Nikki Gloudeman – The Establishment https://theestablishment.co Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:17:33 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1.1 https://theestablishment.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/cropped-EST_stamp_socialmedia_600x600-32x32.jpg Nikki Gloudeman – The Establishment https://theestablishment.co 32 32 An Inside Look At The Kick-Ass Establishment Online Community https://theestablishment.co/an-inside-look-at-the-kick-ass-establishment-online-community/ Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:00:53 +0000 https://theestablishment.co/?p=1579 Read more]]> Our exclusive Slack channel is, as one member puts it, a “small miracle.”

How else can one say it? The world is fucking bleak.

Looking at social media, reading media headlines, just being in the world, is to swim daily in a stinking cesspool of bigotry and closed-mindedness and unimaginable hate.

It’s so easy to feel hopeless, helpless, hapless. To not know where to turn for the kind of support and insight that’s needed to just.keep.fighting., even when your foes are bullies of immense power and boundless cruelty.

For me, at least, The Establishment community has been a true saving grace.

If you follow our social media or check out our site, you’ve probably heard a lot about this mysterious community. But you might not know what exactly it is. In the most basic of terms, the Establishment community is a Slack channel where our members convene. Yet over the last few months, it’s become so much more than that.

Nearly 500 people are currently part of the community, and in channels ranging from #news to #social to #resistance-resources, more than 15,000 messages have been posted. Together, we’ve nerded out on Dr. Who and Breaking Bad and the Marvel Cinematic Universe; discussed white fragility, asexuality, toxic sports culture, and reproductive rights; posted and discussed the latest Trump administration news; shared up-to-the-minute updates on the midterms and detailed info on local resistance marches; chatted in-depth about Establishment content; and reveled in GIFs of turtles and baby bears.


In the most basic of terms, the Establishment community is a Slack channel where our members convene. Yet over the last few months, it's become so much more than that.
Click To Tweet


I recently had a baby, and the #parenting channel in particular has been the place I turn to not only to talk about the logistics of raising a human, but to go deep on important issues like fighting gender norms, managing anxiety and depression, and combating body shame.

I feel safe doing so because, and this is just the truth, Establishment members are the fucking all-time best: compassionate, open-minded, thoughtful, and good to the core.

It’s a beautiful thing. And I promise I’m not the only one to think so! Here’s what one of our amazing members, user @Inkwell, has to say:

“No matter the age of history in which one finds oneself, finding those people who are truly invested in the goings-on of the day is no mean feat. However, the Establishment community is that and so much more besides. We’re home to highly engaged people who have their fingers on the pulse of current events, and being able to discuss them in-depth with nuance and insight is a small miracle. What’s more, they take after the Establishment magazine’s tone and offer warmth and wisdom to any who ask. To me, they have been a source of strength, entertainment, comfort, and encouragement when all of those things seem to be at a premium. In short, the Establishment community is everything that you would want from not just an internet community but a community altogether. I can’t say enough kind things about it.”

Seconds equally-amazing member Anna Tarkov:

“The Establishment community is like a breath of fresh air. With most any online community, you’re never sure whether the people there will be on the same page with you on important things like social justice, racism, etc. And it’s always a rude awakening when you find out that someone in, say, your photography club is a raging bigot. But that’s something you don’t have to worry about here. And it turns out, maybe unsurprisingly, that people who are devoted to justice and activism are amazing, interesting, intelligent, kind, caring people. I think we could all use more friends like that.”

Want in? All you have to do is sign up right here, for 5 bucks a month (or more if you’d like!), to become a member. You’ll get an invite to our exclusive Slack channel plus gain access to awesome gated content plus be supporting our incredible, diverse writers.

The best place to go when the going gets tough is a safe space filled with people who care, who are right there with you on working to make things better. We’d love to have you be a part of what we’re building.

]]>
On The Fear Of Pregnancy Loss During The First Trimester https://theestablishment.co/on-the-fear-of-pregnancy-loss-during-the-first-trimester-475eefaa1f83/ Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:13:02 +0000 https://theestablishment.co/?p=1515 Read more]]> Women have been scared and shamed for far too long.

My fantasy of sharing the news of my planned pregnancy was vivid, more lucid than a dream, and extraordinarily straightforward. I’d take a pregnancy test and learn I was pregnant. I’d immediately tell people. They’d be happy and we’d celebrate!

But I only made it through step one.

After “YES” appeared on a stick wet with pee, I went online and through a series of rabbit holes, descended to a devastating truth: 15–25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage, and 80% of these miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

Roughly speaking, this averages to a 20% risk. As in, line me up in a room with just nine other people, and two of us will leave without a baby.

I’d have to wait to tell people, and I’d have to wait to feel anything approaching excitement. Because how can one be happy, when perched on the edge of a staggering precipice?

I don’t wait completely. I can’t.

Twenty minutes after learning the stat about first trimester miscarriage, I call my mom.

“I just took a pregnancy test,” I say, slowly, measured.

“And…?”

“It said yes…”

“Oh my…”

“BUT! It’s really early. And it’s totally possible that something could happen. I don’t want to get too excited.”

“Oh.”

Three days later, I break, comically easy, when two of my best friends inquire about my efforts to conceive.

“Well,” I say. “Actually. I am pregnant.”

Their eyes widen and they start to exclaim…

“BUT! I’m really not supposed to tell people. It’s super early and something could happen,” I quickly interject.

They stop, and nod solemnly instead.

This is not how I planned it.

Sure, I knew people don’t tend to announce their pregnancy right away, but not for three months? Because there’s a 20% chance of losing the baby? This was never covered in the cultural literature we call the Wonders of Childbirth.

Consider: In one recent study, more than half of respondents said they thought miscarriage was extremely rare, occurring in fewer than 6% of pregnancies, with men twice as likely as women to mistakenly believe this.

To report on the actual facts surrounding miscarriage would, perhaps, be unseemly; it’s far more quintessentially American for bright and blissful mommy blogs to revel in the sanctimonious miracle of birth. And it’s far easier to sell your pro-life (anti-choice) case that the life of a fetus must be cherished and protected at all costs if that fetus is presented as a guaranteed baby.

Maybe, too, we don’t hear much about miscarriage because the women who’ve lost babies are made to feel deeply embarrassed. That study about miscarriage misconceptions? It also found that 41% of women felt they had done something to cause their miscarriage, 41% felt alone, and 28% were ashamed.

These staggering stats are rooted in a host of fraught myths about pregnancy/miscarriage. A whopping 76% of people believe stress leads to miscarriage (not true), 64% think lifting heavy objects can cause pregnancy loss (nope), and 20% claim getting into an argument is enough to ensure a fetus’ death (absolutely not).

Whatever the reason, here we are, information-less and left to our own devices, fending for scraps at the bottom of internet rabbit holes.

Perhaps now is the right time to share some other facts society never tells you:

Even after an ultrasound confirms the pregnancy, there’s a >15% chance of pregnancy loss for a woman my age (33).

Most miscarriages are caused by fatal genetic problems in the baby.

1 in 4 women experience a miscarriage in their lifetimes.

More than anything, no one ever tells you: It is not the woman’s fault.

For two weeks, I don’t tell anyone else. Why are you not drinking? I’m trying to be good! Are you pregnant? Not yet…but we’re trying hard! (wink wink) You look tired. God, yes, it’s been a long week!

In the absence of telling, of excitement, I worry instead. The baby is almost invisible, the size of a lentil according to my newly downloaded pregnancy app, and already I’m certain I’m ruining its life.

I wasn’t supposed to drink while we were trying, just in case, but a week before I took the pregnancy test, I indulged in a glass of wine at girls’ night. Could that do it?

What about yoga? Sushi? Sleeping funny? Sex?

My husband is anxious too, already sharing his concerns about dropping the baby on its head, or fucking it up forever thanks to unintentionally bad parenting skills. But my anxiety is deeper, more visceral — because I know if something happens before the baby is born, any suspicion will be directed toward me.

It can’t possibly be his fault. I’m the bearer. I’m the vessel. It has to be mine.

We live in a world, after all, with headlines crowing “One in four miscarriages could be prevented with changes to a woman’s lifestyle”; a world in which women must resort to posting about their partners blaming them for pregnancy loss on anonymous message boards.

