MONEY Love and Money

Do This One Thing If You Want Your Daughters to Succeed at Work

woman in business suit walking from car to house
Peter Cade—Getty Images

Women who are primary breadwinners share this trait.

Want your daughters to grow up to have successful careers? Make sure you encourage their career dreams while they’re young.

A recent survey of professional women found that 44% of those who out-earn their spouses dreamed of having a successful career back when they were little girls. That’s compared with only 25% of the larger set of working women.

Indeed, of those who were working but not the primary breadwinner, 54% said their childhood aspiration was to be a mom. That’s 10 percentage points more than among the primary breadwinners.

The findings come out of a recent study about breadwinning women by the Family Wealth Advisors Council, a national network of independent wealth management firms. And they have implications for parents now, note the study’s authors.

“It’s interesting to speculate what that means for our daughters, since we have different expectations for them than many of our moms did for us, and they’ve grown up in a whole different reality,” says Heather R. Ettinger, managing partner of Fairport Asset Management and co-author of the study, which surveyed more than 1,000 working women.

Not What They Expected

Still, Ettinger says, few of the household breadwinners expected to have that role. “Primary breadwinners are very driven women, but many were raised in more traditional households, and so, while they wanted a successful work life, they also still figured the man would out-earn them.”

A record 40% of all households with children under the age of 18 include mothers who are either the sole or primary source of income for the family, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. The share was just 11% in 1960, Pew noted.

That study found a strong correlation between a breadwinner mom and household wealth. “The median total family income of married mothers who earn more than their husbands was nearly $80,000 in 2011, well above the national median of $57,100 for all families with children,” the Pew report found.

But how does the role affect those women?

According to the more recent study, 40% of working women said they feel pressure from their community, family, and friends to downplay their breadwinner status. And more than a fourth say their parents would at least “somewhat disapprove” of them making more than 50% of the household income.

“The more you contribute to the overall household income, the more likely you are to feel pressure to downplay that status,” says Eileen M. O’Connor, co-founder of Hemington Wealth Management and co-author of the study. “It is surprising to us that so many primary breadwinner women struggle with societal views. These are successful, ambitious, confident women, you expect them to be proud.”

More Income, More Control

Despite the persistent social stigma, primary breadwinners showed greater empowerment when it came to money decisions. The more a woman earns relative to her spouse or partner, the greater her involvement tends to be in every area of the family’s finances — and the greater her knowledge and confidence is when it comes to managing money.

The survey found that working women are responsible for no less than 75% of all financial planning responsibilities in their household. And in certain areas — like charitable giving, paying for college, retirement planning, and saving — they report assuming 90% of the responsibility.

That echoes MONEY’s own survey on this topic, which found that wives who are primary breadwinners were three times as likely as lower-earning women to take the lead in investing and retirement planning.

Considering the tasks they’re taking on, it’s not surprising that women who contribute the most to the household budget are also the most likely to say they are knowledgeable about finances. In the Family Wealth Advisors Council survey, 38% of the primary breadwinners said they have “a good understanding of [their] complete financial plan,” vs. only 31% of the larger group of working women.

In MONEY’s survey, 80% of women who out-earned their husbands said they were very or extremely knowledgeable about financial matters, compared with just over half of those who earned less, and lower-earning women were three times as likely to say they know very little.

Read Next:

What Women Breadwinners Want

7 Ways to Stop Fighting About Money With Your Partner

How to Start a Money Conversation With Your Mate

TIME Small Business

Women and Minority-Owned Small Businesses Still Struggle, Report Shows

female business owner
Getty Images

They've made inroads, but revenues still show inequalities

Women and minorities may own a growing number of small businesses, but the news isn’t so rosy on the revenue side, the Pew Research Center reported on Tuesday.

The report, which is based on preliminary results from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Business Owners, shows that of the more than $14 trillion in revenues from sales reported in 2012, only $1.6 trillion, or 11.3%, went to female-owned businesses. Businesses owned by men took in 79% of sales.

