Posted in June 2010

A Bittersweet Victory for Ohio’s Farm Animals

Today Ohioans for Humane Farms reached an agreement with state agribusiness to adopt several measures to protect farm animals.  This agreement is progress, but it is not nearly enough.

The Ohio farm animal advocates had been working to get an initiative (https://hsus.salsalabs.com/o/17002/images/OH%202010%20language.pdf) on the state ballot that would provide a maximum six-year phase out period for veal crates (http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=102), gestation crates (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/pork/gestationcrates.html), and battery cages (http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/eggs/), after which they all would become illegal.  Instead, today’s agreement includes the six-year phase out for veal crates, but a 15-year phase-out period for existing gestation crate facilities, and unending protection for existing battery cage facilities. 

The agreement does include other measures that will improve Ohio’s animal welfare laws:  http://action.farmsanctuary.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=17801.0&printer_friendly=1

As small as these steps may seem, they are progress.  And that is very sad.

Where Have All The White Children Gone?

A recent study found that more U.S. women are childless than ever before.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100625/ap_on_go_ot/us_census_childbearing   Hopefully many of those are “childfree,” i.e. chose not to have children.  As a childfree woman, this is one trend I’m thrilled to be part of. 

One aspect of this article is chilling: the reporter jumps right into a comparison of white women’s reproductive rates versus those of other races in the U.S.  The priority that A.P. gives to this analysis implies that perhaps more white women should reproduce lest, as the article puts it, “U.S. minorities will become the majority by midcentury.”  Already “blacks, Hispanics, Asians and multiracial people are growing rapidly in the U.S. population and wielding more influence in politics and society.”  Multiracial people with influence???  Horrors — what if they capture the White House!  Oops, too late.

Topics the reporter could have looked at instead of the bizarre race angle: the effect of so many more adults with more free time and money; whether there is a correlation between the growth of stores catering exclusively to baby gear (Buy Buy Baby, Baby Gap, Babies “R” Us, etc.) and the reduction in the number of babies (are people spending more on each child?); or how many “childless” women actually chose not to have children.  Fretting about shifting racial demographics was not the obvious way to go with the story, but it is an interesting insight into the source of some people’s anxiety around the choice not to breed.  (See “The Preachers of Parenthood” below, the first post on this blog.)

R.I.P. Senator Byrd

R.I.P. Senator Byrd, a great friend to animals.  One of his moving speeches on the floor of Congress: http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/id/2184/pid/2520
The latter half of his speech, about the treatment of animals raised for food, just hints at the torture of animals by agribusiness.  For more in-depth information visit: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/

Fashion Industry vs. Women

Though the modern feminist movement is well into middle age, the fashion industry, from designers to dry cleaners, still hasn’t caught up.  It continues to screw over its primary customers – women.

One example is the sizing system for women’s clothes versus men’s.  Men get clear, informative labels on their clothes listing waist and inseam and collar and arm measurements in inches.  And men’s clothes come in different combinations of these measurements.  A man can be unusually proportioned and still be able to buy clothes without even trying them on.  In contrast, women are stuck with the dress size system, which differs with every designer and presumes that every woman has the same proportions.  Woe to you if you don’t: you are cursed to spend many hours of fruitless shopping until you finally find one pair of jeans that sort of fits.  Not to mention feeling like a hideous freak because “normal” clothes don’t fit your body.

What is the rationale for this tyrannical sizing system?  Tradition?  A belief that women should have the “right” proportions, and if they don’t, they should do what it takes to get them?  Taking for granted that women are willing to spend more time shopping than men, so a stupid sizing system won’t deter them from buying?  Or maybe the industry keeps this up just to save money by producing only the regular dress sizes, rather than the different combinations of measurements that men get.

Another example of fashion’s neglect of women: watches.  Though I take a lot of crap for it, I admit that I can read a digital watch more quickly and accurately than analog.  That is not a problem when I’m in the market for a sporty and casual digital watch.  But just try to find a dressy digital watch proportioned for women.  Seriously, go ahead and try.