“After a pregnancy loss, many women feel a sense of responsibility or guilt for what has happened with their child. These feelings of responsibility can lead to a host of unpleasant emotions that bereaved mothers and their partners carry around for years,” one representative study states.

One day, I eat salmon in a sushi burrito; halfway through eating it, I remember reading something about raw fish being unsafe during pregnancy, and panic. That night, I dream that I inhale a cocktail in a comically large glass with a colorful straw. I awake in a sweat before the dream can end as what’s become my greatest nightmare.


If I lose the baby…Will I blame me?
Click To Tweet


If I lose the baby, will my husband blame me, divorce me, hate me? Will I blame me? Will I look in the mirror and see a woman whose selfishness has destroyed all that’s good, like Eve turning paradise into ashes?

(To be clear, I would only feel this way because we’ve chosen this pregnancy; if I had not made the choice, if the circumstances were different, I would’ve readily received an abortion. That choice is moral and right and every person’s to make.)

Yes yes, I know I said it’s not the woman’s fault. But I also know that won’t stop anyone from acting like it is.

It’s week 7, and we’re about to have our first ultrasound, an 8:45 am appointment. I oversleep, and spend the morning snapping at everything and nothing in particular. The dog, for barking. My husband, for taking too long to brush his teeth. The silverware, for not being where it should be. I’m operating at a frequency that signals impending explosion, so my husband leaves the house to walk the dog and escape the likely debris.

This appointment has me in a state.

When we finally arrive at the check-in desk, exactly five minutes late (it feels more like five years) I’m immediately sent to a room to pee in a tube. I panic — what if I can’t pee?! — but make it through, and then away we go, to a clinical little room where I’ll be meeting my child for the first time, if indeed the child still exists.

My doctor shoves a tube of some sort into my vagina, and there it is: a tiny flicker on a sonogram screen. My baby. Alive.

We listen to the heart beat, and it’s so fast. Too fast?! But my doctor doesn’t seem worried.

And then, just like that, we’re done. For today, at least, my baby is still here.

I go home, and do more research. At week 7, the chance of miscarriage for someone my age is 11%. Line me up now with nine other women in a room, and only one of us will leave without a baby. This is better!

I recognize this probably sounds overdramatic. But there really is a certain cruelty to this process; to telling us Here is this baby you wanted! But wait! It might not be for long.

Then again, I wonder if maybe this is the ultimate first test.

In the first trimester, in the second, in the third, in labor, in infancy, in grade school, in high school, in college, in beyond — something unexpectedly bad could happen. Stillbirth, dropped on the head, car accident, disease, murder, suicide, falling out of a window, slipping on ice, eating a poisonous mushroom, choking on a sandwich, nuclear explosion.

Any one of these things could happen. Most of these and other things happen all the time.

And so I have a choice — and the first decision of this early motherhood comes sharply into focus. I can be anxious unceasingly, spending my days online, consulting alarming statistics, telling myself I’m just trying to stay prepared. Or I can embrace in this moment that there is a chance, a better chance than not with each passing day, that I will have this baby.

I’m choosing the latter, and to carry this truth throughout motherhood. In a world that scrutinizes, dissects, and penalizes women at every turn from pregnancy to motherhood, I will be shouting my pregnancy news loudly, knowing that whatever happens, I will not be to blame.

And if I have this baby, and especially if it’s a girl? I’ll be ready with my message: Be fearless. Be strong. And my darling, it’s not your fault.

]]>
‘Men’s Rights’ In Divorce Court: When Domestic Violence Becomes Financial Abuse https://theestablishment.co/divorce-court-favored-my-abusive-husband-his-mens-rights-lawyer-33a0cb174be9/ Wed, 07 Feb 2018 20:59:51 +0000 https://theestablishment.co/?p=1404 Read more]]> I saw firsthand how the divorce court system caters to abusers at the literal expense of victims.

By Ingrid Freer

In the summer of 2015, I turned 50 years old, feeling fit, strong and optimistic. Married, raising one child, I was enjoying a summer break from the school where I teach writing, and what a lovely, long break spread out ahead of me: After years of applying, and over 20 years of teaching, I’d been granted an academic sabbatical. When summer was over, I’d still be free. For the first time in my life I’d have an opportunity to write without going in to a day job, and I’d still have a paycheck, although it would be half of my usual salary. A sabbatical was a hard-won honor, a writer’s dream — my dream, attained.

Also, after a life of marginalized income, working in the arts and as an adjunct professor, earning poverty-level wages all too often, I finally had money in the bank. My goal was to support our child and create a stable life, for her sake. Money made my husband anxious. He was raised in poverty, by a single mother. As an adult it seemed he could never internalize any kind of financial security. For a decade I cushioned his anxieties. I often covered daily expenses so he could use his income, along with a portion of mine, to invest for our future. It was a balancing act, managing the short-term and the long-term, but we could do it by working as a team.

That’s how families function. He liked to move money around through accounts, as though soothing himself by monitoring the stock market. Over our years together, while I worked and raised our child, I’d also sold two books, one for a very small amount and a second for a six-figure deal. Then I’d managed to keep $65,000 in savings, after paying off debt and buying a reliable car. To me, that was a significant as well as improbable amount, making us part of the slimmer group in what now passes for the American middle class, with more than a month or two of wages in reserve.

I’d put that money aside by remaining frugal despite a windfall from the sale of my second book. I hoped we might travel. I thought we’d fix a hole we lived with, in our kitchen floor, where we’d taken a wall out and the subfloor showed through, and that subfloor was not complete. We could buy real water glasses and stop using jelly jars. To my mind, we had it made.

There was a time, decades earlier, when I had to withdraw a year early from high school. I graduated through the mail, because of difficulties at home. I worked at Burger King. I went to state schools. I hung out with the marginalized, in the world of punk rock, emancipated minors, junkies and artists, and in that fluid stew of ideas, expression and hard knocks, I engaged in the most accessible art form at hand, which demanded virtually no budget for supplies: I wrote stories. I kept writing for most of 30 years, until I sold the book that raised my family and me from poverty.

I wanted our daughter to have a better education than I had been afforded, the kind more readily recognized. I’d like her to be positioned to find work on a fragile planet, in whatever future economy comes about, and to perhaps contribute in a positive way to addressing the many perils that face humanity. She’s a smart kid. I hoped she’d actualize her abilities through education.

I’d raised our family finances accordingly.

Now, two years later my debt load is so great that I can’t always afford to put together even a meager school lunch for our daughter, as she makes her way through middle school. She carries a single nutritional bar, and a bag with a few chips. I struggle to afford shoes for her growing feet. Her arms are too long for last year’s winter coat. I can’t buy a new one. We’re counting our pennies. My salary is just over the margin that would allow us to participate in a free lunch program, but it isn’t enough to cover the interest on my bloated credit card debt.

Every day I ask myself how this has gone so wrong. I’m still financially cautious. We didn’t upgrade our home. We didn’t travel much of anywhere. We still have the same hole in the kitchen floor. We still use the same aging jars as glasses. I have no drug habits. I’ve had three drinks total over the past three or four months, on holidays. The answer to the problem of our poverty is a simple one, and common: domestic violence.

One can find more nuance to that answer by adding male entitlement, ego, and rage.

In the middle of that summer in 2015, as I turned 50, a small press publisher announced the future publication of my third book. It was a beautiful day, filled with kind words from supportive, loving friends. My husband, also an author, had two books out. His had seen no real sales.

I spent the day at work, then ran our child to swim team practice, and picked up and later dropped off her friend, fostering her social life. I was the primary caretaker and primary wage earner, and still I’d written a third book “on the side,” wherever the side was, in days and long nights of steady labor.

My husband came home that evening in a white-lipped rage.

There were only two significant events of the day: My next book was announced. My husband came home violently angry.

Cause and effect?

Male violence enacted in the domestic sphere is cliche. We’ve seen it in movies, TV, and literature: Dad comes home from work, picks a fight over dinner. Dad is angry. Dad prioritizes his feelings, his need for satisfaction, above all else. Dad disrespects the happiness of others.

We know the damage this gender-based paradigm of violence does to children, partners, and community.

I would think a writer would know the role so well that he’d refrain from becoming that particular cliche. One goal of literature is to deepen humanity and self awareness. Readers come to know how plots play out. My husband? He took on the role of angry patriarch as though he’d spent a lifetime studyingit. Looming over our child, as she tried to eat dinner, he hissed, “Your mama…she gets away with too much.

