone should go to college , as I outlined in a previous post, is because it teaches you how to learn. It teaches you that there should be no limits to what you can learn, and what you can accomplish if you set your mind to it, create goals, and systematically go after those goals. Time and time again when I work with someone that doesn’t have a college degree I see that people without  higher education tend to limit themselves. They tend to more quickly tell you what they DON’T know or CAN’T do. Higher education teaches you that when you don’t know something, you figure out where to find the information, and how to learn it. Higher education is about students really understanding problem solving, which is the skill I think comes into play in the “real” working world.

Is Peter going to give this education to those 20 kids? Is he going to be their teacher, and show them how to learn, and how to really problem solve? Or is he just going to expect them to be in an “ideal” incubation space and create value from nothing? I just can’t support anyone who is advocating that higher education is not worthwhile. Especially coming from someone with two IVY degrees.

Today, according to TOMS SHOES, is ONE DAY WITHOUT SHOES day. I love the idea. I am barefoot today. But more interesting to the business world, and especially those trying to understand how social media marketing can work for them, and how to market a concept or idea over a product, TOMS SHOES is a fascinating case study. TOMS is a for-profit company with a social cause. TOMS has a model of buy one, give one. For every pair of shoes bought, TOMS donates a pair to someone in the developing world who has no shoes. The company was founded in 2006, and has taken off. SO much so that TOMS has the marketing power to put together a day where more than one million people will go all day without shoes on. They have done a lot of things right, including creating a beautiful YOU TUBE video explaining the ONE DAY WITHOUT SHOES concept. The founder of TOMS explains in a USA TODAY article why he decided to found a for-profit company instead of a charitable organization:

“When I first decided that I wanted to do something about this problem, I had a few options. I could have written a check to a charity or foundation for a one-time donation. But it didn’t feel right. By being a for-profit, we’re more sustainable,” he explains.

In the world of entrepreneurship, I admire and respect Blake Mycoskie. He has started a company doing something that he loves, is passionate about, and can also do some social good. He has been super smart about how to get the message out about what and how he is doing what he does, and has turned his shoes into a social status symbol. Many people recognize the shoe, and know that you paid more in order to donate a pair of shoes to someone in need.  He feels like not only is he donating shoes to a good cause, but he is also helping people talk about the need for shoes in developing countries. But at the end of the day, remember that TOMS is a for-profit company.  Which is why I think he has done a brilliant job of marketing his shoes and his cause. His company has been successful. He has been successful. And at the same time he gets to feel good about what he does, and consumers who buy his products feel good about buying them.

It’s interesting though, that people feel the need to point out, that if TOMS really wanted to put a dent into helping developing countries take care of their people, the TOMS model is not as efficient. Sally Nelson wrote an article titled “TOMS? No thanks” that explains you  would be better off donating directly to a cause, rather than buying shoes through TOMS. She is definitely right. But does that make TOMS a bad company? Or misleading? Sure, if he donated 50% of the revenue he received from his shoes directly to an organization that built wells, or feeds children, or helps bring vaccines to developing nations, the results may be different. But would he have a company as successful as he has? Would he be able to champion a movement that gets over a million people to go shoeless for a day to help bring awareness to the problem (and not so coincidentally probably sells more shoes for TOMS in a day than any other day)?  Somehow I doubt it. The marketing message would be much more complicated. Complicating the message most times means it does not spread and does not get traction. At the end of the day, TOMS seems to be producing a product that people LOVE, think is comfortable and stylish, and gives them a certain social status. What would other companies do to get this sort of consumer loyalty, word of mouth, and repeat buyers? If you are curious, check out their website and the hundreds of customer reviews for the shoes.

Meanwhile, regardless of anything else, it feels good to participate in something that raises awareness for a good cause — and one that is not impossible to fix. We don’t have to find the cure for AIDS or cancer, or free the world from genocide to put shoes on every child’s feet. So, for the time being, ONE DAY WITHOUT SHOES works for me! I commend TOMS shoes.

1. We have grown from 34 employees to 43 with four open requisitions.
2. We have released three  new products.
3. We have grown our Web traffic 30% per year for four years.
4. We have survived the worst economic challenge since the Great Depression – without laying off any employees.
5. We have positioned Palo Alto Software to be able to compete in today’s software world, releasing two Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings since 2007.
6. We grew 6% last year, and should show double-digit growth this year.
7. We hired some fantastic team players, including a great addition to our management team.

