Author Archives: susanjustwrites

The Politicization of Christmas Trees

Posted on December 17, 2012 | Leave a comment

I’m not planning to buy a Christmas tree this year.  I didn’t buy one last year either.  But as a consumer who’s interested in American retailing, I was disturbed to learn what happened in the Christmas tree industry in 2011.

According to a report that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, Christmas tree farmers were (and undoubtedly still are) struggling to compete with artificial-tree producers, who spend millions of dollars each year persuading shoppers to buy fake trees instead of real ones.  In an effort to improve their own sales, tree farmers united behind a program that promised to be helpful.  They petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to administer a fund they would pay for themselves, and the USDA agreed to do it.

The growers wanted to contribute 15 cents—15 cents—from the sale of each real tree.  This tiny amount would have created a Christmas Tree Promotion Board that would remind shoppers of the delights of a real tree.

What happened?  The politicization that has infected so much of our public life suddenly spread to the very non-political world of Christmas trees.  Although the USDA has overseen at least 20 of these kinds of programs for many different types of farmers during the past 45 years (including the popular “Got Milk?” program for the dairy industry), some conservative commentators got wind of the tree farmers’ plan and decided to make it a political football.

Suddenly critics became incensed by the idea that shoppers would have to pay an additional 15 cents for each tree purchased.  They decided to dub this miniscule amount as a “tax,” even though it was nothing of the kind.  The 15 cents was to be paid by the farmers, who hoped the new Board would persuade shoppers to return to putting real trees in their living rooms.

But instead, these critics seized on the fact that the USDA, as part of the Obama administration, would administer this program.  President Obama became the target.  He was described by one U.S. Senator as the Grinch who stole Christmas and likened to Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol.”   A member of the U.S. House called the 15-cent amount a “new tax” that was “a smack in the face to each and every American who celebrates Christmas.”  Huh?

As criticism became more heated, the Obama administration backed off and pulled its support for the program.  The whole scenario baffled the tree farmers.  They were disillusioned by the critics on the right, who described the farmers’ contribution as a tax and skewered the President for supporting it.  But they were also disheartened by the President’s staff, which buckled under what one farmer called “misinformed pressure.”

This farmer noted that “unlike artificial trees exported from foreign countries, ours are from America and create jobs for Americans.”  Unfortunately, knee-jerk politics got in the way and stopped a valuable program in its tracks.

As Christmas nears, tree buyers are once again considering their options. But whether or not we plan to buy a Christmas tree this year, all of us should reflect on what happened last year.  Should we allow American farmers to spend their own money to promote their products?  Or should we let dysfunctional political leaders shut them down in order to gain a cheap political advantage?

[A version of this commentary previously appeared as an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.]

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Christmas, opinion pieces, politics

Tagged , , , , ,

Sharing Old Clothes in Panama City

Posted on December 14, 2012 | 3 comments

The term “old clothes” has a brand new meaning for me.   In Panama City, I recently shared not just one but two different kinds of old clothes.

A culinary standby in Panama is “ropa vieja,” a traditional dish of spicy shredded beef and rice.   “Ropa vieja” translates as “old clothes.”   The name stems from a cook’s inclination to use up whatever is left over in the kitchen, just as all of us grab our old clothes whenever we’re at a loss for something to wear.  Somehow Panamanian cooks got in the habit of throwing together shredded beef (often leftover steak) with rice and tomato sauce, plus some spices to perk it all up.

When I read a description of this spicy bit of local cuisine in a couple of guidebooks, it sounded like a dish I’d relish.  So, from the moment I landed in Panama City, I couldn’t wait to try it.  When I discovered El Trapiche, a restaurant featuring local dishes like ropa vieja, I wasn’t disappointed.  The dish came steaming hot, and the meat tasted a lot like juicy brisket to me.  Along with a hearty portion of rice, it was both filling and delicioso.