I was caught off guard. “Wha…t?”

He puffed up his chest and swirled a tumbler of white wine in one hand, then repeated himself. Later, in an e-mailed apology that was eerily lacking in self-awareness, he’d refer to this as offering our child “instruction.”


I would think a writer would know the role so well that he’d refrain from becoming that particular cliche.
Click To Tweet


I don’t care to recall the blow-by-blow. Suffice it to say, after being subjected to an expression of rage that followed us both, mother and child, through the house, that demanded attention and tried to incite violence, on into the night, eventually I left. I left the house, after a terrifying physical encounter in which he assaulted me on our back steps, over a pile of construction debris covered in rusted nails and wire. When I left, our child came with me. Of course she did. I wouldn’t have gone without her. She ran to the car ahead of me. Who would stay trapped in a house with an unstable, alcohol-fueled, violent man? She ran without hesitation. I unlocked the car doors as we ran, and locked them again fast, just as my husband, her father, pounded on the windows. That night our daughter was exposed to a level of irrational rage and male entitlement that no child needs to witness.

My husband apparently believed, as far as I can sort out from his actions, that he had a right to take out his creative ambition and frustration on my body, with his fists. By his words later, I’ve come to realize it was intentional that he acted this way in front of our child. The word haunts me: “Instruction”

For our daughter’s well-being, even more than my own, once I left I stayed away.

According to reports, one in three women in our state faces violence in the home. One in three women is trying to make a life, while being battered. Most are also busy hiding it, at least for a while. All around, it’s no easy task.

My husband’s anger didn’t abate over the next five days. I stayed away, giving him most of a week to clear his head and calm down. Then I asked him to grant us space in the house by leaving for a bit. Our daughter needed to pick up a few things, safely and without arguing. I was aiming for the least dramatic approach to navigating our days. I’d allotted ample time for my husband to de-escalate his fury. After he refused my request for time alone in the house, I looked for another option, another way to enter the house without facing his violence: I filed for a restraining order. He was removed from our home by the police.

When my husband hired a lawyer to contest the restraining order, I was forced to hire a lawyer in response. I couldn’t adequately represent myself alone, while going up against a professional. The lawyer I retained advised me to file for divorce simultaneously. “You’ll have better luck in court,” she said. To file for divorce, along with the restraining order, would show that I was serious.

In my experience from that moment forward, carrying domestic violence into the courtroom creates what is politely, euphemistically perhaps, referred to under the umbrella of “contentious divorce.” That became a phrase I heard repeatedly: Contentious. It’s a word which points no fingers, and names no acts. It’s a word that situates itself between people or events, not looking in either direction, and so linked us, my ex and I, throughout proceedings, as though we were merely arguing. It seemed inadequate, perhaps disingenuous, in the way it smoothed over the surface, ignoring the distinct act of violence which had caused me to remove our child, and myself, from the home. The word made us both equals in our separation.

In other words, with that soothing term, other than when speaking specifically about the restraining order, for the majority of our divorce theviolence which led to a restraining order was held outside the door of the courtroom, and outside the conversation. One branch of court recognized the violent events and approved the restraining order, three years in a row; another arm of family court seemed to obliquely pretend, in silence, that the violence didn’t happen or somehow wasn’t a proven fact at all, though evidence of the restraining order remained on papers made available to the judge.

My husband retained two lawyers in succession. Both lawyers he selected worked with firms advertising under the banner of “Divorce For Men.” This is a specific corner of the divorce industry, linked in part, if not in entirety, to a “Men’s Rights” movement which perceives family law as leaning in favor of women and mothersIt’s an approach which appears to view men as victimized by feminism, in danger of being marginalized, and inherently set to lose parenting time and custody rights simply by the nature of their gender.It’s a worldview which shows up in threads on Reddit, among other places, and with certain ties to the “Red Pill” conversation, and theories of male dominance, feminization of culture and possibly, from what I’ve seen, anunderlying belief that women are born manipulators.

One of the early steps of reaching an equitable division in divorce is for both parties to submit what are referred to as “Discovery items.” These include documentation of bank accounts to be divided. In theory, this is not a gendered practice. “The court has no patience with hiding money,” I was advised by lawyers, more than once. When the time came, I turned over all documentation, ready to move forward. My accounts were simple. I then submitted a list of my husband’s banking history, and requested his account information be provided.


The violence which led to a restraining order was held outside the door of the courtroom, outside the conversation, as though perhaps it didn’t happen.
Click To Tweet


The list of banks my husband moved funds through, at one time or another, is long. It’s so long that later on, perhaps most of a year later, when my lawyer and I still remained without complete information, the Men’s Rights lawyer of the moment let on, by way of apology, that he hadn’t read my list. He said it was too long, that he spaced out, zoned out, fell asleep.

In other words, my ex juggled funds through so many accounts that it bored his lawyer to actually list and consider them all?

Being extremely slow to reveal bank accounts could be construed as hiding funds. In general, they only came forward with information once I produced documentation of each missing account. It was up to me to find an account and document its existence, and then perhaps information would come forward.

This approach cost money on both sides by increasing billable hours, as we searched for and requested documentation of funds which could have otherwise been revealed in one simple email exchange.

flickr/Eli Christman

At the same time, my ex’s lawyer sent a settlement offer which demanded what my ex perceived to be his “share” of my deceased grandparents’ 1939 shack, as well as his “share” of my aging father’s home. “Parties to sell home and split proceeds…” the lawyer’s documents stated, listing the addresses.

It would be reasonable to imagine that “Men’s Rights” would extend to an 80-year old man’s right to live in his own home.

Instead, the Men’s Rights lawyer and my ex demanded that my aged father be evicted.

didn’t have the authority — or the heart — to sell the house where my father actively lived, of course. This position of irrational over-reach left me with no option of giving in or letting go. The Divorce Law For Men lawyer wouldn’t back down or revise the demand. He and my estranged husband stood firm. In this way, they mandated that our divorce was moved into the courtroom, the most expensive level of the divorce process overall.

For a lawyer to prep for court creates additional billable hours. It’s not unreasonable to estimate approximately $10,000 a day, in court time, depending on how much advance preparation is involved. From the witness stand, I clarified that my ex had never even been inside one of the two houses he was proclaiming to have a right of ownership over. The other, he’d perhaps been to once, at most, if at all. He’d never changed a lightbulb, in terms of labor invested in either home. Both of these family homes were purchased long before our marriage. In short, they had nothing to do with him.

Approximately $20,000 went out the window to hold the restraining order in place. Another $20,000 or more was spent negotiating real estate, catering to irrational demands, until finally the judge called that line of argument off. “Let’s leave grandpa’s house out of this,” the judge said.

Nothing was accomplished with the overreach of demanding property, failing to conform to divorce law, other than increasing legal fees paid to lawyers, and it was the Men’s Rights lawyer driving this forward.

There are three basic, overriding guidelines to divorce in the state where we live, and they are essentially as follows: no fault; presumption of equal contribution; equitable distribution. This translates roughly into: Nobody cares who did what; both partners somehow contributed to the family’s ability to earn money, independent of who actually went to work or not; and the goal is to split funds approximately down the middle, as is fair.

That’s it. None of those are gendered. None are “for men,” any more than they are “for women.”

In practice, what I saw was quite different.

At various times in court, the opposing lawyer claimed that I must not have been doing a lot of parenting, since I’d managed to write three books. The implication was that I didn’t deserve my portion of marital assets, as though I were a remiss servant rather than an equal partner, despite the fact that I was also the primary wage-earner. He was trying to build a case that I was at fault, in a no-fault divorce state. He was trying to build a case for an inequitable division. My sabbatical? That word was spit out as though on par with a heroin addiction. The phrase used was “on the hook.” The lawyer repeated that my ex shouldn’t be “on the hook” for my sabbatical.

It’s hard to imagine a man being treated with contempt for successfully publishing books and earning a prestigious period in which to work, while also raising children. In a no-fault divorce state, my success was repeatedly addressed as though it constituted some kind of fault or failure. Technically, according to the law as I understand it, even if I’d been staying home getting high, there should be no time wasted on the question of fault-versus-earnings. But, that aside, the actual truth was that I had always been doing the majority of everything at home, and my professional work only benefited the family.