I came up with a bunch of excuses for the inane sizing system for women’s clothes, but I can’t come up with a single reason for the watch thing.  It can’t be that watch designers haven’t noticed that many professionals are women; mayhap one or two of the watch designers themselves are women.  So why not create new products guaranteed to appeal to a broad customer base?  Are they actively trying not to make more money?

And now for the dry cleaners.  They charge more to launder women’s shirts than men’s.  They charge more to dry clean women’s suits than men’s.  They claim the problem is that the machines they use are sized for men, so women’s smaller clothes have to be handled by hand.  Like that makes sense.  They have had decades to make smaller machines, or adjustable machines, or whatever equipment they need to clean smaller clothes.  Hell, they probably already have it and are just keeping it on the down low.  I think they are probably worse than the designers and manufacturers: they aren’t just being stupid or traditional or whatever; they are actively choosing to fleece women.  (I had such high hopes for that Dryel stuff that was supposed to let you dry clean your own clothes in your dryer.  If only it worked.)

I’d love to jump up and down for a boycott of clothing and cleaners, but I suspect that it wouldn’t catch on.  And anyway it wouldn’t exactly advance feminism if we started showing up at work wearing just our shoes and maybe a jaunty necklace.  Rather, what we have here is a promising business opportunity for some entrepreneur who wants to create and market a line of women’s clothes that are sensibly and diversely sized and accessorized with slim, elegant, digital watches.  I’d love to help, but I can’t make the meetings because I don’t know what time it is.

Tagged ,

Government Of, By, and For the People Shouldn’t Kill The People

The death penalty is too much power for a government to have.  There are many crimes so cruel that I would happily kill the perpetrator myself (or so I’d like to think – I’ve never even held a gun), so the cruelty of the punishment is not my objection.  The problem for me is that no government should be able to kill its own citizens.

One problem with governments is that they make mistakes, lots of them, every single day.  They are, after all, giant bureaucracies, and that includes law enforcement – the police, the prosecutors, the judiciary.  And of course governments are made up of individuals, all of whom have their own motives and limitations.  Put it all together and it is clear why our governments (state and federal) execute innocent people. 

Since 1989, 254 people sentenced to death have been exonerated by DNA evidence.  http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php.  And that number doesn’t account for the innocent people who don’t have any DNA evidence or who can’t get a new hearing.  A Columbia Law School professor conducted a study that found that 68% of death sentences were overturned as legally erroneous – and that number doesn’t account for the wrongful convictions where there was no clear or reversible legal error in the trial, though the outcome was still wrong.  http://www.truthinjustice.org/68percent.htm.

Yesterday one convict got an unusual chance for a new hearing after 20 years on death row.  Witnesses testified that they had lied during his original trial: some say that police pressured them into it, while one just had a grudge against the defendant.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100623/ap_on_re_us/us_georgia_execution_hearing

There are many other reasons innocent people are sentenced to death.  There are prosecutors who act unethically because they need a win for career reasons, police who muck with evidence or strong-arm witnesses because they want to see someone punished for an appalling crime, public defenders too overwhelmed by enormous case loads to properly defend their clients, and appellate courts who refuse to give the defendant a second chance even if his lawyer was drunk for part of the trial or didn’t even show up for court.

Most individuals involved in law enforcement in every capacity are doing the best they can and doing it ethically.  But it only takes a few who aren’t to kill an innocent person. 

Even if no innocent person were ever sentenced to death I would still oppose the death penalty because I don’t want to live under a government that can kill me.  I vote for government workers, I pay their salaries, I (we) am the reason for their very existence.  Their power comes from the citizenry, and as a member of the citizenry I do not grant them the power to kill me. 

There are many other arguments against the death penalty: that it’s merciful compared to a lifetime behind bars; that it is many times more costly than imprisoning a convict for life; that it does not work as an effective deterrent.  For me, though, it comes down to whether our government should control whether we live or die.  I strongly believe in the necessity of government regulation in many areas, but giving the government the power to kill its own citizens is several steps too far.