That gives you an idea of where Palo Alto Software is today. But of course what everybody really wants to know, is whether Tim actually let me and Noah (my husband and COO) run the company.  Does he actually let us make the decisions? What happens when he doesn’t agree to the decisions? What does he do now? The simple answer to the question is yes, Tim actually did back off, and stay true to his word. He truly does let us run the company.  What does that actually mean?

1. We have all the fiscal  responsibility.  We create the forecasts and budgets, and we manage the finances in order to optimize cash flow and use the profits from some product lines to fund the creation of new product lines. We are responsible for making our numbers and for meeting payroll. Tim simply gets reports from us weekly, and monthly.
2. We manage everyone in the company. Tim has no reports anymore. He does not manage any employees.
3. We make product and technology decisions.
4. We make all hiring and firing decisions.
5. Tim still works, as our Chief Blogger, and resident business-planning expert. He is still involved in what we do and gets to focus on what he likes best – writing and educating people.

The last four years have been quite a ride. We have focused on positioning Palo Alto Software for growth, making sure that we continue to develop solutions and tools for entrepreneurs using the best technologies. We have had an opportunity to hire some incredible talent to help us get to the next level. We have struggled and survived the terrible economic downturn. It has been tough, and stressful, and all-encompassing. But is has also been exciting, and rewarding, and amazing.

And meanwhile, while growing Palo Alto Software, we have continued to also grow our family. In April of 2007 we had two boys, ages eight months  and almost three. Today we have three boys, ages six, four, and one.  We have faced the challenges of running a company and parenting three beautiful, but rambunctious, boys. My husband has had to be my partner, 50-50 in both the business and at home. Our third son was the only one of our children to be born after we started running Palo Alto Software, and let me tell you, having a baby while running a growing technology company is not an easy thing.  But throughout everything, if we had had to deal with my father in an adverse way, or if he had not truly let us take control, the situation would have exploded. I think this is a potential problem many family businesses face when they try to implement a succession strategy. Running a business is stressful enough – no one needs the added stress of not really being in control, or fighting about every decision made and every dollar spent. Tim could have been one of those fathers. But, thank goodness, he has had the wisdom to make a choice and stick with it. And to trust and respect the family members he chose to take his business to the next level.

That doesn’t mean that there is never any controversy between us. There are times when he thinks I am making the wrong decision. The best example of the friction that we can have came in November of 2008, almost 18 months into my reign as CEO. The economy was in a downward spiral. Consumers were not even in a panic, but instead in a state of paralysis. Our sales suffered in retail big box stores, who had little to no foot traffic coming in, and our sales suffered online with consumers not buying anything. My father (and mother for that matter- she owns the business with my father) were very nervous about our sales and wanted me to start laying people off. They had gone through a recession when the Internet bubble burst in early 2000 and had to lay off six people on the same day. They felt that in 2000 (I was not part of the company then)  they did not react fast enough and the business suffered because of it. I felt very adamant that it was not time to lay anyone off, and that there were things that we could do to manage the business through the recession without having to lay off people and lose resources we needed to keep the business running well. With Noah, I worked on a new business plan with a reduced forecast and reduced expenses (we focused on cutting costs to operations and infrastructure, not marketing and sales). I made a deal with my parents that if we made our numbers very month, they would let me implement my plan, and not look at laying people off. I talked to the whole company, and got everyone on board with the numbers we had to make. I let everyone know that we were in “do or die” mode. Our employees stepped up, and everyone worked hard to meet our goals. I am happy to say that every month we not only made our numbers, but managed to start beating them by wider and wider margins as the months passed by.

I feel like this experience helped me win even more leeway from my parents as Noah and I continued to run their company. They adamantly disagreed with my approach, but stood by their word to let me run the company. When the situation panned out the way I said it would, they were able to breathe easier, and feel like putting us in control was truly the right decision. And come on, let’s be honest, it was also fun to be able to tell my mom and dad:

“I told you so!”

Four years later, I have learned a few key lessons from the succession strategy (or lack thereof) that we employed at Palo Alto Software. I think succession worked really well for us because:

1. We ripped the band-aid off quickly. Tim was swift and decisive in transferring the power of running the business.
2. Having Tim involved in a strategic way, but without any fiscal or people responsibility, has worked great. He continues to add value, be involved in his company, but with a clear role that lets me run the business.
3. There will still be some stress and some controversy as long as the first generation is still involved with the business. As long as the responsibilities are clear, and the process to deal with disagreements is clear, the family relationships can persevere,  and the business can thrive and grow under the next generation.