There are three basic, overriding guidelines to divorce in the state where we live. None are gendered. None are ‘for men.’
Click To Tweet


Finally, over a year after the day I’d been forced to flee the home, the day of our court-ordered settlement arrived. The judge requested that we not meet in the courtroom. Instead, she asked us to meet by speakerphone, each staying in our respective lawyer’s offices. We were all within easy walking distance from the courthouse, but rather than gathering, she held us apart from each other and from her, on the bench. I asked my lawyer if this was normal. She said she’d never heard of such a thing, in 17 years of family law. It was as though the judge were hiding, or somehow afraid, or otherwise adverse to seeing us in the formality of the courthouse.

I sat with my lawyer in a conference room, a phone on speaker between us. The judge’s voice was croaky, as she rolled forward, over the static of an old landline, determining the value of our house as a starting point. She stated that I would pay my ex half the value of the house. I would pay most of a quarter million dollars. My lawyer and I leaned into the phone, waiting for the next aspect of the ruling.

But the judge was done.

I would pay. My lawyer pressed one finger on the speaker phone, cutting in to ask if the amount I’d pay would be offset by accounts now handled by my ex, formerly our marital funds by any reading of the law.

“No,” the judge said. There would be no offset. My ex would be granted all marital funds. He would leave the marriage with hundreds of thousands of dollars. I had left, to protect our child from witnessing a level of violence easily classified as child abuse, and now I would become most of half a million in debt. The court agreed that a restraining order was necessary, but the court was simultaneously stripping me of all finances.

She’s a spender,” the judge said. “She spent more.”

“A spender?” I asked, quietly.

There is no law against very ordinary spending, in raising a family. Spending money can’t be against the law in Capitalism. If it were, the entire economy would screech to a halt. The ruling was absurd. Of course, my husband had spent some money too; the proceedings spread out for a year, then on into two years and eventually near three before the divorce was resolved. To consider our living expenses as though pointing toward some kind of fault was a line of reasoning which hadn’t been addressed in the courtroom, because it had no place in our state’s divorce law. The phone, on the other line, my ex’s side with his lawyer, went momentarily dead. In that silence, myex and his Men’s Rights lawyer were surely raising a high five, celebrating the court-created poverty of the mother of his child, the manufactured poverty of the home where his daughter would live and spend most of her days.

flickr/Kevin Dooley

Though the judge had witnessed all of their arguments as faulty and crumbling, she created a new avenue for alloting all marital funds, so clearly defined as joint funds by law, to the man who perpetrated violenceshe gave my ex-husband a gift of all the money we had in the world. He was paid for his violence and financial control.

I was held as at fault for spending money, in an undefined way. In short, my life — my human value, my parenting and adult autonomy — was being shaped into a story that didn’t belong to me, and didn’t reflect my life, decisions or experience. It had been judicially rewritten into stereotypically feminine terms of bad drama, as though I wore a Shop ’Til You Drop T-shirt into the courtroom, or as though I were a caricature of a woman who ran to the mall on weekends. When I spent money, most often it was to meet our child’s basic support. I bought groceries. I paid a fortune in legal fees to address my ex’s violence. That was money I would have rather saved. Through the marriage, I made our lives comfortable, in the simplest of ways. My husband managed our joint investments. That was all.

“That’s not how the law works,” my lawyer said, once we were off the phone. She said it again, and then again, caught in a loop of righteous anger. “It’s not. It’s just not. It’s not how the law works.”

To pair women with frivolous spending is to buy into a ready cliche. Law is set by precedent. If this were allowed to stand, it would assert that any woman who spent any money, even on groceries, for the family, could be stripped of access to marital savings and retirement through divorce. It was a judgement which allotted male privilege in relationship to marital finances.

A correlating truth is, I wouldn’t have concerned myself with arguing over finances if I hadn’t been forced to spend $100,000 or more on legal fees defending myself and my father’s home throughout the process. Had my ex allowed us to part amiably, I would’ve asked for little, opting instead for a generosity of spirit. In other words, the system, as approached by the Divorce For Men lawyers, first created massive debt, making money crucial and scarce, then undermined a mother’s relationship to ordinary marital funds. The whole picture was designed to ultimately portray a woman as out for a man’s money.

Financial abuse runs hand-in-hand with domestic violence. The court system entertained absurd demands, made by a lawyer operating under the banner of Men’s Rights, when there are no actual, specific “men’s rights” — or women’s rights, either — in the largely gender-neutral language of divorce law.

There were only two times in the courtroom process in which I was clearly and swiftly successful in making my point. Both of these were around aggressive acts visible to our child. I had captured the behavior on video, on my phone, because it was prolonged. That is the sole approach which helped streamline the legal process: clear, irrefutable documentation of violence. Aphone with a camera can be a life-saving device.

Because of that video footage of my ex’s violent behavior, I was granted sole custody of our child. The custody decision wasn’t based on a generalized courtroom bias against men. It was the behavior of the man involved which determined the direction of the court’s decision. For the same reason, I retained sole use of the home.

Video documentation cut through misrepresentation. Otherwise,presumption did not appear to be on my side at any point. I’ve started to think all women should wear body cameras, all the time.

Over the next two years, seven judges would look at the original restraining order. My ex has asserted more than once that I “manipulated the system” by alleging violence. To claim a woman is “manipulative” is to call on another stereotype of femininity. Each round, the judges were granted access to the same short video, along with court transcripts. Each judge, each time, agreed the situation was and remains a valid use of a restraining order.

My ex? He shelled out a fortune, in his vindictive pursuit.

But this isn’t about him or me, at least not as specific individuals. In court documents I am “wife.” I am “mother.” Most often, I am “Petitioner.” He is “Respondent.”

We are characters filling roles in the mechanics of a system. My ex is embroiled in becoming the logical trajectory of a character who, playing the part of a patriarch in the tiny kingdom of his home, has reeled around the kitchen screaming about “respect!” in that sort of stock, farcical way that never actually brings about respect, but more often engenders the opposite.

Between the two of us, along with a handful of gender-based cliches run through the machinery of family law, with a Men’s Rights slant, we have wasted any hope that our child will ever be able to afford much of an education, though I know community colleges can be amazing. I’ve taught at them, and taken a few classes there as well.

When I look for resources for women who have escaped domestic violence and are trying to rebuild their finances and credit history, information seems to center around basic ideas such as how to save money or how to balance a checkbook. It’s often infantilizing, and unfortunately recreates stereotypes that were brought forward in court: an assumption that women generally aren’t the primary wage earners, that women over spend, that women are “bad with money,” and that women aren’t capable of understanding basic finances.


We are characters filling roles in the mechanics of a system.
Click To Tweet


I have worked as a mortgage underwriter. I have made loan decisions in the six-figure range, easily. I understand money.

My lawyer also understood money, and she understood the law.

Over the course of 10 days, she drafted a four-page letter requesting that the judge re-open our case, reconsider her ruling, or recuse herself. The judge heard her. We were swiftly granted one more short hearing, on short notice. This round, the Men’s Rights lawyer was only available to appear via speaker phone. My ex wasn’t able to make it. I dropped everything to show up. Once I was in the courtroom, alongside my lawyer, the judge asked me to step out of the room. From my place in the empty hallway, standing on a glossy floor, in our old county court building, I could still hear the voices of my lawyer and the judge through the thick wooden door. My lawyer spoke first, fast and with certainty, a flood of words. The judge cut in, asking her to slow down. “Just the law — ” the judge said.

My lawyer started again, this round more slowly. She explained basic divorce law. She clarified how the judge’s ruling had no standing. She confronted the judge on the most fundamental of divorce law terms.

The judge’s voice cut in again. I leaned closer to the wooden door, so close that I could smell a trace of old cigar smoke seeped into the wood of the door as though leftover from past decades.

“You’re right, I’m sorry,” the judge said. I pressed my palm to the door, listening. My lawyer continued with her explanation.

“I’m sorry. You’re right,” the judge said again. And the two of them were two voices, intertwined, in explication and apology.