Obama Says He Will End Homelessness

We can end homelessness.  We have a social service infrastructure set up across the country to provide emergency services to people who have become homelessness, but if we directed resources to preventing them from becoming homeless in the first place, it would work.  Homelessness is not an inevitable side effect of a (pseudo-)capitalist economy.  The Obama administration has announced that it will end homelessness, and that it will do it in ten years.  Let’s hope he does a better job reaching his original goal than he did with that “universal health care” thing.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100622/pl_mcclatchy/3544206_1

Women: What Is So Bad About Your Names?

Why do women change their last names when they get married?  Setting aside the fact that it is the conventional thing to do, the reasons women change their names aren’t overly persuasive.  Many of the female friends and relatives who are dearest to me have changed their last names, and they are intelligent, thoughtful individuals who probably considered the following arguments, so I hope that they and other women like them will submit comments about why they disagree.

The custom of married women changing to their husband’s last name is a relic of the times when wives were the legal property of their husbands.  The modern parlance of “taking” one’s husband’s name makes it sound like the wife’s independent choice, but it looks different when viewed in the context of history.  It’s like engagement rings, which are effectively a down payment.  (I have one myself, but only because when I got engaged people kept asking where my ring was, plus they are just so pretty and sparkly.)

Nowadays some women say they change their names because it is “easier” – when they call their children’s school or doctor, there is less explaining to do.  But really, how hard is it to say “my name is Smith, but my kids’ last name is Jones”?  As a person with an unusual first name (though it seems to be gaining popularity), I have spent maybe an extra 15 seconds each on many phone calls spelling out my name.  As a wife with a different last name from my husband, I have spent maybe 45 seconds on the phone explaining that while my name is Hoffman, I’m calling about my husband, whose name is Roth.  Granted, telephone customer service is a hassle, but I doubt that going to the lengths of getting a new driver’s license and passport is going to make it any more pleasant.

For those who feel strongly about this “same name as the kids” issue, I admire the solution a friend adopted: she kept her last name and gave it to her children.  Because she is the primary caretaker she is more likely to be calling the school or the doctor or whoever, so by sharing her own last name with her children she avoids whatever hassle she might face if her name were different from theirs.  (Like my friend, her husband kept his own last name.  But I suppose that goes without saying.)

Another reason some women offer for changing their last names is that they don’t want to feel left out of their families as the only member with a different last name.  This suggests that they understand names to be important signifiers of identity; it follows that by giving up their own last names, they are burying or even repudiating their pre-marriage identities, including their membership in the families who raised them (sometimes dropping the original “nuclear” family’s name is the most alluring reason to change one’s last name, but surely that’s true for men too).  But wives don’t have to choose between their childhood family and their married family: both spouses can hyphenate their names and give the same hyphenated last name to their children.  (What those children choose to do when they get married is their problem.)

A couple who feels strongly that their family should share the same last name has another option: choosing a new last name that combines the wife’s and husband’s name, or a name that is entirely new and expresses something about their marriage and the identity of their new family.  Both partners then share equally in the formation of their new identities and in symbolically moving away from their old ones, but also in considering and shaping their identity or character as a new family.  Plus this option opens up exciting new possibilities: want to be a Kennedy?  Or better yet, a Colbert?  Go right ahead!

Some women change their last names because it is important to their husbands.  But if a man is already dictating what his wife’s very name will be just as they are starting out in life together, it does not bode well for his respect of her independence in other matters.  (If he is willing to trade for things that are important to the woman, however, she might as well explore the opportunities for profitable bartering.)

Of course these are generalizations and each woman’s experience is unique, but the phenomenon of women changing their last names to their husbands’ is the norm, and it is troubling.  Would you all please explain why you keep doing it?