El Trapiche sits on Calle Argentina, not far from a number of other restaurants in the area called El Cangrejo.   The décor is basic, and our fellow patrons were mostly city residents who’d come to indulge in local specialties like ropa vieja, sancocho (a traditional soup made from chicken and the popular yucca plant), tamales, arroz con pollo, and mondongo (tripe).  The price was right:  $6 for a large helping of ropa vieja, $4.50 for my companion’s order of arroz con pollo, and $4 for a large bowl of sancocho.  We shared all three dishes, thereby sampling three different kinds of local cuisine.  (A “tipico” platter featuring samples of a variety of things was available for $11.)  A scoop of ice cream for dessert added a minimal $2.

After this hearty, totally satisfying meal, we walked to a nearby corner, flagged one of the city’s ubiquitous yellow taxis, and secured a ride back to our hotel for $3 (no tip required).

Sharing old clothes turned out to have a whole other meaning for me in Panama.  As a frugal and immensely practical traveler, I like to pack well-worn clothes that I’m prepared to jettison either during or at the end of my trip.  All year long, I look through my closet for things that no longer fit well or are somewhat out of date.  I put these into my “jettison pile.”  Then, when I pack for a trip, I peruse the pile and select those items that strike me as both appropriate and acceptable for the destinations I’m heading to.

For a trip to a location where most travelers wear casual garb, I’ll choose old t-shirts and pants that are now a bit baggy but will do just fine at my destination.            For a trip to colder climes, I dig through my pile for sweaters and warm slacks I rarely wear now (I still harbor a collection of these items from my years in Chicago).

Another item I jettison is shoes that have seen better days.  They tend to be a bit scuffed but still wearable.

One goal of this process is to carve out room in my suitcase for new purchases, like clothes or souvenirs that might otherwise require  another bag.

If I need more items to wear and later jettison (to make room for new purchases), I scour local charity shops and frequently hit pay dirt.  Before leaving for Panama City, I headed to a local shop that perennially features a $1 rack.  I found a treasure trove of men’s white dress shirts and bought several to wear over my t-shirts to protect me from the hot sun while hiking or taking a boat trip.  I happily left these behind, knowing I can always find more.

Who’s on the receiving end of my jettisoned items?  I generally leave them behind in hotel rooms, hoping that the cleaning staff will make good use of them.  I always leave a note (in the local language if I can manage it) specifically stating that I no longer want these items and the staff is welcome to them.  (For example, in basic Spanish I’ve written:  “Usted puede tener estas cosas.  No quiero estas.”)   Even if my Spanish or French isn’t perfect, I think I get my message across.  I don’t want anyone at the hotel to think I left these things behind by mistake and send them back to me!

Of course, when my travels include seeing people I know or attending an event like a wedding, I eschew my jettison pile and instead pack flattering, current clothes and shoes.  The jettison pile is reserved for trips, like my recent trip to Panama, when most of my encounters will be with total strangers–or close friends who already know my predilection for sharing old clothes.

3 Comments

Posted in dining, fashion, travel

Tagged , , , , ,

But Is It Reunion-Worthy?

Posted on December 14, 2012 | Leave a comment

“Belt-tightening” is the word on everyone’s lips these days.  We’ve all become uber-cautious purchasers of everything from laundry detergent to pancake syrup.

This new ethos fits in perfectly with my lifelong approach to shopping.  I’ve never been a big spender. Au contraire. My chief indulgence has always been to hunt for earth-shattering bargains.

But now I have another reason to watch my pennies when I consider buying something new. With a class reunion looming, the prospect of seeing my former classmates has led me to rethink how I shop for clothes.

After scrutinizing a closetful of things I wouldn’t dream of wearing to my reunion, I’m launching a whole new wardrobe strategy.

The new standard for my purchases? Are they reunion-worthy?