As of 2012, the report shows men still owned more than half of the United States’ 27.6 million firms. Women, by comparison, only owned about 36% of businesses, up from 29% in 2007. But even in sectors with with many female business leaders, women haven’t always been as successful as their numbers suggest. In the heavily female educational market, women took in only about a quarter of revenues.

The report shows similar inequality exists for businesses owned by members of minority groups: 29% of all small businesses were owned by blacks or Asians in 2012 (roughly 12% were owned by Hispanics, who Pew notes can be of any race), but just over 10% of total sales revenue went to minority-owned businesses. Lower revenues of companies owned by women and minorities means that there’s fewer dollars left to pay employees, which can keep those businesses from advancing and growing.

The Census Bureau will release the full Survey of Business Owners in December.

TIME Amazon

Another Ex-Amazon Worker Shares Her Horror Story

BRITAIN-BUSINESS-RETAIL-AMAZON
LEON NEAL—AFP/Getty Images Amazon's logo.

She says the company showed no support following the birth of her child and a cancer diagnosis

Amazon employees did not hold back after the New York Times published its story about the company’s “bruising” workplace, “Inside Amazon.” Many spoke out, some in defense of the company, others augmenting the Times’ piece with their own horrifying testimonies. Julia Cheiffetz falls into the latter category.

In her story about her years employed by Amazon, from 2011 to 2014, Cheiffetz writes that two years into her employment, she had a baby. Six weeks later, she was diagnosed with cancer.

After her surgery, and still on maternity leave, she received a letter from Amazon stating that her health insurance had been terminated. The company told her that it was simply a glitch in the system, and she was offered COBRA coverage, rather than reinstating her original plan. It was too little, too late for Cheiffetz, who had already switched over to her husband’s plan and stayed there throughout the rest of her treatment.

When she finally returned to the company after five months of leave, she was informed that all of her direct hires were now reporting to someone else. She was then placed on a “performance improvement plan, which Cheiffetz claims is essentially code for “your employment is at risk.” She resigned before Amazon could fire her.

Cheiffetz does not dispute other testimonies that defend Amazon, but she does say that they have mostly come from “male leaders of male-dominated teams.” Most of the women she knew at the company have left.

She addresses Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in her concluding paragraph:

You asked for direct feedback. Women power your retail engine. They buy diapers. They buy books. They buy socks for their husbands on Prime. On behalf of all the people who want to speak up but can’t: Please, make Amazon a more hospitable place for women and parents.

TIME feminism

This Graphic Shows Why We Still Need Women’s Equality Day

There's still plenty of room for progress 95 years after women got the right to vote

Wednesday is Women’s Equality Day, which celebrates the 95th anniversary of when American women finally won the right to vote in 1920.

That victory came after decades of activism by suffrage activists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott. The 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in 1919, and was ratified by the states in 1920—but not without some drama. By March of 1920, 35 states had approved the 19th amendment, one state shy of the two-thirds needed to pass. Many of the southern states were opposed to women’s suffrage, and the vote came down to Tennessee. Tennessee’s state legislature was divided 48-48 on whether women should be allowed the vote, but that tie was broken by 24-year old lawmaker Harry Burn. He had apparently received a letter from his mother urging him to “be a good boy” and vote for women’s rights.

Ninety-five years later, women are voting more than men but hold political office in much smaller numbers. While women have outstripped men in voting booths since 1980, women still make up just about 20-25% of elected officials at the state and federal level. Check out this graphic to see a more detailed breakdown of how women are represented in politics 95 years after they got the right to vote. Much of the data has been collected by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

Women.Equality.Day

Read next: The Day Women Went on Strike

Download TIME’s mobile app for iOS to have your world explained wherever you go

TIME feminism

The Day Women Went on Strike

Women's Strike For Peace-And Equality
Eugene Gordon—The New York Historical Society / Getty Images Women's Strike for Peace and Equality, New York City, Aug. 26, 1970.