1. Do you go back to work right after having a baby, instead of taking three months (often unpaid) of maternity leave?
2. If you go right back to work, can you survive the guilt our society will put on you for leaving a tiny baby with a caregiver?
3. Do you attempt to figure out how to pump milk in order to breast-feed, even when traveling, or working long hours? Or, do you give up on breast-feeding and face that guilt?
4. Can you physically keep up with a man in a demanding job while eight months pregnant? Or, while three months pregnant and going through terrible morning sickness?
5. Can you deal with not being taken as seriously in a business meeting when your pregnant belly is all people see when you walk into a room?
6. What happens when dad is out of the picture? How do you deal with career choices that will allow you to earn more, while still being a single parent? (Yes I know that there are some men that deal with this issue, but a much, much lower percentage of men are single parents than women.)

I could continue with the list — but I think you get my point. The bottom line is that, in our society today, women still have more pressure than men to be the primary caregivers for kids. My husband is an amazing father, and truly is a partner with me in raising our three kids. But he freely admits that there is a lot less pressure on him as a working dad than I get as a working mom. He less often feels guilty for his choice, because in the scheme of things he does so much more than the average working dad does. So he is ahead of the game, while I am “behind.” The pressure is different even from our own kids. Because many of the kids my sons go to school with have moms who pick them up from school (and dads are less often seen by my sons), I am the one who gets the question from my sons:

“Mommy, why can’t you pick us up at school like all the other mommies?”

I want to make sure that everyone and anyone who reads this understands that I am not complaining about my choices and where I am in life. I have chosen my career path, and chosen to be a parent. But I am also aware of the limitations that I have to deal with. My last pregnancy with my third son was very difficult. It was hard to be pregnant and deal with the stress of running a company. It was hard to run out during a meeting to throw up when I was sick at the beginning. Or to deal with terrible, terrible back pain from sitting at the computer all day. It was extremely difficult and exhausting to breast-feed and pump for my son’s first year of life. Every meeting that was scheduled during those 12 months, every trip, every speaking opportunity had to be carefully planned so that I would still have time to pump 3-4 times per 8-10 hour period. Just thinking about it makes me want to cry.  And no matter how much my husband wanted to help, there are some things he could do nothing to help me with.

How many women will choose a job that requires isolation or is extremely dangerous, if they know that sometime in the future they will want to get pregnant and have a child? How many women look at careers, and try to figure out how they will fit with the choice to become a parent, and then choose a lower-paying job that accommodates pregnancy and babyhood?  There may not be anything that can be done about the gender pay gap as, for the time being, a man cannot be pregnant and cannot nurse a child. But let’s not pretend that the gender pay gap is all due to the choice made by women. Because what Steve seems to be saying in his article is:

1. Women aren’t as brave and tough as men (hence, not choosing dangerous jobs)
2. Women don’t work as hard as men (hence, the difference in work hours per week)
3. Women won’t work in uncomfortable, isolated, undesirable locations, even for more pay
4. Women don’t choose higher stress and higher  paid areas of the same career category

I say these are the biggest myths of all! Any man who says women aren’t as brave or tough, should try giving birth to a child. Maybe a woman doesn’t choose dangerous jobs because she feels responsibility to a child. Maybe a woman can’t work as long as a man because she happens to be the only caregiver for a child (we know more women are in this position than men). Maybe a woman doesn’t have the choice to work in an isolated or undesirable area, because she chose to also be a mother.  Maybe a woman already has so much stress in her life, she can’t choose a job that gives her more.  I’m not saying that men aren’t also making career choices because they are fathers, but for the most part our society still puts more pressure on a man to produce money and a woman to produce children and take care of the children. Men aren’t made to feel guilty for making career choices that take them away from their children. Women get judged and made to feel inferior if they choose career over child. Until the day that our society really changes that (and maybe it never will), there will always be a gender pay gap that is not by choice.

At Ernst & Young, as at the nation’s other major accounting firms, workplace flexibility has been built into the culture — even during crunch time. Every Monday morning, the 15 people on Mr. Leeds’s team meet and lay out the personal commitments that might interfere with work — basketball games, teacher conferences, Pilates classes, weddings. They arrange to cover for each other, helping make the busy season tolerable for everyone.