I’m a bargain-hunter from way back, and one of my favorite pursuits has always been scouring the reduced racks at stores ranging from Loehmann’s and Macy’s to Nordstrom and my neighborhood boutiques.  Not to mention bopping into stores like T.J. Maxx and Marshalls now and then.  The result?  Although some of my choices have served me well, my closet is crammed with bargains that I never wear.

OK, I’ll admit that some of them don’t fit.  They were impulse purchases during those giddy moments when I actually thought I was going to wear a size 4 again.

But even those that fit me perfectly well often hang there along with the others.  Yes, they looked good in the dressing room.  Was it the soft lighting that sucked me in?  Or was it the “skinny mirrors”?  (Remember how Elaine on “Seinfeld” accused Barney’s of having skinny mirrors?)

I happily toted my bargains home.  But by the time I appraised them in my bedroom mirror and realized that they didn’t look so great on me after all, the deadline for returning them had too often expired.  I was permanently and unalterably stuck with them.

Fast forward to now.  Before I hand over my cash for another purchase, I’m going to ask myself:  “Is it reunion-worthy?”

We all understand what that means.  We want to look absolutely smashing at a class reunion.  Everything we wear has to be fabulous.  Now translate that to your everyday wardrobe.

Here’s how the new approach will work.  Remember those classmates who were slim and sleek when you were kind of puffy?  Thanks to your fitness regime and a healthier diet, you’ve pared down your poundage and tightened up your tummy.  If you were going to a class reunion, you’d want everyone to know it, wouldn’t you?  So view every dress with that in mind.  Ask yourself, “Do I look as slender in this dress as I really am?”  If not, don’t buy it!  It’s not reunion-worthy.

Or suppose that you’ve slowly, painfully, come to realize that you look awful in pale pink and that navy blue suits you much better.  You wouldn’t buy a pale pink pantsuit to wear to your reunion, would you?  So…don’t buy it for any other occasion, no matter how gigantic a bargain it may be.

I’m frequently tempted to buy jackets in bold bright patterns with large colorful designs.  But after I bought one the other day, I took another look at it in my bedroom mirror.  It overpowered my petite size and shape.  Would I wear it to my reunion?  Not on your life!  Back to the store it went.

Thanks to my awakening, we can all begin to view everything we buy through this new lens.   So what if an outfit’s been reduced from $200 to a rock-bottom 39 bucks.  Don’t buy it unless it’s reunion-worthy.  That designer dress may be terribly chic, but let’s face it:  it’s styled for someone with a totally different shape.  Forget it.  It’s not reunion-worthy.

As you hunt for clothes in your favorite stores, keep thinking this way, and spend your hard-earned dollars on only those duds that make you look terrific.  You’ll save money, and your closets will no longer be clogged with unwearable clothes.

Happy shopping!  You can thank me (and my class reunion) for a splendid result.

[A version of this commentary previously appeared as an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.]

Leave a comment

Posted in class reunions, fashion, opinion pieces, shopping

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

No Butts About It

Posted on October 13, 2012 | Leave a comment

If you’re like me, you find secondhand smoke unpleasant, irritating and a downright menace to your health.  A raft of studies has confirmed the dangers of inhaling secondhand smoke.  To reduce its impact, we’ve banned smoking in the workplace, restaurants and other public places.  But those bans have produced a new menace:  street smokers.

You know who they are. They’re the people who insist on smoking while they’re walking down the street, right next to you and me.

Sure, they’re angry because they can’t light up in stores and theaters the way they used to.  They miss smoking in their favorite bars and restaurants.  And they’re annoyed that they can’t smoke at work anymore.

But hey, street smokers, don’t make the rest of us suffer.  You should be content to pollute your own homes (even if you are endangering the health of your spouse, your children, and the family dog).

But are you?  No, you’re not.  You’ve become street smokers.

You stride through our city streets, puffing away with complete disregard for anyone else.  I’ve come close to being burned by one of your smoking wands too many times to keep it to myself anymore.  You’ve got to be stopped.