The Women's Strike for Equality March took place on Aug. 26, 1970

On Aug. 26, 1970, a full 50 years after the passage of the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, 50,000 feminists paraded down New York City’s Fifth Avenue with linked arms, blocking the major thoroughfare during rush hour. Now, 45 years later, the legacy of that day continues to evolve.

Officially sponsored by the National Organization for Women (NOW), the Women’s Strike for Equality March was the brainchild of Betty Friedan, who wanted an “action” that would show the American media the scope and power of second-wave feminism.

As TIME observed just days before the march, the new feminist movement emerged out of a moment in which “virtually all of the nation’s systems — industry, unions, the professions, the military, the universities, even the organizations of the New Left — [were] quintessentially masculine establishments.” The notion of women’s liberation was extremely controversial, and the movement was in its infancy.

Friedan’s original idea for Aug. 26 was a national work stoppage, in which women would cease cooking and cleaning in order to draw attention to the unequal distribution of domestic labor, an issue she discussed in her 1963 bestseller The Feminine Mystique. It isn’t clear how many women truly went on “strike” that day, but the march served as a powerful symbolic gesture. Participants held signs with slogans like “Don’t Iron While the Strike is Hot” and “Don’t Cook Dinner – Starve a Rat Today.”

The number of marchers exceeded Friedan’s “wildest dreams.” TIME described the event as “easily the largest women’s rights rally since the suffrage protests.” It brought together older, liberal feminists like Friedan and Bella Abzug with a younger, more radical contingent of women. As Joyce Antler, a historian who participated in the demonstration, told me, many of these women “were veterans of civil rights marches and anti-war protests of the 1960s. We marched throughout the ‘60s and we had faith that this mattered.”

The day of activism reached beyond New York City, as thousands of feminists across the country coordinated sister demonstrations. A full range of creative, confrontational tactics was on display, as activists infiltrated “all male” bars and restaurants, held teach-ins and sit-ins, picketed and rallied, in Detroit, Indianapolis, Boston, Berkeley and New Orleans. One thousand women marched on the nation’s capital, holding a banner that read “We Demand Equality.” In Los Angeles, feminists wearing Richard Nixon masks enacted guerrilla street theater. “The solidarity was completely exhilarating,” Antler recalls.

The organizers of the day’s events agreed on a set of three specific goals, which reflected the overall spirit of second-wave feminism: free abortion on demand, equal opportunity in employment and education, and the establishment of 24/7 childcare centers. Over the next several years, activists would use multiple techniques — from public protest to legislative lobbying — in an attempt to turn these goals into realities.

So how did they fare?

The women’s movement was most successful in pushing for gender equality in workplaces and universities. The passage of Title IX in 1972 forbade sex discrimination in any educational program that received federal financial assistance. The amendment had a dramatic affect on leveling the playing field in girl’s athletics. Also, feminists made the workforce a more hospitable space for women with policies banning sexual harassment, something the Equal Opportunity Commission recognized in 1980. Women’s participation in college, graduate school and the professions has steadily increased over the past several decades, although a gender wage gap still exists.

In terms of abortion access, activists have also made great strides since 1970, but have suffered serious setbacks as well. In 1973, after legal strategizing by NOW and other reproductive rights groups, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in all fifty states. This was a major feminist victory, but it was also limited, as the decision only protected a woman’s right to terminate during her first trimester of pregnancy, allowing for state intervention in the second and third trimesters. Furthermore, Roe v. Wade did not address the cost of an abortion, which was high enough to be out of reach for many women. In the years after the decision, backlash to Roe triggered many varieties of legislation that further eroded women’s access to the procedure.

Perhaps the least amount of progress has been made in the area of childcare, which remains prohibitively expensive for many American women. In 1971, Congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act, which would have set up local day care centers for children on a sliding scale based on family income, but Nixon vetoed the bill. While President Obama has spoken about making affordable childcare a national priority, there are no current plans to offer government-funded, round-the-clock care in the United States as feminists had initially envisioned. As of 2014, the average annual cost of enrolling in a daycare center for an infant is, in most states, higher than the cost of a public college in that state.