Tagged

The Legal “Fast Track” and Feminism

This Careerist article about women who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1993 contends that women who step off the law firm “fast-track” have been derailed and may be “anti-feminist.”  This is startling news to me, a 1999 graduate of Harvard Law School who stepped off the fast-track.  I’m as dedicated a feminist as ever, and far from feeling derailed, I’m happier than ever.

The thesis of the article is that “some of the brightest [female] legal minds in the country” can’t or choose not to hack it on the legal “fast-track,” generally because they prefer to focus more on their children and feel they can’t do both.  The article bemoans the low rate of Harvard women who are partners in firms and calls it “astonishing” that 60% of the women who graduated Harvard Law in 1993 have “dropped out of the fast track.”

I am more astonished that more men haven’t left the law firm “fast track.”  At mainstream corporate law firms, the fast track is an outdated, inhumane, pressure cooker system, and I just can’t believe that many of the men on that track aren’t wishing they could hop off themselves.

I got to where Chen wants women like me to be: I made partner (although I did it at a smaller and far friendlier, more humane public interest firm).  And then I gave it up.  I am now a part-time independent contractor for the same firm and spend the rest of my time writing, for one reason: that is what I want to do.  I work from home, I’m doing what I love, and I have never been happier.  And it had nothing to do with my kids or work/life balance: I don’t have kids, and I’m working more now than I ever have before, but I am doing it on my terms.

My experience suggests a couple problems with Chen’s thesis.  One is her implication that the “feminist” goal should be for more women to succeed (i.e., rise up the ranks to partnership) in the legal system as it exists.  The other is her suggestion that women are leaving the fast track because it isn’t possible to give it your all while also raising children.  As to the first one, women have the opportunity now to redefine success to encompass not just money and status, but also happiness, creativity, even self-actualization.  If we can pull that off, it will benefit men, it will benefit non-lawyers, and it will make for a happier nation.  As to the second, many women have multiple reasons to leave the fast track, and many men do too: maybe they discover that practicing law is not what they want to spend their lives doing, or maybe they tire of the competitive and stressful law firm environment.

Still, there is no arguing that being fully present for your children while sprinting the law firm fast track is at the very least a challenge.  That alone proves that there is something rotten at the core of the law firm business model.  As long as it forces parents to choose between working and raising their children, it is anti-feminist, because it will almost always be the mother who leaves the workplace (which is a whole other phenomenon that merits its own discussion), and it will almost always be the father who misses out on his kids’ childhoods.  It’s not the Harvard women who are anti-feminist; it’s the business model of the major employers in our profession.

Your Right to Text Smut on Your Employer’s Pager

The biggest take-away from the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in City of Ontario v. Quon is that the employee in this case was a moron. As a law-enforcement officer he worked for the government, which gave him a text message pager he used to send sexually explicit messages to his wife and, inevitably, his mistress. And not just a couple messages on Valentine’s Day: in one month the man sent 399 of these private messages, but just 57 work-related messages.

A couple tips for this guy: first of all, sexually-explicit material just does not belong in the workplace. Whether it’s on your computer, by text message, or over the phone, it is at the very least tacky to do this kind of thing in an office on work time. Of course people will occasionally check their personal email or do a little web-surfing on company time – we’re only human, plus there are studies showing that those breaks from work actually improve productivity. But this porn type of stuff is a different story. If you’re in the office or using you’re employer’s equipment (stop snickering), the only appropriate place for sexually explicit matter is in your own head.

Second, how is it that there are people who still don’t get that when you talk dirty in writing, you can easily get caught? Golden-boy Tiger Woods got spanked because of this, not to mention however many legislators it’s been by now. If you have something really urgent to tell someone about their genitalia, you are just going to have to hold it until you see them in person, or else you run a good chance of getting caught. Maybe that risk is what excites these idiots, but if they are willing to risk their job to get their rocks off, it is (again) just tacky to turn around and sue their employers when they do get caught. Dude – you were begging for it, so just suck it up.