Okay, I admit you’ve been entrapped by carefully designed advertising, depicting smoking as glamorous and seductive, inducing you to start smoking at an early age.  Convinced by Big Tobacco that smoking was “cool,” that it would make you more attractive to the opposite sex, you began smoking in your teens, then found yourselves addicted.  So maybe I should pity rather than condemn you.

Sorry, I just can’t.  Uppermost in my mind is the health and safety of us nonsmokers.  First and foremost, I worry about secondhand smoke.  But I also worry about the prospect of burnt skin and ugly holes in my faux designer duds.

Maybe you think smoking outside is harmless to others.  Wrong!  If you’re within ten feet of me on a busy sidewalk, or standing near me as I wait for a stoplight to change, I can’t avoid inhaling your smoke.  And the burning end of your cigarette is more dangerous on the street than off, where you rest it in an ashtray instead of waving it mere inches from my skin and clothing.

Another problem you’ve caused:  Your discarded butts are everywhere.  They now make up one of the worst sources of unsightly litter on the city’s streets.

Instead of pulling out that cigarette when you’re walking next to me, try being a bit more creative.  Maybe an entrepreneur could open “smokers’ lounges” in high-density locations.  (Here’s a idea free of charge:  Call them Smokebucks–a Starbucks for smokers.)  Surely most cities could support one or two.

If you tried, you could initiate some even better options.  You could try a nicotine patch, investigate hypnosis, or join a support group.  In the meantime, don’t expect me and my fellow nonsmokers to shower you with sympathy.

Listen up, street smokers.  Nonsmokers are fed up with you.  We’re tired of inhaling your smoke as you walk in front, behind, or next to us.

We’re tired of dodging the red-hot tips of your cigarettes as we walk through the city.  If you don’t cut out your lung-damaging, skin-threatening street smoking, we’ll organize.  We’ll form a group called ESS (Eliminate Street Smoking).  ESS will create a new morality that makes it unacceptable to smoke on the street.  We’ll lobby for laws banning street smoking, just as drinking liquor and spitting on the street were banned long ago.

If none of this works, I’ll come after you myself.  I’ll pull that burning stick out of your nicotine-stained fingers, hurl it to the ground and crush it underfoot until it’s dead.  No jury in the world would convict me of causing harm to anyone—especially you.

Leave a comment

Posted in "street smokers", addiction to smoking, banning smoking, dangers of street smoking, secondhand smoke, smokers

Tagged , , , , , ,

The Lip-Kick Effect

Posted on October 13, 2012 | Leave a comment

Despite what some pundits may say, much of our economy is still mired in a recession.  Efforts to budge the numbers upward have had some success, with thousands more private jobs created in recent months.

But many Americans still feel stuck in neutral or worse.  How do we cope?

Researchers at several universities recently concluded that the more insecure the economy, the more women spend on beauty products, especially lipstick.  They’ve dubbed this phenomenon the “lipstick effect.”

I prefer to call it the “lip-kick effect.”  When one of my daughters was quite small, she pronounced “lipstick” as “lip-kick,” and her mispronunciation became family legend.  It now strikes me as an even better moniker for the “lipstick effect.”

Five separate studies confirmed this hypothesis.  They found that during recessions over the past 20 years, women have reallocated their spending from other items to beauty products.

Why do women confronted with economic hardship seek out new beauty products?  The researchers came up with a host of reasons.  Most significant is a rational desire to attract men, especially men with money.

Another reason?  It’s simple:  Lipstick can boost a woman’s morale.

I cheerfully admit that I’m a (credit) card-carrying member of this particular group.  Like most women, I get a kick out of lipstick.  And while uncertainty reigns, we women get our kicks where we can.

A brand-new lipstick can be a mood-changer.  How many times have we witnessed women in the movies or on TV applying lipstick in front of a mirror, then smiling at their reflection?  That scene rings true.  Lipstick can make women feel better.  And lipstick is a pretty cheap thrill.

