How the Court of Versailles Contributed to the Contemporary Struggle Against Virulent Oral Microorganisms

Seventeenth century France at the Palace of Versailles represented the best of times and the worst of times. Behind the glittering parties and hallways lined with gold, lay a very dirty, ugly reality. While the royal family smiled on the outside, their internal smiles often hid rotten, infected, and missing teeth. At this time, the term oral hygiene did not yet exist-that is, until it wreaked death and misfortune on royal generations to come.

Louis XIV’s severe dental problems led to the appointment of the world’s first official dentist. At the beginning of Louis XIV’s reign, dentistry remained the practice of charlatans. Tonics, bloodletting, leeching, and the extraction of teeth represented the entirety of this largely ineffective practice. After several bouts with severe toothaches, followed by several tooth removals, a major infection took over the king’s mouth. Because of this infection, more teeth had to be subsequently removed. This incident led to the King appointing a special dentist in 1712, with the exclusive job of preserving the few teeth he had left. (1) Nevertheless, the King’s special dentist relied upon the traditional practices of the day, which unfortunately remained largely ineffective.

Dental infections not only affected the king but also contributed to the high infant mortality rate experienced by the royal court. Queen Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV, suffered from rotten teeth, with her remaining ones completely blackened. (1) The queen’s body weakened and riddled with constant infections originating in her mouth, she lost five children shortly after childbirth or in early infancy. Only one of her children survived to adulthood. (3) In 1741, Queen Marie-Therese’s grandson, Louis XV realizing the overall health significance of caring for one’s teeth, issued a royal decree giving dentists ” a status of their own and no longer… count(ing) them among the odd charlatans.” (1)

Louis XV’s granddaughter, Princess Marie-Therese, born on July 19, 1746, died before reaching the age of two. She had fallen victim of a “toothache too brutal” and was grossly “ill-treated.” (2) The death of the little girl represented true heartbreak for the crown prince, as she represented the only link he still had to his late first wife. (2) In an effort to forestall such future calamities, in 1755, Dr. Julien Botot, the official royal court dentist, presented Louis XV with a new invention; a paste that one applies to their teeth, for the exclusive purpose of keeping them healthy. In addition to that, he also concocted an oral rinse, with the aspiration of assisting in removing unseemly odors. He called the paste “toothpaste” and the rinse “mouthwash.” (1). News of these new inventions spread throughout the royal court, across the country, and then ultimately throughout Europe, contributing significantly to our dental practices today.

The twenty-first century led to a plethora of challenges in the dental industry. New, inventive toothpaste and mouthwashes hit the burgeoning market. Teeth become whiter, straighter, and longer lasting, largely because of more stringent standards of cleanliness. However, in 2005, the World Health Organization released a paper advocating the reduction of mercury in the cleaning solutions of hospitals. (4) This factor, coupled with the systematic overuse of antibiotics, (5) contributed to the rise of superbugs, or virulent microorganisms, including Stepelococous, Staph, and Candida. (6) Today, our mouths represent the most effective way for these superbugs to enter our bodies, and the results are catastrophic. Systemic health effects include “cardiovascular disease, bacterial pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, and low birth weight.” (7) The most vulnerable members of our society are at greatest risk-that is, seniors wearing partials, and children wearing braces or other orally insertable devices.

The reality of systemic health problems affecting our most vulnerable has led to further innovations in the dental industry. One company making great strides in this area is Soluria. With their highly advanced cleaners, specifically made for orally inserted devices, Soluria is contributing greatly to the halt of microorganisms and systemic diseases originating in the mouth. (8) Just as the death of Marie-Therese led to the creation of toothpaste and mouthwash, the rise of modern-day superbugs has led to new highly effective cleaners for both teeth and orally inserted devices. These liquids represent the newest generation of dental cleansers, stepping far beyond traditional toothpaste and mouthwashes. As the superbugs of today continue to evolve and change, so must the dental industry. The industry must stay steps ahead, especially in regard to cleaning oral devices, as they are continually used by society’s most vulnerable.