So the long-term results of the Strike for Equality March have been mixed. But in the short-term, the event did accomplish one major goal: it helped make the feminist movement visible. In the immediate aftermath, a CBS poll showed that four out of five adults were aware of women’s liberation, and NOW’s membership grew by 50%. “The huge number of marchers, young and old, made a convincing case that this was a movement for everyone,” Antler explains. In this sense, the event exemplified cross-generational solidarity among women. Today’s intersectional feminist activists hope to build coalitions across race, class, and sexuality as well, as they work to fulfill the unfinished mission of their foremothers.

The Long ViewHistorians explain how the past informs the present

Sascha Cohen is a PhD candidate in the history department at Brandeis University, specializing in the social and cultural history of 1970s America.

TIME U.K.

Women-Only Train Carriages Are Being Considered by U.K. Opposition Leadership Contender

Jeremy Corbyn
Matt Cardy—Getty Images Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn listens to other speakers as he waits to speak at a rally for supporters at the Hilton at the Ageas Bowl in Southampton, England, on Aug. 25, 2015.

Jeremy Corbyn says it could help prevent harassment

Women only carriages in trains will be considered by U.K. Labour Party leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn in order to tackle the rise in assaults in public places.

He will propose a pilot scheme for trains where women-only carriages will be available after 10pm, reports the Independent. Corbyn also wants a 24-hour hotline for reporting harassment and assault.

“My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” Corbyn told the BBC. “I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome – and also if piloting this at times and [on] modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.”

This comes after British Transport Police (BTP) recorded a 25% rise in sexual offences on trains and in stations between 2014 – 2015.

Some disagree with his plans, saying that it evades the issue of harassment rather than fix it. “It seems to say ‘let’s segregate people’, rather than tackling the issue,” Nicky Morgan, U.K.’s Minister for Women and Equalities, told the BBC.

Compartments for women were last used in British railways in 1977 and countries that run carriages for women include India, Mexico, Indonesia and Japan.

TIME Mental Health/Psychology

Women in Male-Dominated Jobs Have More Stress

TIME.com stock health stress
Illustration by Sydney Rae Hass for TIME

"Token" women at work have less healthy cortisol patterns

Women working in jobs dominated by men have high levels of interpersonal stress that could harm their health, shows a new study presented at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting.

Indiana University Bloomington researchers looked at daily stress hormone patterns from more than 440 women in a large U.S. survey who worked in jobs where at least 85% of the workforce were men. In academic terms, a woman is considered an “occupational token” when 15% of colleagues in her occupation are women. That definition included jobs like construction supervisors, engineers, painters and groundskeepers.

MORE: Here’s Why Work Email Puts You In A Nasty Mood

Prior evidence shows that women in male-dominated jobs often experience stressors like social isolation, sexual harassment and low levels of support in the workplace. The researchers thought that stressors like these could impact patterns of the stress hormone cortisol, which fluctuate throughout the day but take an irregular pattern in people exposed to high consistent levels of stress, the authors say. In the study, they found that the “token” women had less healthy cortisol profiles compared to women who worked in jobs with a more even gender split.

MORE: Why Failure Hits Girls So Hard

“Men in occupations with 85% or more men do not evidence the same dysregulated cortisol profiles that we see in women in the same occupations,” says study author Cate Taylor, an assistant professor of sociology and gender studies at Indiana University Bloomington.

Cortisol is also particularly sensitive to social stressors and not as much to physical stressors, the authors say, which adds to the evidence that at least some of the irregularity in cortisol profiles is linked to negative workplace social climates that women face.

TIME women

Don’t Call Me a ‘Mompreneur’

Haven’t we earned the right by now to just be called entrepreneurs?

I was aimlessly wandering through Costco last weekend (it’s as close to a hobby as I’ll get), when I ran into an old friend. Not having seen each other in years, we exchanged the usual questions to catch up between shoving a year’s worth of taquitos into our carts. “Are you married? How many kids? What part of town do you live in?” Then she asked the one question that always makes me cringe, “Do you work outside the home?”