Who would ever have guessed that this sort of team support would be happening at Ernst and Young? Now, of course, accountants are faced with a particularly difficult personnel problem. From January through April 15th they are swamped and need everyone on staff and then some for 200% of their time. For the rest of the year they are probably over staffed. Logically it makes sense that they would allow people to work fewer hours when they are not needed in exchange for knowing they will put in tremendous hours during the “busy” season. It makes more sense to keep employees on staff then to lay off and re-hire and lose training and momentum every year. And, of course, we are talking about accountants who, no surprise, have crunched the numbers and understood keeping people is financially better than laying off and re-hiring every year.

I am a strong believer that investing in people works. That understanding needs and working with a good employee is going to work out to be better than ultimately losing that person and needing to rehire someone. Happy people work better, smarter and harder. Why not work with your employees and figure out how to help them get the most out of their work day, while still giving them the ability to be home for their kids, or to go back to school, or to climb mountains, travel in Tibet,  or travel with an African Masai tribe? Employees at my company, Palo Alto Software, have all taken time from work to do the things in that list. And when they are at work, they are happier because they have not felt like they have to make huge sacrifices. Work will always be just that to many people: work. But if you respect them, and work with their schedules, and let them be flexible, they will work harder (notice I did not say LONGER) for your company. Who doesn’t want to feel respected and heard, and like their life is actually important to those around them?

Q. In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? A. Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.

For those of you who don’t remember what the 14th Amendment actually says, here is an excerpt of the relevant section:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The bold persons is my doing. But since when do we pretend to live in 1868 when “person” meant “man?” How in the world does any smart, educated person say that the 14th Amendment does not protect women’s rights? As some might imagine, there has been an uproar about Scalia’s comments. Of course, women’s groups and Democrats are blasting Scalia for his comments. On the HuffPost an article about the interview has almost 800 comments on it. I’m not surprised.

Really? This is what Scalia thinks he should comment on? Maybe he is too old and thinks he too was born in 1868. Someone should remind him he is actually living in 2011.

So what’s the deal with Oregon and the business plan anyway? What can Oregon expect in the next 10 years? I think the biggest message for anyone to understand is that the situation is BLEAK unless we understand and seize this bleak outlook as an opportunity to make some major structural changes to our government systems now.  It is often close to impossible to really make change in bureaucracy because politicians all want to be re-elected and don’t want to say unpopular things.  Right now the situation is so bleak for Oregon, we would be stupid (yes, it might be a harsh word, but true) not to take the opportunity to make changes that would be impossible in better economic times. Oregon is extremely hard hit by the downturn in the economy as we depend almost exclusively on income tax to fund our government. We have no sales tax; income tax is really our one source of revenue for the state of Oregon. So, when jobs are lost, companies close their doors, and people are unemployed, our state suffers tremendously.  Combine that with the fact that Oregon’s average wage is WAY below that of the rest of the nation, by more than 25%. But what can we really do? I wish I had the solutions. If I did, I wouldn’t be blogging and leading a 45-person company; instead I would be leading Oregon. I definitely don’t have all the solutions. But here is what I do know:

1. We can’t keep doing the same thing. Like someone said to me earlier today, “it’s like moving deck chairs around on the Titanic.”
2. We can’t keep asking Oregonians for more money, but telling them that we will deliver less to them.
3. We can’t keep the same financial models in government organizations. There must be accountability for results. If results aren’t achieved, people must be let go and new people who can reach the results we need should be hired.
4. We need to innovate. Especially in education. The models we have are old, outdated and are clearly NOT WORKING. We need something new that takes into account the new fiscal reality but can still deliver excellence in education to our children.
5. We all need to compromise and make hard choices. It’s not going to be pretty for ANYONE, but if we all get on board, we can change course and pull Oregon back up to where we all know it can be.

But at the end of the day I think the more important issue is not whether or not going to college will help you guarantee success (it won’t) but what do you actually get from going to college? So, here is a list of tangible things that you will get out of going to college, that will make it worth every penny:

1. An Alumni network

   Tapping into your alumni network can get you in front of people you might not be able to otherwise. If you are starting a company, you may be able to find people for your board of advisors, or someone who can introduce you to a VC, or help you connect with a potential partner, customer or client. People tend to be very loyal to their college or university and, if you share that loyalty with them, it’s amazing what someone will do for you.