The severe dental problems experienced by the royal court of Versailles ultimately led to great advances in the dental industry as well as personal hygiene. From the recognition of the industry in 1712, to the invention of toothpaste in 1755, dentistry evolved and changed initially within the confines of the royal court. (1) Their new smiles infected those around them, in a good way, with the advances spreading throughout the nobles, the townspeople, Europe, and ultimately the world, changing the teeth of everyone for the better. Today, with the rise of superbugs, and the appearance of virulent oral microorganisms, Soluria is making advances in the dental industry for those wearing removable oral devices of all types, especially the new innovations in clear braces. With specialized products like Smile Saver™, created specifically for these devices, Soluria is making the latest advances in helping these patients have a better experience and begin to look at ways to help win the fight against oral systemic health issues. (8)

For further information about the latest advancements in cleaners and sanitizers for removable oral devices in a highly desired on-the-go format, please go to soluria.com

1. http://thisisversaillesmadame.blogspot.com/2017/01/a-tale-of-royal-teeth-black-rotten-gone.html
2. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_de_France_(1746-1748)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_of_Spain
4. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf
5. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0503-unnecessary-prescriptions.html
6. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111/j.1472-765x.2011.03031.x
7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC88948/
8. https://soluria.com

Why do Women Still Make Less Than Men In The Modern Day Workforce?

Today, studies exist indicating that, on average, women in the United States make $0.77 on the $1.00 to every man. This “gender gap” as it is called, has raised real concerns amongst feminists and non-feminists alike. The parameters of the study included all women in America versus all men in America, and did not take into consideration work parity or differences such as full-time or part-time work. Many individuals felt that the lack of parameters in the study immediately debunked it, arguing that when analyzing males and females in similar positions, the gender gap dissipates, falling within the margin of error. However, this leads to an even bigger question-why are all the women in America making less than all of the men? Furthermore, who is accountable for this “gender gap,” and why does it exist?

As a female business owner, I often feel like a minority. Indeed, women are still a minority in the workforce, and even more of a minority when it comes to business ownership. Being the owner of a successful business requires razor sharp accuracy, overwhelming commitment, and unmeasurable sacrifice. My days are long, my stress levels high, and the responsibility often daunting. Yet, I choose to continue because, ultimately, I truly enjoy having a career and a life based upon achievement. This, however, is not for everyone. This then begs the question: Do American women, on the whole, choose less stressful, lower paying positions, often eschewing business ownership or higher paying positions, because of the heavy toll it can take on themselves and their families?

An analysis of the positions in my own company reveals a possible answer. While the majority of the managers in my company are women, the sales department is comprised entirely of men, save for myself. Why is this? Years ago, I asked my father why he did not have any female sales representatives in his company, of which he is CEO. My father, a proud “honorary woman,” who has championed me every step of the way in my career, sat back in his chair and answered me candidly. “Katherine, dear, I tried hiring a female sales representative a couple of years ago, but before she could start, her husband got transferred. I simply have not had any other women apply.” I heard him loudly and clearly. In this day and age, nearly sixty years after the advent of the feminist movement in the United States, the careers of wives often still take a backseat to that of their husbands.

Indeed, my company has employed female sales representatives in the past. The last one employed simply could not make it work, primarily because of issues relating to childcare. Sales jobs are typically low paying unless the sales representative produces. However, a successful sales representative often earns the most of anyone in a company-sometimes even the owner. Nevertheless, just like business owners, sales representatives work long hours, live under a cloud of stress, and sacrifice a great deal in order to make a hefty paycheck.

For many women, the jobs that pay a consistent salary or a consistent hourly wage, often represent a better alternative than the uncertainty of potentially higher paying positions. This is consistent because of societal responsibilities placed upon them. For example, if children are involved, women are often expected to be the family member retrieving the child from school, or the one to stay home if the child is ill. Women are also, on average, the primary family member expected to monitor the child’s homework, and take them to after-school activities. These responsibilities, one could assert, have contributed significantly to the gender gap.