For a moment, it sounded as though the judge were ready to simply re-divide the assets. She cleared her throat. The Men’s Rights lawyer was a squawk on the phone, to the tune of Now, let’s not be hasty

The judge changed her course, again, it seemed. She didn’t simply redivide funds. However, we did gain permission to start our trial again, and that was a victory, of sorts. However, to start again would mean more lawyer-hours, more court hours, perhaps another fifty-thousand more dollars, depending on the course of events.

My lawyer’s knowledgeable, muscled approach demanded adherence to the legal precedent and procedure, thankfully, but who had the finances to begin the process again?

In my prolonged experience, the court process enfranchised, excused, and overlooked male anger and aggression. Similarly, the court tolerated irrational financial claims and misrepresentation of information readily contradicted by bank statements and tax forms, and left me to provide all evidence contrary to male assertions. The only one to benefit financially from making a simple division of material good into a difficult and prolonged argument would be the lawyers involved. My lawyer worked hard for her wages. She remained generous and honest, and held even the judge accountable to the letter of the law, in the end. The “Divorce Law for Men” lawyer made more money by counseling for an approach based in aggressive, irrational overreach than he would’ve made through being reasonable, adhering to legal practice, and streamlining the process accordingly.

The gendered atmosphere of the court system — shaped by minimizing domestic violence, overlooking financial abuse, and coddling the kind of entitlement that fuels irrational demands — will leave me drowning in debt, possibly forever. I have full custody of our child, because I am stable and reliable, and I’ve done nothing wrong. I have been granted our decrepit old house, complete with its familiar hole in the kitchen floor, for the same reasons. In my experience, the court system actively manufactured maternal poverty, while diminishing maternal professional and financial success.

Simultaneously, every day of the year of my hard-won sabbatical was taken up with sleuthing for marital bank statements, tracking credit card history, reading accusatory emails, making it to court dates, and navigating constant anxiety. There was no time to write, which would further my career.

None of this is in any child’s best interest.

I have distinct advantages over some people who are perhaps less enfranchised, in terms of battling domestic violence. I have friends and family. I have a solid career, no substance abuse struggles, and stable mental health. English is my first language, I have a graduate degree, and I’m reasonably assertive. Still, even with all of that on my side, and doing everything as well as I possibly could, I may never recover financially from a debt which is now roughly equivalent to four years of my income. I can’t afford even one medical or dental bill, or other unforeseen expenses. I can barely afford groceries. When I tell people what I’ve experienced, I hear the common refrain, “Why didn’t you leave him sooner?”

I would like to say, to anyone who peruses this question, how fast would you rush yourself and your child or children into a constant stream of stress, days on the witness stand, strange accusations, and most of all a life of soul-killing poverty that could easily last beyond your own life span?

Late one evening, our daughter and I were watching an episode of the TV show Grimm, which uses fairy tales, folk tales, and fabricated monsters as the basis for a soap operatic drama. We were watching on an old television, with an old Roku that I was grateful to have, because I could no longer afford a new one. On the episode, a character called an “Excandesco” was said to use the phosphorus naturally found in the human body to burst into flames, becoming a skilled arsonist. Phosphorus, the show told us, catches fire if exposed to temperatures of 86 degrees or more. It is apparently naturally occurring, in our systems. My daughter turned to say, “Eighty-six degrees? The human body is hotter than that.”

True. She was right.

“Why doesn’t it burn?” She asked.

I realized how little I understand, in this overwhelming world.

A mid-life hot flash crept through my system, with its burning and suffocating sense of internal unease. I doused the heat with a drink of water. One of the earliest cases of purported spontaneous combustion was a woman named Nicole Millet, back in the 1700s. She was found burned, left as only a skull and spine resting in the ashes. Her husband was initially charged with her murder, though later, through a court trial, he was acquitted, her death ruled an “act of God.” All of these years after her death by fire, I wonder — did the court reach a just verdict? Was her death domestic violence, an act of God, or the mysteries of the human body? Could it have been genuine spontaneous combustion? Was she threatened, I wondered. Was she afraid.

How did we all not explode, in that court, in the heat of injustice and fury?

The legal system, from what I saw, was never looking for justice, so much as it was looking for justification, to hold old narratives in place.

I’d accomplished something with the sale of my third book. Maybe it was a small accomplishment in the scope of the universe, but it mattered in my personal vision: I like the way the book turned out. I’d given myself a voice. I’d leaned in. And in leaning in, I bruised a male ego, as easily as bruising a ripe peach. My husband assuaged his damaged sense of entitlement first through violence and then, when I escaped his reach, through vindictiveness and financial abuse. He closed accounts, moved money, hid funds. He was assisted rather than censured by the process of court. I will probably pay, in a very literal way, for my success in publishing a third book, for the rest of my life.

To give an abuser money is to grant that person access to lawyers. It’s empowering.

There’s a cultural stereotype we live with of the broke, single mother. This role appears as a natural casualty of divorce. I suppose, like many people, I may have grown up in the ambient atmosphere of tacit assertion, unchallenged belief, that this is rooted in a woman’s general underemployment, lack of financial awareness, lower education, or greater investment in raising childrenThat all might play a part in it. But in my personal experience now, I have been brought from a well-situated, financially savvy primary wage earner, to a broke, single mother, very actively and specifically through my experience in the courtroomA Men’s Rights lawyer racked up billable hours with an unfounded money grab, and once we’d proven his route wasn’t supported by law, the judge acted on a whim and gave the rest of our marital funds to my violent ex husband. It cost a fortune to again assert adhering to the law, rather than letting the judge’s ruling stand without foundation.

Manufactured maternal poverty is the effect and the outcome of male rage in a world which enfranchises male entitlement, aggression, violence, overreach, and misrepresentation of facts. This is what I know, now. Stock in trade. Common as dirt. It happens all the time.

]]>
Anatomy Of A Scam: The National Association Of Professional Women https://theestablishment.co/anatomy-of-a-scam-the-national-association-of-professional-women-94304c38fb35/ Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:23:10 +0000 https://theestablishment.co/?p=1327 Read more]]> How an organization ostensibly dedicated to helping women is ripping them off to profit men.

“Did you want to put that on Visa, Mastercard, or American Express today?”

The question was posed about 15 minutes into my phone call with a saleswoman from the National Association of Professional Women, who was doggedly trying to sign me up for a “standard” $489 yearly membership plan.

The plan would, she promised, provide me the opportunity to be profiled on their website and in their newsletter “among some of the most influential women in the country!” I’d already rebuffed offers for a $989 “Elite” plan and $789 “Preferred” plan — and this, she assured me, was the most cost-effective option yet.

What the saleswoman didn’t address is why the price remained so steep — or why, if membership cost hundreds of dollars, the collateral I’d received in the mail explicitly stated that there would be “no cost” to join.

It was a call first set in motion months earlier, when I received a packet in the mail inviting me to join the association. At the time, NAPW sounded commendable, presenting itself as a preeminent resource for professional women who — no surprise here — are at a systemic disadvantage in the workplace.

Yet in talking on the phone to this salesperson, I became only more convinced of something I’d spent the previous few months discovering via a lengthy investigation process: the NAPW, far from empowering women, profits off conning them.

NAPW dates back to 2007 and touts itself as “America’s largest, most-recognized networking organization for women,” with the empowering tagline, “THE POWER TO BE YOU.” Citing more than 700,000 members nationwide and upwards of 200 local chapters, the organization promises online and in-person networking, educational tools, career opportunities, news, and more.

In addition to its impressive membership numbers, NAPW boasts a high-profile president and national spokeswoman — Star Jones, the lawyer and journalist best known for her stints on The View and Celebrity Apprentice. According to the NAPW website, Jones’ role is to promote “the organization’s message, brand, and image worldwide.”

In September, speaking to Forbes, Jones had positive words to share about her involvement with the association:

“I never want to take for granted how rare it is to wake up each morning and know for certain that each day I will play a part in changing a woman’s life for the better by providing her with employment, opportunity and access.”

Yet despite NAPW’s impressive-sounding pedigree, and Jones’ inspirational soundbites, hundreds of women have not only shared negative experiences about the organization, but in some cases, gone so far as to call it a scam.

Currently, the Better Business Bureau has 340 open complaints on file about NAPW, enough to saddle it with a D consumer rating. On Yelp, it has an average rating of 1 star out of 5, based on 305 reviews. And fired-up blogs about its deceptive practices contain headlines like “Don’t get suckered” and “Businesswomen Beware.”