It’s a question that’s loaded with assumptions. For starters, it insinuates that people who choose to abandon a career to take care of their families are resided to the simplicities of their home. We know that’s not true. These parents are as much working outside the home — as drivers, coaches, educators, activity managers, and caretakers — as they are inside the home.

Second, the question presumes that because I’m a mom I have a choice. Third, it presumes that I want that choice.

When I got home I asked my husband, “Have you ever been asked if you work outside the home?”

“No,” he said, “of course not.”

I asked if he’s ever been called a dadpreneur, as he has his own law practice, and is by definition a dad. He rolled his eyes at me and proceeded to help me unload 400 pounds of rice and frozen lasagna.

For the same reason why my long lost friend asked me if I work outside the home, I’ve been labeled a “mompreneur,” more times than I can count. I’m the founder and CEO of a software company. I’m also the mother of two.

There’s a deep-rooted assumption in our society that women entrepreneurs with children will always regard themselves as mom first and foremost, and entrepreneur second. They can never exist on the same plane, and this is hurting us all.

Perception is everything

The term mompreneur conjures up images of a smart looking woman wearing a suit, holding a baby in one arm and a briefcase in the other. As I write this, in Entrepreneur’s Mompreneur section of their website, there are 14 articles on the home page. Eight of them have images of a woman entrepreneur with her kids. Seven of them have headlines about work-life balance. Two have headlines on how to involve your kids in your business.

There isn’t a single headline on just how to improve your business. Nothing on growing sales, raising capital, mastering culture, or recruiting the best talent. Apparently the only thing women entrepreneurs are supposed to care about is how to balance their godforsaken careers with having a family.

Creating a special category of content for entrepreneurs who happen to also be moms creates a perception that these women don’t run their businesses the same way other entrepreneurs do. And this is completely false. Every entrepreneur I know — mom, dad, and the kidless ones — want the same things. They want to grow. They want to keep costs down and quality up. They want to recruit and retain the best talent. And they all want to create something awesome that fits their definition of success.

The deluge of this type of content, expertly marketed to millions of women just like me, sends the message that when it comes to running our businesses, our biggest concern should be how we balance our ventures with our family obligations.

Men entrepreneurs aren’t targeted with articles about balancing work with family, and it sends a very different message.

This disparity feeds into the fact that women who work still take on more of the housework (three more hours per week) and spend twice as much time on childcare than their male partners.

The message permeates outside the family as well. Women entrepreneurs already face an uphill battle in funding their companies, with fewer than 5% of venture-backed companies run by a woman CEO. Investors prefer a venture pitch by a man to an identical pitch by a woman at a rate of 68% to 32%. The perception that women are less capable entrepreneurs than men is deeply engrained in our culture. Add “mom” to the woman entrepreneur’s CV and investors jump to the same assumption everyone else does: Is she really interested in working outside the home?

Learning is Limited

If I were to read every article on the top three pages of the search term “mompreneur,” I’d learn a lot about how to balance my life, but nothing about how to grow my business.

The average executive spends an estimated two hours per day reading. This includes email, so let’s be conservative and say that the average entrepreneur spends 30 minutes a day reading content specifically for the purpose of helping them grow and/or manage their business. If I’m spending that 30 minutes on how to cut down on childcare costs (real headline in a mompreneur blog), and my counterpart who’s a dad is spending 30 minutes reading up on how to increase sales by 20% this quarter, who’s going to get ahead faster?

The sad part is, what we read isn’t necessarily our choice.