Another issue contributing to the gender gap, is women opting out of the workforce entirely. I have some female family members and friends who have chosen to be full-time mothers and/or housewives, eschewing a career outside the home. Decisions such as these, arguably, also contribute to the finding of women making $0.77 on the $1.00 to men, since men in America very rarely have the luxury of making such a choice. However, the very fact that this statistic has been identified, means that women as a class are arguably hurting other women, albeit unintentionally, by choosing to make what they view as a “personal choice.” The saying, “The personal is political,” likely comes into play here. Essentially, their “personal choice” contributes to the gender gap, disheartening women who are battling it out in the workforce.

When individuals argue that women staying home is a personal choice, with little to no consequence on other women, one needs to look no further than “Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka,” 347 U.S. 483 (1954) where the Supreme Court ruled
“separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Simply put, segregation in our society based on race is illegal. Consequently, one can also argue that segregation in our society based on gender is illegal. Perhaps this is an extreme example, but if a certain amount of African Americans decided to remain enslaved, would not other African Americans find this unacceptable? Following this logic, when a certain amount of American women decide to remain at home, should not other American women find this unacceptable? The assertion that women staying home is equal to men in the workforce is arguably a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States. Separate is not equal-ever. It is not equal in race, and it is not equal in gender. Following suit, tax breaks for families with a mother at home are probably a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and a society that demands women to be the primary caregivers to children is a violation also. Equal is equal-period. As my husband puts it, equal rights means equal financial responsibility as well as equal pain and suffering.

It is fair to say, for the gender gap to truly disappear, deep seated changes in our society must take place. What are the solutions? Perhaps tax breaks for daycare, or expanding public education to six weeks of age. Another possibility is businesses receiving tax breaks for providing on-site daycare. Most significantly, women must be instilled with the desire to work, and to value the freedoms that a career provides them, such as economic independence and buying power. Furthermore, families must learn to share the burden of raising children and not expect mothers to be the primary caregivers. There are a plethora of ideas one can put forth that could help alleviate or even eliminate the gender gap. As a feminist, and as a business owner, I search for these solutions on a daily basis. However, today, in 2018, the gender gap still exists, and the struggle for gender equality is still very real and ongoing.

In conclusion, as a female business owner, I am in a unique position to help other women in the workforce, while also observing the societal forces that continue to hold us back. In order for the gender gap truly to be overcome in the United States, it can be argued that we must abandon the thought that women staying home is a personal choice of no consequence to working women. Instead, women must start viewing themselves as a class of individuals, deserving of more than “separate but equal.” Equal rights for all means equal responsibility for all. Only when we as a society make this paradigm shift, will the decidedly disappointing gender gap truly disappear.

Why Economic Freedom is Key to Female Autonomy.

The 1960’s represented a time of cultural change for women in America. Women banded together and fought for their rights, demanding acknowledgment as individuals and not just as marital property. By doing so, women won the right to a workplace without discrimination, the right to have their income counted toward home loans, the right to reproductive freedom, and even the right to keep their own last names. Women moved steadily into the workforce and for the first time since the outbreak of WWII the economy, as well as the social landscape of America, rapidly changed.

As the women’s rights movement progresses through time, there are still serious factors that derail our progress and development as individuals. One of the most serious factors is economic dependence on the male gender. As a female growing up, my mother stressed to me over and over, “You will go to college, you will have a career, and you will always work. You will never depend economically on a man because you never know when he might leave.” As a result, I got a college degree, a master’s degree, and further post-graduate work, ultimately becoming the CEO/President of my own company. To this day, my mother never hesitates to tell me how proud she is of me, and that while telling me those things as a child, she honestly thought her words “went through one ear and out the other.” I have demonstrated to her through my life choices that they most certainly did not.