Women describe high premiums for membership, hidden fees, relentless upselling, and automatic re-subscriptions that are purposely misleading and nearly impossible to get out of. They also say they glean little to no value out of the organization. Despite touting itself as a premier networking service, actual NAPW offerings include e-newsletters peddling weight loss products and eyelash extensions, and “opportunities” to pay for plaques and VIP recognition.

(After repeatedly calling and emailing NAPW for this story, they declined to answer my questions.)

Meanwhile, according to SEC filings, the organization — following a merger last year with the Professional Diversity Network — raked in more than $13.8 million in revenue in the first six months of this year alone. And the people profiting off this fiscal success aren’t professional women at all — but, according to the company’s own financial records, Jones and male executives who earn high-six-figure salaries, multimillion-dollar payouts, and perks like company-funded personal drivers.

The Hard Sell

The Better Business Bureau’s D rating of the NAPW is largely based on criticisms about its sales and billing practices. Of the 340 complaints on file, 153 are filed under “advertising/sales issues,” and another 134 under “billing/collection issues.”

On its website, the Better Business Bureau notes:

“BBB files indicate a pattern concerning issues with the advertising and customer service representatives of the National Association of Professional Women (NAPW). Many consumers tell BBB that they are misled regarding membership prices, membership levels, and additional fees for processing and set-up. For example, consumers reported seeing an ad for free membership for NAPW on LinkedIn. However, these consumers claim that when they contact NAPW to take advantage of that offer, they find out that joining is not free. Some consumers also allege that they were subjected to high pressure sales tactics by company representatives to join the organization even before they understood the costs or benefits. Other consumers that originally agreed to join the organization but opted afterward to cancel the membership say that they have difficulty reaching any company representatives to seek a refund.”

A few weeks after incorporating The Establishment (as Empress Media), I received solicitation documents from NAPW which twice stated explicitly that membership would be free. The organization’s advertising on LinkedIn also makes no mention of a cost to join.

Yet in reality, if you want to take advantage of any of the organization’s services — including its networking events, conferences, educational tools, or newsletters — it costs anywhere from $99 to thousands of dollars annually. On my call with the salesperson, I was told that the free membership was “mainly for those who are unemployed.”

In addition to the bait and switch on cost, women often complain about pushy salespeople who rely on disingenuous tactics to solicit money. Sabrina Delgado, an L.A.-based business unit manager in the aerospace industry, was working at her desk last August when she received a call from a NAPW sales rep. After “really stroking my ego,” Delgado said the rep finally shared that it would cost somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000 for annual membership. When Delgado balked — “I wasn’t expecting anything that egregious,” she told me — the salesperson kept bumping down the price to lower-tier levels of membership. Finally, after being promised networking opportunities including free local chapter events, Delgado caved and paid between $700 and $800.

The exchange, she said, felt like a “time-share experience.”

Jane Smith, an animal science education program coordinator based in Austin, Texas, whose name has been changed for professional reasons upon request, shared a similar exchange. “The initial experience was quite rough, and the woman who had called me to tell me that I had been nominated and fit the organization well would almost not let me get off of the phone unless I had paid for a subscription,” she said. “She was initially very polite and answered my questions; however, when I let her know that the $899 subscription was far too expensive, she let me know that I could try an initial, first-year subscription for $199.” She accepted — a decision she says she later came to regret — but not before being asked to recommend someone else, a co-worker who subsequently endured “the same rude conversation and eventually just told the woman no.”

Barbara Johnson, who works in higher education within the University of Maryland system, and also wishes to protect her name for professional reasons, spoke to a sales rep earlier this year. She, too, described a lengthy phone interview process infused with ego-stroking and trumped-up claims about the benefits of membership. “The saleswoman was going on and on and telling me about all these connections I’d make and perks I’d get and the happiness the organization would bring me,” Johnson recalled. “And then she says, ‘All this can be yours for $999, and will that be debit or credit?’” When Johnson balked (“I said, ‘stop the party: $9.95 or $995?,’” she recalled), the salesperson kept bumping down the price, until they agreed on an “introductory” $199 package.

Johnson also emphasized that the person she spoke with used a practice common to deceptive upselling: talking so fast, it seemed she was being “tricked” into purchase. Anna Chan, a development and special events manager in New York City, similarly described the salesperson she talked with “speaking very fast” in her efforts to close the deal.

On Yelp, stories about fishy sales techniques are ubiquitous, with many specifically questioning the organization’s practice of starting with an exorbitant fee, then reducing it incrementally. And the selling doesn’t stop with the hefty membership charge.

Delgado recalled how, during her initial conversation, the salesperson went on to pitch her a special glass plaque that she could use to display her association with the “prestigious group.” “After five minutes of talking about this,” Delgado recalled, “[the salesperson] goes, it’ll be a fee of $89.99 or whatever the fee was. I was thinking, Oh great, at least I get this perk, then all of a sudden she drops this price on me.”

Johnson, meanwhile, was charged for a plaque despite insisting that she did not want to purchase it. “Lady, you’re charging me for things I said no to; I just wanted the introductory fee,” she remembers telling the salesperson.

Also coming at a cost? Special “VIP” recognition. On Yelp in July, “Jaime E.” recounted:

“They just called again to congratulate me on being selected for their VIP circle, for outstanding commitment to my profession and advancing professional women. I would get press releases, a mahogany frame with a certificate inside, and superpowers . . . Here I am thinking ‘Sweet, this is legitimate, and I rock!’ Just like when I signed up, she went on and on about the benefits before finally pitching (once again) the $999 cost. I hate how nonchalant they do it. They just slip it in and move right on, confirming your card on file, and buttering me up with more benefits. I had to stop her and say, ‘Wait, $999 today?’”

Women recount other hidden fees as well; Johnson said she was charged $100 for a “profile fee” that she was never informed of, while Wendy C. Hart, a regional marketing director in Iowa, said she was charged $99 for a “set-up fee” to enter her name into the system.

Not only are NAPW’s fees frequently hidden, they’re also ongoing. Once members sign in to the NAPW website, they lock themselves into an annual re-charge on their credit card. And the organization’s refund policy makes it very difficult to recoup the money lost.

Delgado, for her part, was shocked when she discovered, one year after first signing up, that her credit card had again been charged another $750 or so. The organization claimed it mailed her warning notices, but Delgado had moved; and anyway, she said, “they have my e-mail, and I never got an e-mail that said I was up for re-subscription.” When Delgado called the organization to complain, all they were able to offer was a 50% refund, which she was forced to accept. “I had no warning and no window to act appropriately had I wanted to,” Delgado recalled of the re-subscription. “To me, this is pretty damn unfair.”

When Johnson decided to cancel her membership just three days in, she was also denied a refund. The best they were able to offer was her money back on the unauthorized $100 “profile charge” and half of the $199 annual membership fee. Johnson considers herself one of the lucky ones; “they only got $100 out of me,” she said.

Chan noted a couple other red flags as well, including the fact that the only way to purchase NAPW membership is via phone call (many organizations allow you to sign up online). The association, she said, also listed her name, company, and position on its website without her authorization, and despite the fact that she didn’t agree to a membership. “I have no control over my profile and assume I would have to pay for a membership to be able to edit my own profile” Chan said, before echoing a familiar lament: “I have emailed them to ask if they can remove my listing, but no one has responded yet.”

In 2013, the Better Business Bureau reached out to NAPW to inform them of mounting consumer complaints. Its response?

“ . . . much of the trend is caused not by actual user experience but by comments which follow from negative PR found online, which is then repeated without basis to BBB. In nearly every case, we have telephone recordings and transactional documents supporting our interactions with consumers, but we never submit those in our response. Rather, we simply acquiesce and credit the consumer.”

All of this — the deflection of consumer criticisms, the pushy sales tactics, the relentless up-selling, the high rates, the automatic re-subscription — would perhaps be palatable if the money went toward a valuable service. Indeed, in my own call with NAPW, I was promised “business contacts,” “seminars,” “regional and national events,” and “endless networking opportunities.”

Instead, many women who pay for membership recount getting little more than newsletters filled with partner product discounts, sub-par webinars, chapter meetings that require still more money, and, perhaps most troublingly, the dogged peddling of beauty and diet products.