Leonard Lauder, chairman of the Estée Lauder Companies, reportedly announced that lipstick sales went way up after 9/11.  I’m not surprised.  Estée Lauder lipsticks, at 18 or 20 bucks each, are a bargain compared to a $300 pair of shoes or a $900 designer handbag.

But some lip-kicks are even cheaper.  When women need a quick pick-me-up, we can saunter down to our neighborhood drugstore and head for the cosmetics section.  The dizzying array of available lipsticks can put a smile on almost any woman’s face.  There’s the usual overabundance:  lipstick, lip gloss, lip stain, lip liners, all in countless colors and textures that are constantly changing.

For $8 or $10, we can choose from scores of glittering options.  Many purport to last longer than ever before.  And now there are the plumpers, lipsticks that claim to have the improbable ability to puff up one’s lips.  In the past, puffy lips were sometimes viewed as less than glamorous, but fashions change, and today it’s chic to have plump lips, leading some pouty stars of movies and TV to obtain them via collagen injections. (Ouch!)  A plumper-lipstick sounds like a much better idea.

Women feel even more triumphant when they enter the drugstore armed with its weekly ad, featuring a sale price on a new lipstick.  Two-for-the-price-of-one sales have disappeared, but most of us will settle for buy-one-get-one-50%-off, especially if a manufacturer coupon deducts another dollar or two off the price.  Sometimes these smart-shopper techniques enable us to walk out of the drugstore with two lipsticks for $4 or $5 each.

Aside from sugary candy bars or high-fat French fries, where can you buy another indulgence for so little?

Sure, like most Americans, I’m concerned about our fragile economy, the war in Afghanistan, turmoil in the Mideast, and all of the other pressing issues of our time.  But drugstore cosmetics clearly provide a happy (albeit temporary) distraction.

There’s a popular saying:  “Slap on a little lipstick…you’ll be fine.”  Women like me heartily agree.  I’m smiling just thinking about the one I’ll buy tomorrow.

Leave a comment

Posted in beauty products, cheap indulgences, cosmetics, fashion, lipstick, morale-boosters, opinion pieces

Tagged , , , , , ,

It’s Time to Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act

Posted on October 10, 2012 | Leave a comment

How many working women think they’re paid fairly for the work they do?  Right now, with the economy still struggling to provide jobs for all those who want them, many women are probably happy just to be employed.

But women are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar men receive, making unequal pay a continuing problem for American women and the families who depend on their wages. (According to a recent report, women are the primary breadwinners in 40 percent of American households.)

In 2010, April 20, designated as Equal Pay Day, marked how far into 2010 women had to work over and above what they made in 2009 to earn what men earned during 2009 alone.

Currently languishing in the U.S. Congress is the Paycheck Fairness Act (the PFA), proposed legislation that would level the playing field for working women.  The PFA would amend the 1963 Equal Pay Act (the EPA), which made it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to those who perform substantially equal work.  Although enforcement of the EPA has narrowed the wage gap, a sizeable disparity still exists.

The PFA would help change the status quo.  While other civil rights statutes have been amended numerous times, the EPA never has.  The result: its enforcement tools are outdated, making the gender-disparity in pay hard to eradicate.

The PFA wouldn’t create an onerous burden on employers because it wouldn’t give employees any new rights.  Currently employers must comply with the EPA.  The only difference is that women would be better able to enforce those rights.

Many of the bill’s provisions make no demands on employers whatsoever.  One provision would merely create a grant program to help women and girls develop salary-negotiation skills.  Another would improve the way the government collects information from federal contractors.  Other provisions focus on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, e.g, giving EEOC staff additional training to better identify and handle wage disputes.

Of course, some provisions directly affect employers.  Most significantly, the PFA would give women the same remedies as employees discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin.  Currently women can get only limited awards like back pay.  The PFA would allow women to get compensatory and punitive damages for pay discrimination.