In terms of the actual legal significance of this case, it is pretty minor. The reason is that the employee here was a government employee. The Fourth Amendment (that’s the one about searches and seizures, for all you social studies drop-outs) applies only to the government, and the Supreme Court’s decision here was based on whether the employer violated the Fourth Amendment. For the vast majority of Americans who work for the private sector, this opinion does not apply to you. It’s amusing, sure, but not all that relevant to your own life (unless, again, you are one of those people who insists on writing nasty on work-owned equipment, in which case this is one more reminder that you are a git). To be fair, the Court was willing to just assume that “the principles applicable to a government employer’s search of an employee’s physical office apply with at least the same force when the employer intrudes on the employee’s privacy in the electronic sphere,” i.e., private employees get the same protection from their employers as public employees get from theirs. It’s nice that the Court was comfortable enough with this proposition to assume it, but that doesn’t make it stone cold law.

The good news for Court fans is that it wasn’t just the employee providing entertainment value in this case. The Supreme Court had at least one doozy itself, writing that “the judiciary risks error in elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear.” Or, in English: “Caution: we don’t understand what text messages are and new technology scares us, so please don’t pay any attention to this opinion. Thank you.”

So if you work for the Supreme Court, it looks like the rules don’t apply to you – text message all the trash you want. You are not getting caught any time soon.

Gardening: Poor Worms

Gardening season is here, and despite all my efforts to have nothing to do with it, I was out watering the plants this afternoon.  I have only myself to blame.

I do not like gardening.  It’s hot (sunburn, sweat, smell, who needs it?) and requires crouching in uncomfortable positions.  There are the occasional run-ins with the carnivorous rose bush behind my house.  And the worms – I destroy their comfy little burrows and often inadvertently bisect them, and then I feel bad about it.  Poor worms.  They weren’t doing anything but helping the soil (somehow – not sure how that works), and then I come along and slice them up.  I am their rose bush.

When we bought our house the “back yard” (in Brooklyn it is large enough to qualify as a back yard, but in most of the country it would make no more than a stingy vegetable garden) was entirely plants and dirt.  They had taken over, burying what was once a charming little brick walkway and simply swimming with worms, mosquitoes, and far grosser forms of life.  There was no going out there without layers of mosquito repellent.

I started planning to pave the whole thing over with some nice bluestone, maybe keep one tree in the corner for color.  And suddenly everyone I knew shunned me.  I was talking about covering about 200 square feet of dirt but people made me feel like I was personally wiping out a species.  And I’m a good environmentalist – I reuse my plastic bags, recycle my aluminum foil, carry one of those colorful metal water bottles everyone has instead of buying plastic.

But I did it anyway.  Got a guy who cleared out the jungle, put in some beautiful bluestone, and kept just my Japanese maple and the one flesh-eating rose bush.  He said something about watering and mulch – don’t remember much about it.  They had flourished for the several years between our purchase of the house and his intervention, so clearly they didn’t need me.

So why am I out there watering plants today?  Because now I have two big flower boxes full of flowers, plus a little pot of basil, and instructions from the responsible party (Who else?  My mother.) to water them AND the tree AND the bush daily.  Plus I have to deadhead the flowers.  I didn’t know that was a thing that mothers did, but apparently it just means cutting off the dead parts of the plant.  I spent a bunch of money on plants and basil and dirt (yes, I paid for dirt) and a flower pot and pruning shears (the ones I had were straight, which is no good – have to have curved).  Then there are all the branches from the neighbors’ trees that I have to pick up and haul out to the street, plus the unforeseen duty of cleaning out the drain to prevent flooding, which inevitably leads to worm-slicing.

I admit that the yard looks better with a few plants in it, and watering the five of them doesn’t take all that long.  But it’s the principle of the thing.  I was determined to have no outdoor responsibilities whatsoever, but I caved.  Friends keep telling me that they love gardening, and I will come to love gardening, and you know what?

Ain’t gonna happen.