NAPW Helps Women . . . Lose Weight And Lengthen Their Lashes

The NAPW website, in addition to flaunting its hundreds of thousands of members, is rife with discounts and promotions offered to members through its extensive corporate partnerships.

The online marketplace CareXtend, for example, maintains its own portal on NAPW, selling products in the categories of “fitness, weight loss, nutrition, personal care, vitamins/supplements, beauty and spa, vision, dental, and much more to help you stay healthier for less.” The marketplace shills everything from diet pills and detox packs to exercise equipment like flex pads.

The organization also promotes products in blog posts like “The Beauty Trend That’s Here To Stay,” which extols the benefits of “dark, long eyelashes” and pitches Rush O Lash, a $99 serum that “allows you to reach an 80% increase in eyelash density in just four weeks with no side effects!”

Newsletters sent to members similarly focus on diet, beauty, and domestic products. A July newsletter titled “Take Control Of Your Own Health,” shown in part below, included details on a “flex belt” for an ab workout and Crystal Wash laundry detergent:

In August, a newsletter titled “Eat Right, Look Good” promoted a personalized weight loss program and discounts on a five-day body cleanse and a healthy snack delivery service:

Also in August, the newsletter “Achieve Bold, Thick, Fuller Lashes Now” promoted not only Rush O Lash, but an eye serum, moisturizer, and, again, the ab-toning flex belt.

The July newsletter “Your Member Perks,” meanwhile, didn’t peddle beauty products, but focused exclusively on discounts for companies like Sam’s Club, Six Flags, and T-Mobile — with virtually no additional information to help professional women.

“Half of [the newsletters] have what I feel are inappropriate ads and the other portion sometimes are useful announcements,” said Smith, the former member. “Announcements tend to be covered in what I consider to be all sorts of odd information and advertisements for being from a professional organization.”

The website, too, is focused heavily on its paid partners; the “Benefits” page features a shipping company contact form and a special discount on GEICO auto insurance, while the “Perks” page offers discounts on companies including Target, Disney World, and Best Buy.

“Basically, the discounts [offered by NAPW] are the same or less of a discount than I would get by joining a simple loyalty program, purchasing an entertainment book, or looking through mobile coupon sites,” Hart said.

Another of the organization’s promoted perks — professional trainings — has also come under scrutiny. Smith noted that:

“A good majority of the free trainings are short, less than 10 minutes, and look like they were made in the ’80s. They were not useful to me at all, and a few felt pretty antiquated . . . I can push through a lot of presentations and trainings, but I could not sit through the slow speech, the odd graphics, and there was not any additional information or way to follow along.”

Quality trainings, she noted, were available — but for an additional fee of anywhere between $100 and $200, and sometimes more. “Since the yearly, automatic renewal would be $899, I did not feel like this was really what I had been promised as far as access to hundreds of free professional development trainings,” she said.

As for the organization’s promised events, its signature annual networking conference does tout an impressive pedigree. Last year’s event, held at the Marriott Marquis in New York City, drew 1,500 attendees to catch speakers including Good Morning America host Robin Roberts, plus-size model Emme, and Shark Tank judge Barbara Corcoran. According to Delgado, though, this conference is only accessible to members who pay for the top tiers of membership.

This year, the organization hosted a three-city National Networking Summit Series of events, with stops in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Registration cost a relatively reasonable $100, plus $75 for a Foundation Luncheon featuring Jones, with “discounted or free admission based on [membership] tier.”

Much of the organization’s services fall to its network of local chapters, which host events ranging from panel discussions and networking luncheons to get-togethers like “Girls Nite Out” (for “facials and fun”) and “What Does Your Dress Say About You? IMPRESS OR DISTRESS?”

These events, though — even for those who have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to be a member — often require an additional fee. Delgado details how a sales rep assured her that local chapter events would be free. But when she connected with the leader of her nearest chapter in Los Angeles, she was told that their meetings were held at restaurants, and would require payment of around $40. When Delgado called the organization to complain about the bait and switch on cost, she was told that meetings are indeed free, but that the restaurant requires additional money. She never tried to attend an event again.

Yelp includes similar tales about extra money required to attend chapter meetings. “I tried convincing one [chapter] group to meet at a more reasonably priced location, and was chastised for nagging and being negative,” wrote “Jessica M” in June. “So sorry for pointing out that restaurants requiring $25/plate might deter women who actually need help.”

Others have complained about the chapter meetings actually serving as vehicles for promotion. “I often found that the women in the room [at chapter meetings] were running their own small services like real estate, massage, acupuncture, etc. so there was no chance for me to network with them because they were really only trying to just promote their business,” wrote “K.C.” in May.

Chan, too, noted that when she checked out her local NYC Chapter website, it “looked like a commercial and exclusive ‘network’ of women who join for self-glorification and self-advertisement,” with lots of indirect marketing for outside companies. She was not interested, she said, in “attending social events that involve spas, products, or buying tickets to a gala.”

Still more women online have complained about chapter meetings being canceled for three months straight, chapter officers being unresponsive, and no chapter meetings held nearby. Hart, for instance, was told by her representative that she could find local chapters in the Des Moines area. But, she says, “when I looked it up online, there were none.”

Some, though, have shared positive experiences with chapter meetings. Last May, “Alyssa R.” wrote that after reaching out to a local chapter president, “it stepped up my business to a higher level.” Also last May, “Ruth G.” shared that “I joined the Los Angeles chapter many years ago, many of us have become best friends and we gain from each other a bast [sic] knowledge and experiences that help us in our daily jobs.”

Still, overwhelmingly among the online reviews and women I interviewed, members seem highly dissatisfied with NAPW’s services, especially considering how much they cost. Which raises the question: just who isbenefiting from NAPW?

Men At The Top

Since its inception, men have helmed NAPW.

In 2007, the organization was founded by Matthew Proman, who also served as its CEO until his resignation in July of this year. Prior to launching NAPW, Proman was involved with Who’s Who publications, the biographical directories that have often been cited as predatory scams.

In 2005, Proman filed the trademark for Cambridge Who’s Who at an address next door to the current NAPW national headquarters. Just one year after the filing, Cambridge Who’s Who was facing so much consumer criticism that it sued Ripoff Report over documented complaints. Additionally, between 2007 and 2010, the Better Business Bureau reported 387 complaints against the organization. (After Proman left Cambridge Who’s Who, its reputation improved, and it now has an A- rating with the BBB.)

The marketing tactics used by Cambridge Who’s Who closely echo those now used by the NAPW, with ads on LinkedIn trumpeting free inclusion to an exclusive network that subjects later discover requires a fee. People targeted online by Cambridge Who’s Who have reported initially receiving an invitation specifying “no cost” to membership, then being asked to pay anywhere from a couple hundred to upwards of $1,000 to be a part of the registry and receive a copy of the directory. (Interestingly, in April 2010, Cambridge Who’s Who welcomed one Donald Trump Jr., scion of the business mogul-cum-presidential candidate, as its executive director of global branding and networking.)

Complaints against Cambridge Who’s Who weren’t the first time Proman came under fire for his professional ethics. In 1997, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. filed a complaint against Proman alleging that he hired an imposter to take his Series 7 Qualification Exam. He was subsequently censured, fined $50,000, and barred from association with any NASD member. (Nine years later, he filed a request with NASD seeking to vacate the bar, on the grounds that it had a continuing adverse affect on him.)

In the wake of mounting complaints, Proman left Cambridge Who’s Who in 2007 to found a new organization: the National Association of Professional Women. By all accounts, it was a lucrative business move: when Proman resigned from NAPW to “pursue other ventures” in July of this year, he walked with $3.8 million, plus $445,000 to be paid over time.

With Proman gone, NAPW is now being led by another man, James Kirsch, the white male CEO of the Professional Diversity Network (PDN), which NAPW merged with in September of last year.

Like NAPW, PDN has a track record of exploiting consumers. Only in their case, the targets aren’t just women.

A Powerful Merger

The Professional Diversity Network is a publicly traded company that presents itself as a premier diversity recruitment and networking organization, operating diversity career fairs and websites devoted to the black, Asian, Hispanic, disabled, military veterans, and LGBTQ communities.

In October 2014 — just one month after PDN merged with NAPW — one of PDN’s primary clients voluntarily terminated its agreement with the organization. That client? The Apollo Education Group, the parent company of the University of Phoenix, which has come under fire for financially exploiting two of PDN’s key demographics — people of color and military veterans.

