The Lee Company’s Post

My interview for The Times is out! In this piece by Hannah Prevett, Deputy Editor at The Times Enterprise Network, I opened up about a deeply personal experience that transpired during my years before Space DOTS®, and that left me disenchanted with the status quo. Entrepreneurs embark on their journey for various reasons, primarily to address challenges they've encountered, to solve problems, and to dedicate their lives to a purpose larger than themselves. For women, this drive is sometimes fuelled by an additional source: a system that has tragically let them down at some point in their journey. Much like artists who produce their most compelling work during moments of anguish, women often harness the powerful motivation stemming from their painful experiences to create spaces where others need not endure the same hardships. This interview marked the first time I publicly shared my story without succumbing to tears. In 2019, my life was turned completely upside down as I faced the grief of a pregnancy loss and the shame of being unable to seek help, all while having to return to work the very next day. From that pivotal moment, I made a firm promise to myself: I would do everything in my power to ensure that no one else had to endure such a situation when working for a mission they love. Motivated by a desire to foster a more empathetic environment (alongside space tech advancements intentions), I made the decision to establish my own business. My vision was clear: create a workplace where individuals could freely express themselves, unburdened by fear, and say something as candid as, "Yesterday, I had an abortion; I won't be coming to work tomorrow". #space #spaceindustry #spacetechnology #womenintech #womeninengineering #womeninstem #womeninspace #womenentrepreneurs #womenempowerment

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger touched most people in my age. We were school children, excited to see a teacher who represented our own teachers, going into space. We were shocked, we were devastated, we were heartbroken when it exploded before the world. The reason that it exploded, and the fact that it didn't have to became quickly evident. Engineers tried to stop it, but as happens many times, politics and visuals were more important and the people in power had the hubris to believe they could defy basic science. The mental consequences to the engineers who tried to block it were horrible. As I just finalized Inclusion on Purpose, I also reflected that when the powers that be can't even listen to engineers of the dominant social order (in this case, a distinguished and highly educated white male), what chance is there that they would listen to a member of a minority group owning the same credentials and expertise? Workplaces, world events, and pushing boundaries in science and technology are better when we can listen to the experts and put safety above hubris. How do you treat the people that question feasibility and safety? Do you truly give them a space to share their concerns? Do you even give the experts a seat at the table and a voice when they aren't like you and especially are questioning you? https://lnkd.in/gJmjCdBH

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger touched most people in my age. We were school children, excited to see a teacher who represented our own teachers, going into space. We were shocked, we were devastated, we were heartbroken when it exploded before the world. The reason that it exploded, and the fact that it didn't have to became quickly evident. Engineers tried to stop it, but as happens many times, politics and visuals were more important and the people in power had the hubris to believe they could defy basic science. The mental consequences to the engineers who tried to block it were horrible. As I just finalized Inclusion on Purpose, I also reflected that when the powers that be can't even listen to engineers of the dominant social order (in this case, a distinguished and highly educated white male), what chance is there that they would listen to a member of a minority group owning the same credentials and expertise? Workplaces, world events, and pushing boundaries in science and technology are better when we can listen to the experts and put safety above hubris. How do you treat the people that question feasibility and safety? Do you truly give them a space to share their concerns? Do you even give the experts a seat at the table and a voice when they aren't like you and especially are questioning you? https://lnkd.in/gJmjCdBH

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger touched most people in my age. We were school children, excited to see a teacher who represented our own teachers, going into space. We were shocked, we were devastated, we were heartbroken when it exploded before the world. The reason that it exploded, and the fact that it didn't have to became quickly evident. Engineers tried to stop it, but as happens many times, politics and visuals were more important and the people in power had the hubris to believe they could defy basic science. The mental consequences to the engineers who tried to block it were horrible. As I just finalized Inclusion on Purpose, I also reflected that when the powers that be can't even listen to engineers of the dominant social order (in this case, a distinguished and highly educated white male), what chance is there that they would listen to a member of a minority group owning the same credentials and expertise? Workplaces, world events, and pushing boundaries in science and technology are better when we can listen to the experts and put safety above hubris. How do you treat the people that question feasibility and safety? Do you truly give them a space to share their concerns? Do you even give the experts a seat at the table and a voice when they aren't like you and especially are questioning you? https://lnkd.in/gxWz-XCC