Despite my life choice of economic independence, I have family members and friends who have chosen otherwise. I have friends that are career stay-at-home mothers, friends that work as their significant other’s personal assistant, and a friend that chose to re-enter the workplace once her children were school aged. In all cases, these women gave up portions of their autonomy, because they did not control the checkbook, putting themselves in positions of being economically dependent on their husbands. Why is this dangerous? Many people argue it is not. These people may believe that women are meant to be dependent on men economically, or that taking care of the family and not working outside the home is the best option for women. They even point to the Holy Bible as vindication for this belief, referencing the book of Kings, and the ancient Phoenician Queen Jezebel. Anyone who has attended a fundamentalist Christian church is likely familiar with “the spirit of Jezebel,” that is, the “unholy spirit” that tempts women to wear makeup, have sexual freedom, and speak their minds to others, including their husbands. A beautiful, strong-willed woman, Jezebel did all of these things, and when her son died, she attempted to rule Judah on her own. In an act of independence, she confronted a rebellious commander, adorned in a fine wig and make-up, and this simple gesture resulted in her being thrown out a window and devoured by dogs. She didn’t even get a chance to plead her case or mourn the loss of her child before she was murdered for attempting to take control of her own life. Today, many fundamentalist Christians associate female independence as “the spirit of Jezebel,” and warn that this spirit is indicative of the downfall of our civilization. They argue that women and men are meant to work together but women are supposed to be submissive to males. They say that is the natural order and the way God intended.

Again, why is this belief dangerous? It is dangerous because, as my mother said to me, “You never know when the man might leave.” Just this week, a friend of mine lost her significant other in an automobile crash. Having put herself in a position of financial dependence, she now faces a very uncertain economic future. I personally know women who have suffered through a disastrous and abusive marriage, because they felt they could not economically survive without their husband. There are cases of healthy families with stay-at-home mothers, but an enlightened husband must be the breadwinner, and the wife must be willing to give up at least some, if not all, of her financial autonomy.

As a female business owner, I feel it is my duty to empower all of my employees. However, I especially feel an obligation to empower the women within my company. I am fortunate to have females in managerial positions who are transforming themselves, as well as our industry. By providing them careers, I am providing them with an outlet for their talents, as well as economic independence. As women, I feel strongly that we need to bind together, help one another, and support one another, especially in the workplace. Perhaps Jezebel, while demonized by many fundamentalist Christian churches, represents what we all should aspire to be-Queens in our own right, outspoken, and beautiful. Today, as a result of the feminist movement, we have a much better chance of achieving our goals, unlike the unfortunate Queen Jezebel, who met such a gruesome end.

In conclusion, the 1960’s represented a time of great economic and social change for women. While elements still exist in our society attempting to hold women back from economic independence, such as the notion of the “spirit of Jezebel,” we still have a much better chance of achieving economic freedom then our foremothers ever did. As women, economic independence is key to having autonomy over our own lives, wellbeing, and safety. Binding together as women is key to the success of our gender as a whole, and to our lives individually. Let’s allow Queen Jezebel to stand as a role model for what could not be in the Old Testament, but for what we can be today.

Entrepreneurship, Stress, and Self-Care

Entrepreneurial Self Care Steps For Creating And Maintaining A Transformational Workplace

As an entrepreneur, I have undergone a great deal of personal and professional stress over the last ten years. My devotion from the beginning of my entrepreneurial journey has always been to the clients. I swore to myself from the very beginning that I would do everything correctly, and never make a mistake. Like during my undergraduate and graduate degrees, I knew that if I did my homework correctly, aced all the tests, and never missed a class, I would undoubtedly make an A in the class. I approached entrepreneurship the same way. Just as in school, I crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s.

I gave it my all. For a while, I lived in my office, because I was afraid to take a salary. As a matter of fact, I did not draw a paycheck for 3 ½ years. I made 30 cold calls a day and I sold, sold, sold. I always answered the phone, I put myself last, and yes, the company got what it needed. However, my mental and physical health drastically suffered.

My teeth grinding became exacerbated to the point that my jaw would freeze shut. My anxiety levels became unbearably high, to the point I developed migraines. I gained weight, lost patience with my employees, and in many ways became an unpleasant person. There came a point where something had to give.

I have a strategic partner who believes strongly in branding oneself. She has her own website, writes books, and gives speeches. Essentially, she is a role model to others in the industry. Following her example, I thought to myself, “If I am going to brand myself, I must care for myself, and I must like myself.” This led to a profound paradigm shift.