Today’s publishing platforms have pretty much guaranteed that consumers are served up a steady stream of content, including on mobile and social platforms, which aligns with their perceived attributes. Some companies and the platforms they use are brilliant, and can derive really precise data on you just by your browsing history and online profiles. Others create personas based on shallow data and hit the send button with abandon. Woman + business owner + mother is the reason why I open my inbox everyday to find newsletters from spa resorts and kids clothing trunk shows. But if I want to find articles that can help me scale my software company, I have to do my own digging. Carrying the label “mompreneur” on social media profiles, blog posts, websites, or even just searching the term on Google can quite literally mean getting bucketed into a specific persona and targeted by an onslaught of content that’s geared more towards the mom and less towards the ‘preneur.

Not that this content is bad. Most every parent can benefit from cutting childcare costs and finding more time to spend with family. The problem is only half of the world’s parents are receiving the message on a near constant basis. The other half is being spoon fed real business advice.

The Imbalanced Dialogue on Work-Life Balance

Women have been launching and running their own businesses since the 1700s. Today, almost a third of businesses in the U.S. are owned by women, and they employ nearly 8 million people. About 70% of mothers in the U.S. work.

Haven’t we earned the right by now to just be called entrepreneurs? Why the special designation? Back to those nasty assumptions…

Visit the Wikipedia page on Mompreneurs and you’ll see that most of the links in the “See Also” section are about work life balance. There is a strongly held assumption that women entrepreneurs struggle with work life issues above all other challenges. A similar search of “Dadpreneur” on Wikipedia didn’t return the same results. Do we really believe men don’t struggle with this too?

Further, can we admit it’s possible that entrepreneurs who happen to also be moms might NOT struggle with work life balance as much as we assume? Can we change our mindset to believe that many entrepreneurs who are also moms wake up in the morning thinking about how they’re going to take on the world with their start up? That many of them enjoy spending eight to 10 hours a day focused on disrupting an industry, and don’t give a second thought to the audacity of ordering pizza three nights a week? That many, many entrepreneurs who also call themselves mom spend as much time visualizing how to get to a B round or a billion dollar valuation as they do visualizing a great life for their kids? Yes, these things can be of equal importance to women.

Motherhood doesn’t define us in our careers or predict the success of our ventures. Our vision and tenacity does. If you really want to label me, call me what I am. I’m an entrepreneur.

Aly Saxe is founder and CEO of Iris PR Software.

This article originally appeared on Medium

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Careers & Workplace

5 Tips for Recovering From Rejection

black-woman-running-stairs
Getty Images

Your work is not your worth

She calls herself a mixologist, but you won’t find Melissa Butler crafting signature cocktails behind the bar. Instead, Butler serves up bright and bold colors for the perfect pout as the creator and owner of the Lip Bar, a paraben-free, vegan lipstick company. From Amaretto Sour (cool camel) to Kamikaze (a Tiffany & Co. teal), the brand, which started in 2012 and has a celebrity fan in Jordin Sparks, will make any pucker pop. The Lip Bar’s success—the business raked in $107,000 in its first two years—landed Butler on the popular entrepreneurial reality show, Shark Tank. The Sharks, however, wouldn’t bite. One even snubbed the brand when he said, “I can see a massive market share in the clown market,” and called Butler and her creative director “colorful cockroaches” before they walked away without a deal. Whoa. Cringe-worthy TV.

The experience didn’t halt the Lip Bar’s growth. Soon after the episode aired in February, the Lip Bar had a spike in sales and an increase in traffic on the company’s website. Butler then hit the road when she launched the Lip Bar mobile—a truck outfitted with Lip Bar cosmetics, touring across the country to give customers a one-on-one retail experience and to increase the brand’s reach. Take that, Sharks!

Butler didn’t get a deal, but she learned a few things about redemption after rejection. As Elizabeth Taylor once said, “Pour yourself a drink, put on some lipstick, and pull yourself together.” In the spirit of the Dame, Butler did just that. Here are her top tips for moving from rejection to re-invention.

1. Tighten your message

“Being on the show made me realize we were sending too many messages. We had the whole natural and vegan theme and the bar theme. The Sharks noticed that it was too much. You can only get one sticky message out there. The reason why the Lip Bar exists is to empower women through self-expressive cosmetics that are responsibly made. Our message kind of got lost in promoting our wide range of colors and the bar theme. The Shark Tank experience made me hone in on our messaging a lot more. We’re doing a lot of new branding initiatives. Right now we are revamping our entire website and focusing on empowerment. The whole idea is that all women are beautiful and they don’t have to settle for less.”