The PFA would also prohibit employers from retaliating against women who share salary information with their coworkers.  This kind of information-sharing helps employees learn about wage disparities and discrimination, but currently employers can retaliate against women who share such information.

Further, the PFA would allow an EPA lawsuit to proceed as a class action under the rules that apply to other federal lawsuits instead of the harsh 1963 rules that have never been amended.

Finally, a significant loophole now keeps women from winning cases brought under the EPA.  Employers who are paying women less than men for equal work can claim that the difference in pay is based on a “factor other than sex.”  This language is too broad.  It’s been used to introduce factors like a male worker’s stronger negotiation skills.

This is not what Congress intended when it passed the EPA.  The PFA would alter this language and allow different pay for men and women only when an employer can show that the difference relates to job performance and business necessity.

Congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi have issued a ringing endorsement of the PFA.  U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, one of the PFA’s 36 co-sponsors in the Senate, agrees.  Senator Dianne Feinstein has also joined Senator Boxer and endorsed passage of the bill in the Senate.  Significantly, President Barack Obama noted his support of this legislation in his speech before the Democratic Convention in 2012.

It’s time for Congress to act.  Let’s make pay equity a reality for America’s working women.

[A version of this commentary previously appeared as an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.]

Leave a comment

Posted in gender equality, opinion pieces

Tagged , , , ,

High Heels Are Killers

Posted on October 4, 2012 | Leave a comment

by Susan Alexander

I’ve long maintained that high heels are killers.  I never used that term literally, of course.  I merely viewed high-heeled shoes as distinctly uncomfortable and an outrageous concession to the dictates of fashion that can lead to both pain and permanent damage to a woman’s body.

Now, however, high heels have proved to be actual killers.  The Associated Press recently reported that two women were killed in Riverside, California, when a train shoved their car into them as they struggled in high heels to get away.  The car got stuck on the train tracks when the driver tried to make a U-turn.  The women emerged from the Honda and attempted to flee as a train approached.  A police spokesman later said, “It appears they were in high heels and [had] a hard time getting away quickly” as they tried to run on the gravel surrounding the train tracks.  The women were 18 and 23 years old.

Like those two women, I was sucked into wearing high heels when I was a teenager.  It was de rigueur for girls at my high school to seek out the trendy shoe stores on State Street in downtown Chicago and purchase whatever high-heeled offerings our wallets could afford.  On my first visit to such a store, I was entranced by the three-inch-heeled numbers that pushed my toes into a too-narrow space and revealed them in what I thought was a highly provocative position.  If feet can have cleavage, those shoes gave mine cleavage.

Never mind that my feet were incased in a vise-like grip.  Never mind that I walked unsteadily on the stilts beneath my soles.  And never mind that my whole body was pitched forward in an ungainly manner as I propelled myself down the store’s aisle toward the mirror on the wall.  I liked the way my legs looked in those shoes, and I had just enough baby-sitting money to pay for them.  Now I could stride pridefully to the next Sweet Sixteen luncheon on my calendar, wearing footwear just like all the other girls’.

That luncheon revealed what an unwise purchase I had made.  I was stranded in a distant location with no ride home in the offing, and I began walking to the nearest bus stop.  After a few steps, it was clear that my shoes were killers.  I could barely put one foot in front of the other, and the pain became so great that I ultimately removed my shoes and walked in stocking feet the rest of the way.

After that painful lesson, I abandoned my high-heeled shoes and resorted to wearing more “sensible” lower heels.   Sure, I couldn’t flaunt my shapely legs quite as effectively in lower heels, but I managed to secure male attention nevertheless.  Instead of conforming to the modern-day equivalent of Chinese foot-binding, I successfully fended off the back pain, bunions, and corns that my fashion-victim sisters have suffered in spades.