In retrospect, my high stress levels and subsequent attitude had alienated some employees. My thoughts ran faster than they could work, and this made some employees feel as though I did not respect their time. I was short with them, and this led to bad attitudes. The bad attitudes ultimately led to the turnover. It became obvious that the first step in my self-care needed to be transforming myself from the inside out. My transformational journey can be summed up on the following steps:

1. Decide upon a leadership approach.

I decided to at least attempt becoming a transformational leader-that is one who provides a nurturing environment where employees are encouraged to learn and transform themselves as well as the company, in a professionally structured work environment. In doing so, I changed the lighting in the office, brought in a refrigerator with food and drinks, started offering paid vacation to people on salary and began offering continuing education to the staff.

2. Work through your managers.

I decided to adhere to the corporate hierarchy already in place and work through my managers rather than going directly to employees. This forces me to respect their time and not disrupt their flow of work because it is the manager who discusses matters with the employee according to the employee’s schedule, and not me. In many ways, this makes me “the good guy,” and perhaps makes me more approachable. If an employee has a legitimate concern, they might feel more willing to approach me with a solution.

3. Hire competent people

In the beginning, I had people in positions who were not qualified. As the business grew, it quickly became obvious that these individuals were in way over their heads, and everyone suffered. My stress levels skyrocketed, and my anger reached a boiling point. As the company grew, I upgraded my staff, allowing me to loosen the reins and put more responsibility on others.

4. Do not hire people who think they are doing you a favor.

I have learned that if someone says, “I don’t need the money,” or “I am just working here to help you out,” they need to be shown the door immediately. Entrepreneurs need people who need to work, who want a career, and who want to transform themselves as well as the company. If these motivations are not there, then employees develop bad attitudes, leave early, and remind you constantly that they are doing you a favor. As business owners, we need to pat ourselves on the backs and realize that we create jobs and we create opportunities for professional and personal growth. Employees that are money-motivated, and motivated to better themselves as well as the company, become a substantial asset. Anything else is unacceptable and needs to be cut loose. Employees that think they are doing you a favor by working for you merely increase stress levels in the long-run, and demotivates other employees. Keeping your employees all on the same page in terms of motivation is essential to keeping stress levels under control, and entrepreneurial self-esteem at the forefront.

5. Respect your own time, and then others will follow suit

I simply had to start making clients respect my time. In making myself constantly available, I allowed clients to essentially manipulate my entire day. While I treasure my clients and tell them they are welcome to call me at any time, I have learned that I am not always able to answer or drop everything to come and see them. I have a schedule of dates and times that often are scheduled out weeks in advance. I also blog at scheduled times, exercise, and spend time with my family. All of these activities are critical to self-care, and once I started respecting my time, others did also. This predictability in my schedule has contributed to much needed down time, where I am able to decompress and return to work refreshed.

6. Start exercising and eating right.

The stress of my career completely exhausted me by the end of the day. As a result, for many years, exercise of any sort remained completely out of the question. Consequently, I gained weight and became very physically uncomfortable. As part of my entrepreneurial self-care routine, I started working out with a personal trainer three days a week and made these times non-negotiable. While exercising, I do not see clients and I do not answer the phone. As a result, exercise has become an integral part of my life, and my stress levels have gone down substantially. Additionally, my adoption of a low-carb, high vitamin B12 diet has lowered my stress levels and literally changed my life for the better.

In conclusion, the starting and maintaining of a healthy business ultimately requires a physically and mentally healthy person at the helm. While the conditions of entrepreneurship make it easy, and sometimes even preferable to let yourself go, it simply is not healthy for the entrepreneur or the business in the long-run. Entrepreneurial self-care is ultimately a requirement for the creation and sustainment of a transformational working environment. By choosing a leadership style, refining it, and then bettering yourself as a leader, your business and entire entrepreneurial experience will be better for everyone involved. Ultimately, clients, as well as employees, will be encouraged to transform themselves and the opportunities provided by the business will become an overwhelmingly positive experience. Following the self-care steps outlined in the article will lower stress levels and lead to an overall happier, healthier company, with lowered stress levels for all.