2. Not everyone will understand your vision (and that’s OK)

“I started the Lip Bar because I was extremely frustrated with how beauty is one-dimensional and how beauty brands reaffirm that there is a certain standard of beauty. The Sharks didn’t agree with my vision. They didn’t think my brand would be able to grow because the market is saturated. They are a group of people I have to prove wrong. There are still women out here who think that they aren’t good enough or think they have to change their entire face in order to be considered beautiful. I want to fight that. Not everyone is going to get your vision and that’s OK. When you start a business, it’s very easy to get caught up in numbers and validation from others. The key is to always remember why you started.”

3. Your work is not your worth

“When you work on a business like this, it becomes a part of you. It’s very important to remember the Lip Bar is the Lip Bar and Melissa is Melissa. So when someone is being critical of the Lip Bar, it may seem as though they are being critical of me. I think it’s important to understand your work is not worth. You have to separate the two. That’s a big takeaway from an experience like this. Remember you are a person. You don’t know everything. There will be criticism about your business, but you don’t suck!”

4. Own the moment

“When we found out that our episode was going to air, my heart dropped. I remembered thinking, ‘Oh my God, it was terrible! Will being on the show ruin us? Am I going to look like a babbling idiot?’ I was legitimately nervous and didn’t watch the show when it aired. After the third day, I watched it. It was a stab to my ego to share that moment with the world, but I learned it could be good for the brand. So we started promoting the video all over social media and we did a reaction video and put it on our website. Owning the moment allowed us to take the momentum and build on it. The experience connected us to customers. People say, ‘Oh wait, I know that girl. I know her story. I want to support her journey.’ That’s one of the benefits of the Sharks being so harsh. With the Lip Bar truck and our tour, so many people have told me how brave I was to go on the show.”

5. You can bounce back—stronger than ever

“Of course it would have been nice to get a deal. It would have been nice to work with an investor with so many connections. We didn’t get a deal, but we did get a lot of exposure that helped us grow. [The night our episode aired] our website got 30,000 hits. It brought us new customers too—we received 500 orders in one night. Retailers like Nasty Gal and Frends Beauty picked us up. Shark Tank was not a defeat. It was actually the ultimate win.”

This article originally appeared on Levo.com

More from Levo.com:

TIME Military

Navy Admiral Says Women Should Be Allowed to Join Navy SEALs

Navy SEALs practice Over The Beach evolutions during a training exercise on May 25, 2004 in a Remote Training Facility.
Getty Images Navy SEALs practice Over The Beach evolutions during a training exercise on May 25, 2004 in a Remote Training Facility.

Earlier this week, two women became the first female Rangers.

The first real-life G.I. Jane might be coming soon.

Admiral Jon Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, told the Navy Times and Defense News that he and Rear Admiral Brian Losey, who heads the Naval Special Warfare Command, believe that if a woman passes the famously rigorous six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, they should be allowed to be part of the elite team.

“Why shouldn’t anybody who can meet these [standards] be accepted? And the answer is, there is no reason,” Greenert said. “So we’re on a track to say, ‘Hey look, anybody who can meet the gender non-specific standards, then you can become a SEAL.'”

This has been a fantastic week for women aspiring to join the elite ranks of the American military: On Monday, two women passed the grueling Ranger School test and are set to the be the first females to graduate from the Ranger School.

Losey was part of a comprehensive review that recommended women be integrated into the Navy if they meet the same standards as applied to men. The Navy currently has sparse representation of women in elite sections of the branch: among 1,153 divers, only seven are women, and only ten women are part of the 1,094-strong Explosive Ordinance Disposal team.

Each branch of the military is required to allow females into combat positions by 2016 or explain why they cannot do so.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com