Specifically, the University of Phoenix and similar for-profit institutions have been called out for profiting off the federal loans of low-income people who don’t have the means to pay them back. In return, these students often get a subpar education that they either don’t complete or can’t leverage into careers. The Education Trust has accused the University of Phoenix of delivering “crippling debt” to its students, and its predatory admission sales practices made it liable for $242 million in regulatory fines and whistleblower judgments between 1999 and 2013.

Despite these legal issues, PDN accepted millions of dollars from the Apollo Group between January 2011 and September 2014 to promote the University of Phoenix to its members (many of whom, incidentally, don’t appear to have credible LinkedIn accounts). Per an agreement entered into in 2012, Apollo paid PDN a fixed monthly fee of $116,667 to provide “recruitment solutions for the University of Phoenix student and alumni career services.” PDN was also paid to help with “lead generation” for the university.

In 2012, 35% of PDN’s revenue came from Apollo; in 2013, 36% did. (Most of PDN’s additional revenue has come from LinkedIn and Monster, both of which have cut ties with the organization in the past few years.)

As noted, PDN ended its official relationship with the University of Phoenix at the time of its merger with NAPW. Yet just this year, Apollo Group and the University of Phoenix were listed as sponsors at NAPW’s National Networking Summit events.

Kirsch in particular has profited handsomely off PDN’s “strategic partnership” with the University of Phoenix. In 2012, the same year PDN began helping the university with “recruitment solutions,” Kirsch was paid $1.3 million as “additional compensation.” (This was in addition to a $200,000 salary in 2012 and 2013, and a $256,250 salary, plus $50,000 bonus, in 2014.)

Back in 2010, PDN additionally paid nearly half a million dollars to help Kisch purchase a Miami condo. And in 2013 and 2014, the organization paid a total of $145,950 to lease two cars to Kirsch, plus $18,978 in those same years for a “car allowance.” (In its paperwork, the company lists the condo and cars as being used for “business purposes.”)

On the employer-review site Glassdoor, former PDN employees have complained that “many products and services offered are a scam.” And — curiously for an organization that recently merged with a women’s association — PDN employees have lamented the organization’s lack of females in leadership roles, “boy’s club culture,” and tendency to be “dismissive of issues with sexism and sexual harassment.”

Glassdoor also includes complaints about Kirsch. One former employer describes the executive as “rather abrasive,” while another says he “is not very professional and he enjoys trying to intimidate employees that he perceives to be weak.”

These complaints about PDN’s workplace culture are echoed at NAPW, where the actual professional women it employs have complained of low wages, a toxic work environment — and even, in one case, sexual abuse.

Working At NAPW

To recruit its members, NAPW employs a healthy roster of mostly female salespeople — and they, unlike the organization’s executives, earn well less than the industry standard. According to Glassdoor, wages range from $2,000 a month for a membership coordinator, account manager, and sales rep, to $39,000 annually for a membership specialist and administrative assistant. The job site Indeed.com reports an average salary of $30,000, 47% lower than average salaries for all job postings worldwide.

Jennifer Avicolli, who worked as a senior membership coordinator at NAPW between August 2010 and February 2012, said, “As with any sales company, you have greedy people and people who genuinely care about the needs and lifestyle of the prospective member and [are willing to work with them to] find something that is financially comfortable.”

Still, she said, “as the company progressed I believe greed set in on every level,” leading the environment to “become like a sales factory.” Specifically, Avicolli pegs the shift to about six months to a year after she started, when the organization added more employees, opened a new office in California, and hired Jones as its spokesperson.

The sales office environment she described is like something out of Glengarry Glen Ross, with leads distributed into employee “bins,” and the biggest sellers garnering the best leads. As with most sales jobs, income is commission-based; when Avicolli was there, only those who reached a total of $3,500 in sales started receiving any commission.

To make the sales, Avicolli said, management “want you to close on that first phone call you have with the prospective member.”

“The women who work for these organizations are hard-working women,” she emphasized. “The pressure to get the sale makes them crazy sometimes and the pressure the managers get makes them get crazier, then the greed gets the best of some owners and it’s a vicious cycle.”

On Glassdoor, complaints about the work environment have landed the organization a rating of 2.5 stars out of 5 stars based on 51 reviews, with workers singling out low wages, unethical marketing practices, and an HR department that regularly fires employees. Reviews include snippets like:

“star jones does not give a crap about the NAPW or anyone in it. It’s just a $300,000 yearly salary plus more money for her. She treats employees like crap.”

And:

“we are supposed to be about empowerment of women and we are a office of all women and upper management could care less about us.”

In a post titled “this place is sick,” an employee questioned the site’s handful of positive reviews, writing:

“notice several recently are nearly identical, that’s management trying to con women (oh EEOC is there a problem not one male out of 100 sales reps?) into this mentally draining mill. They are trying to bury the reviews don’t let it work.”

There have been legal woes for the company, too; in October 2013, four female former employees sued NAPW and three of its executives on account of a female manager who regularly pinched and grabbed their butts and called them vulgar names. In a separate lawsuit, another former employee documented the same manager approaching her from behind and grabbing, squeezing, or rubbing her neck, then dropping her hands “to touch, rub and/or feel the top” of her breasts.

The four women in the first suit claimed they were fired or forced to resign as a result of complaining about the sexual harassment.

The Future Of NAPW

Despite the consumer complaints and lawsuits, NAPW seems to be doing better than ever. In a financial news release from this August, PDN (which, in addition to merging with NAPW, also acquired Noble Voice, a career consultation services company) announced that its revenues increased 907% compared to the same period last year.

Of the $21.1 million PDN made in the first six months of 2015, $13.8 million came directly from NAPW: $13.5 million from “membership fees and related services” (including money from the hidden fees and automatic re-subscription charges) and another $300,429 from “products sales and others.”

This revenue boon is partly attributable to a rather remarkable boost in paid membership; in July of this year, the organization announced it had garnered1.5 million new registered users in the previous six months, and 530,251 in July alone.

In addition to Proman and Kirsch, another person who has been profiting off this boon is Star Jones. The former View host assumed her role as president of NAPW in June 2014, making $80,769 for the remainder of that year, plus an additional $20,754 to pay for a personal driver. Post-merger, she assumed her new role as president and director of PDN, earning $5.4 million worth of restricted stock. (Delgado, when I spoke with her, was surprised to learn Jones was paid at all, as she is often touted as a high-profile “member” and “spokesperson” for the organization, not as a well-paid employee.)

In her recent interview with Forbes, Jones expressed the promise of the organization she stands to earn millions off of:

“Women need to help women. Bottom line: Rising tides lift all boats! When women help one another professionally — especially women at the top — everyone benefits, from the men and women in the mailroom or on the loading docks to the Board of Directors.”

Ironically, it’s this very sentiment that underscores the problem so many women have with NAPW. In June, Hart wrote an email to an NAPW sales rep that captured the disappointment of many of the women I spoke with.

Below is a snippet cited exactly from Hart’s email that was forwarded to me:

“I am in sales too and I know how rough it can be. You are pressured to make money, are terrified you can’t pay your bills if you don’t sell to some stupid person TODAY and probably don’t feel good about what you do. I am speaking to you from Woman to Woman so please read . . . I am asking you from the bottom of my heart to please cancel the pending charge on my credit card for the ‘Introductory’ version of the membership.

As you know, the NAPW is not reputable (Unfortunately, I learned after the fact) and has taken advantage of many Women like you and Me that are trying to get by and do the right thing day after day. I have very limited funds and took a chance on the NAPW instead of spending money on something else that can be truely [sic] useful in marketing my business. Even $199.00 + $99.00 introductory fee is a lot of money for me.

I am so hurt and disappointed that the NAPW is doing business by scamming other Women.”

As for my own phone call with NAPW, the salesperson — who, I must note, was perfectly nice and professional, even as she kept asking if I’d prefer debit or credit — eventually let me go with the free membership plan offering essentially no benefits.

As I neared the end of my call, I tried to ask how the organization even found me.

“That’s not any information that I even have access to. I don’t know,” the saleswoman replied, then quickly added, “But anyway, enjoy your free membership and enjoy your day.”

I never received any information on my free membership.

And just like that, she was on to the next call.

]]>