2. Experience dealing with  at least one professor you don’t like, and who doesn’t like you

   Most of us have dealt with a teacher or professor that didn’t like us. In the college setting, your parents are not there to intervene or help you out in the same way. This is the first time you will have to deal with a person in control of your success who may dislike you. This is a good lesson to learn as, in the real world, you will often have to deal with people you don’t like — or who don’t like you. The better you learn how to handle situations like this and still be successful, the better you will be in life.

3. Dealing with a project/paper/assignment that is due, that you hate, or don’t know how to accomplish

   We have all been there in our work life. Something we need to do–either for the business you are starting, or for a boss, that you don’t want to do, don’t know how to do, or hate doing. In the business world, just like in college, there are consequences for missing deadlines. College teaches people how to slog through something and get it done to the best of their ability–on a due date. There is nothing I dislike more in the real world than someone who doesn’t know how to get something done because they have never had to “learn” how to learn. In school, you learn where to research, who to ask, and what you need to read to understand the project that is due. Well, guess what people? It is the same in the real world. Sometimes you have to just figure things out.  I find, in general (not always), people with college degrees get this idea faster than those without.

4. Organized people do better

   College is the first time most people have to learn how to organize their personal and school life on their own. There is no more mom and dad scheduling you, or saying no to that late-night party on Thursday night. Or asking you if you have completed the report that is due the next day.  Now it is all in your hands. The better organized you are, the easier it is to be successful. I think this is a lesson most college students learn by trial and error. The more organized you are in the real world, the greater the chance that you will be successful.

5. Showing up is 95% of the battle

   This is one of the reasons I have heard people cite for NOT going to college. But I think that college helps people understand that it is not about the end result as much as the journey. What you get out of being there, showing up, and participating is probably 95% of the value. How many people do you know that went to school for a degree that has very little to do with what they do in the “real world?” It’s not about the actual facts that you learned, but about understanding that you have to show up, you have to turn in assignments, and you have to participate in order to succeed. Isn’t this the same in life, and particularly so in entrepreneurship?

So am I saying that in order to be a successful entrepreneur you must go to college? No. But I am saying that it will give you life skills that no other venue can give you. It will give you access to a network that no other venue can give you. And I PROMISE that if you show up and attend, it will give you more than your money’s worth. And if your start-up fails (more than 60% of them do after two years), then you will at least have not only your business experience, but also a college degree to fall back on, and make you that much more “hire-able.”

1. New York Magazine says: If you take the pill you gain control and infertility
2. New York Times says: Female empowerment may be killing romance
3. Economix blog on the New York Times says: Educated women are having fewer children or no children

I find Caroline’s article fascinating, and I appreciate her astuteness in pointing out some disturbing trends and opinions about  smart women in the media. So should all of us (educated, smart, career-focused women) just forget it already, and realize that the “battle” will never be won? Is the pursuit of happiness for women a setup? As the CEO of a tech company, as a woman who has never heard the word “no” or  the phrase “you can’t,” and as the mother of three young boys, I say F$%# the establishment. Screw the media. Whatever the trends may be, we as women are in control of our own destinies, both personal and professional. We need to just press on, and go full steam ahead. We can’t get caught up in whether or not our pursuit of happiness is a setup, and whether we need to re-define our happiness.

If a man doesn’t think a powerful woman is sexy, then the appropriate response is “bye, bye.” There are plenty of men out in the world who do appreciate a smart, motivated, powerful woman. Find those men and forget the others.

If the pill is causing infertility because we as women are waiting too long to have children, then I say Hallelujah to fertility drugs. Hurrah for medical advances that can help women have children later in life. Yeah for Clomid and in-vitro fertilization and all of that.

And if women feel pressured to have fewer children because of maternity leave issues, then stand up, be loud, be that squeaky wheel, and prove your worth to the company you work for. If a company doesn’t want to negotiate and give you the maternity leave you need and feel you deserve, then they don’t value you the way they should. Do you know what it takes in lost productivity and resources to hire a smart, key contributor? A lot more than three months salary.  Let’s change the maternity model and mentality. Maybe it means more working from home during the first three months and less “time off.”  Maybe it means nursing infants (three months and younger) should be allowed in the office. Maybe it means just re-thinking how motherhood and career come together. Regardless, I think we can all figure this out and stand up for each other. Let’s frame our own conversation — and not let the media do it for us.