Leadership Styles, Transformation, and Success in the Business World

By Katherine Fry, CEO/President of Mediafy Communications

As many individuals with business degrees know, there are nine common leadership styles; transformational, transactional, servant, autocratic, laissez-faire, democratic, bureaucratic, charismatic, and situational.  As a business leader, it is not only wise, but arguably essential, to ask oneself, “What type of leader are you?” It is also important to determine what type of leadership style best motivates ones team. Asking these questions not only assists business leaders in adopting successful characteristics for themselves, but it also assists them in selecting effective managers for their teams.  Here, we will analyze four of these leadership styles.

Transformational Leadership

In the marketing world, individuals are encouraged and even required to use their intellect.  Websites, digital marketing, and marketing campaigns, all require an open environment that fosters creativity as well as critical thinking.  This includes hiring professionals who are able to lead projects without a great deal of supervision, ultimately transforming the company as well as themselves. In order to have transformational employees, a company must have transformational leaders.  In short, these are leaders who trust their employees and want them to contribute as well as grow.Company cultures with transformational leadership often provide continuing education to their staff, and reward “thinking outside the box.” Richard Branson is an excellent example of a transformational company culture.  An overwhelmingly inspiring individual, everything from his social media to his public appearances oozes with transformation. Arguably, this is why he has been so successful in the business world.

Transactional Leadership

In contrast, transactional leadership is based more on a “carrot and stick” type of approach.  In this leadership dynamic, employees must follow a clear chain of command, and not go outside “their lane.”  Company cultures implementing this approach reward adherence to the rules, and are punished for breaking them. In public agencies, government, and even schools, the transactional leadership role is predominant.  If a student follows the rules, they are rewarded. If they do well on a paper, they get an A. However, what is standard and effective in the public sector, often backfires in the private one. Critics state that transactional leaders do not foster creative thinking, and in fact, often penalize for it.  Companies providing creativity to their clients often find themselves stifled by a leader utilizing this approach.

Autocratic Leadership

The autocratic leadership style is often employed by unseasoned business leaders, with little to no managerial experience.  With time, and a willingness to learn, this can transform into a more advanced leadership style. However, during an autocratic leadership period, business leaders often display extreme control over their staff, rarely taking suggestions, and rarely sharing power.  Companies with autocratic leaders typically have “stressed out” employees, high turnover, and a lack of intellectual stimulation amongst their staff. Business leaders who remain autocratic typically do not remain business leaders for long, because unhappy staff typically flee at the first opportunity.  In the marketing world, autocratic leaders must “change or die.” Creative individuals will not stand for it, and non-creative individuals will flee from it. Schooling in management techniques can result in the dissolution of autocratic leadership, but the leader must be willing to change. If the business leader displays an unwillingness to transform their leadership style, the transformation is often made for them, through the business dissolving or being sold to another with more a more advanced leadership style.

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Laissez-Faire leadership or leadership led by “the invisible hand”  is one in which employees are allowed to complete their tasks as they see fit.   Business leaders who employ this approach have the ultimate task of completed projects, happy employees, and happy customers.  However, leaders utilizing this approach realize their are various means “from A to D.” As a result, teams are encouraged to sort out the particulars themselves, as long as the final result is achieved. However, such a leadership style often results in a “double-edged sword”-happy employees but unhappy customers.  When staff performance is monitored, productivity and quality can slip, resulting in details “falling through the cracks.” The Laissez-Faire leadership style is often employed by company leaders who view their jobs as a hobby, or who on the verge of retirement. While great in theory, it is very rarely an effective way to run a profitable and successful company.  Employees need structure to achieve their deadlines, and structure often disappears in such a laid-back environment. Laissez-Faire leadership is often considered the opposite side of the spectrum from Autocratic; while one is often present at the beginning of a leaders career, the other is often often present at its end. Success is arguably found in the middle.

Conclusion

In closing, there are nine forms of leadership styles and four have been analyzed here.  Transformational leaders encourage profit and success through the transformation of their employees and ultimately their company.  Transactional leadership, while effective in the public sphere, is not nearly as effective in the private one. Autocratic and Laissez-Faire leaders represent extreme side of the spectrum, and companies as well as individuals often suffer as a result.  Quite simply, Transformational leaders are open to transformation, and this leads to more effective leadership, happier staff, and more successful companies.