Space Force is thinking about culture and identity. The article is a little more about the "what" of its mission than the "how" of culture, but I liked the idea of having a Theory of Success rather than Doctrine: "When Space Force Gen. Chance Saltzman, chief of space operations, introduced tenets to guide the force, he labeled them 'A theory of success,' rather than a doctrine because he wants them to continue to evolve." I mean, things are going to evolve so let's roll with it and be deliberate about influencing how that comes about. https://lnkd.in/dY89k_cA

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger touched most people in my age. We were school children, excited to see a teacher who represented our own teachers, going into space. We were shocked, we were devastated, we were heartbroken when it exploded before the world. The reason that it exploded, and the fact that it didn't have to became quickly evident. Engineers tried to stop it, but as happens many times, politics and visuals were more important and the people in power had the hubris to believe they could defy basic science. The mental consequences to the engineers who tried to block it were horrible. As I just finalized Inclusion on Purpose, I also reflected that when the powers that be can't even listen to engineers of the dominant social order (in this case, a distinguished and highly educated white male), what chance is there that they would listen to a member of a minority group owning the same credentials and expertise? Workplaces, world events, and pushing boundaries in science and technology are better when we can listen to the experts and put safety above hubris. How do you treat the people that question feasibility and safety? Do you truly give them a space to share their concerns? Do you even give the experts a seat at the table and a voice when they aren't like you and especially are questioning you? https://lnkd.in/gxWz-XCC

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger touched most people in my age. We were school children, excited to see a teacher who represented our own teachers, going into space. We were shocked, we were devastated, we were heartbroken when it exploded before the world. The reason that it exploded, and the fact that it didn't have to became quickly evident. Engineers tried to stop it, but as happens many times, politics and visuals were more important and the people in power had the hubris to believe they could defy basic science. The mental consequences to the engineers who tried to block it were horrible. When I finished reading the book Inclusion on Purpose, I reflected that when the powers that be can't even listen to engineers of the dominant social order (in this case, a distinguished and highly educated white male), what chance is there that they would listen to a member of a minority group owning the same credentials and expertise? Workplaces, world events, and pushing boundaries in science and technology are better when we can listen to the experts and put safety above hubris. How do you treat the people that question feasibility and safety? Do you truly give them a space to share their concerns? Do you even give the experts a seat at the table and a voice when they aren't like you and especially are questioning you? https://lnkd.in/gJmjCdBH

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger touched most people in my age. We were school children, excited to see a teacher who represented our own teachers, going into space. We were shocked, we were devastated, we were heartbroken when it exploded before the world. The reason that it exploded, and the fact that it didn't have to became quickly evident. Engineers tried to stop it, but as happens many times, politics and visuals were more important and the people in power had the hubris to believe they could defy basic science. The mental consequences to the engineers who tried to block it were horrible. When I finished reading the book Inclusion on Purpose, I reflected that when the powers that be can't even listen to engineers of the dominant social order (in this case, a distinguished and highly educated white male), what chance is there that they would listen to a member of a minority group owning the same credentials and expertise? Workplaces, world events, and pushing boundaries in science and technology are better when we can listen to the experts and put safety above hubris. How do you treat the people that question feasibility and safety? Do you truly give them a space to share their concerns? Do you even give the experts a seat at the table and a voice when they aren't like you and especially are questioning you? https://lnkd.in/gJmjCdBH

In specs of presence, the future is been born. Thomas Hübl, PhD Hubl invites us to cultivate our inner space so we can make choices in full awareness. When our unconscious drives our choices that’s destiny, we are driven by the past, says Thomas. We need space to digest the informations from the past, so we can make conscious choices in the present. Unintegrated history is the past. Integrated history is presence. Our history is always sitting now with us. How does this resonate with you? #space #presence #awareness #happytuesday

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger touched most people in my age. We were school children, excited to see a teacher who represented our own teachers, going into space. We were shocked, we were devastated, we were heartbroken when it exploded before the world. The reason that it exploded, and the fact that it didn't have to became quickly evident. Engineers tried to stop it, but as happens many times, politics and visuals were more important and the people in power had the hubris to believe they could defy basic science. The mental consequences to the engineers who tried to block it were horrible. When I finished reading the book Inclusion on Purpose, I reflected that when the powers that be can't even listen to engineers of the dominant social order (in this case, a distinguished and highly educated white male), what chance is there that they would listen to a member of a minority group owning the same credentials and expertise? Workplaces, world events, and pushing boundaries in science and technology are better when we can listen to the experts and put safety above hubris. How do you treat the people that question feasibility and safety? Do you truly give them a space to share their concerns? Do you even give the experts a seat at the table and a voice when they aren't like you and especially are questioning you? https://lnkd.in/gxWz-XCC