In recent years, I’ve noticed the trend toward even higher heels, and I grieve for the young women who buy into the mindset that they must follow the dictates of fashion and the need to look “sexy.”  All around me, I see women wearing  stilettos that force them into the ungainly walk I briefly sported so long ago.  TV and movies have surely fostered this trend (witness “Sex and the City”).

When I recently sat on the stage of Zellerbach Hall at the Berkeley commencement for mathematics students, I was astonished that most of the women hobbled across the stage to receive their diplomas in three- and four-inch-high sandals.  I was terrified that these super-smart math students would trip and fall before they could grasp the document their mighty brain-power had achieved.  (Fortunately, none of them did, but I could imagine the pain that accompanied the joy of receiving their degrees.)

The deaths in Riverside demonstrate an even more dramatic problem.  When women need to flee a dangerous situation, high heels surely handicap their ability to escape.  How many other needless deaths have resulted from hobbled feet?

When we celebrate the Fourth of July, I urge the women of America to proclaim their independence from high-heeled shoes.  If you’re currently wearing painful footwear, bravely toss those shoes and shod yourself in comfy ones.  Your wretched appendages, yearning to be free, will be forever grateful.

[A version of this commentary previously appeared as an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.]

Leave a comment

Posted in fashion, opinion pieces

Tagged , , , , ,

Men and Typing: Hitting the Shift Key

Posted on September 20, 2012 | Leave a comment

By Susan Alexander

Inch by inch, we move towards gender equality in a host of ways.  When we compare today’s workplace, for example, with the one portrayed on the current TV drama “Mad Men,” depicting a New York advertising agency in the early 1960s, the contrast is striking.  Men dominate the agency.  They are the decision-makers and the bright creative types (only one woman has broken in so far).  All of the other women at the agency (called “girls,” regardless of their age)?  THEY TYPE.

What progress have we made since then?  “Mad Men” illustrates one of my favorite examples:  the enthusiastic adoption by males of what used to be an almost totally female occupation.  TYPING.

Typing clearly exemplifies the contrast between then and now. When I was a Harvard law student in the late 1960s (one of the four percent in my class comprised of women), many of my male classmates eschewed typing.  Sitting behind a typewriter was beneath them, a chore to be performed by women.  Or perhaps they simply never learned to type.  So instead of typing their own papers, they employed women who advertised their services as typists on law-school bulletin boards, or they inveigled their girlfriends or wives into doing it for them.

One bright young fellow who broke the mold was my classmate Lance Liebman.  A transplant to Kentucky (after spending his early years in Queens, where his progressive school district encouraged boys to learn typing), Lance became a high-school journalist and a crack typist.  When he entered the Kentucky state typing contest, he triumphantly won first prize.  Gender-stereotyping reared its silly head, however:  the Lexington Leader referred to him as “Miss Lance Liebman.”

Lance went on to excel in law school, becoming the head of the Harvard Law Review (a prestigious position later held by Barack Obama), and is now a distinguished professor (and former dean) at Columbia Law School.  He believes that his typing ability may have given him an edge.  A small minority of our classmates, including Lance, typed their exams, making their exams more legible and probably leading to better grades.

Granted, typing back then was a miserable chore, even for those of us who had mastered the technique in high school or college.  I painfully recall typing my first-year moot court briefs on my tinny Royal portable.  Moot court rules required five copies of each brief.  That meant inserting five sheets of paper into the typewriter, along with four sheets of carbon paper inserted between them.  Every time I typed the wrong letter, I had to use a special eraser to correct my error, leading to a hideous result:  four smudged-filled copies.  Corrections took forever, too.  To avoid errors, I wrote everything out in longhand first, then transcribed it into typewritten form.

When I took my first job, as a judge’s law clerk, I was placed behind an electric typewriter.  Time pressure didn’t allow writing in longhand first, and pretty soon I was able to type my ideas directly onto the paper.  (I remember typing lots of X’s over the mistakes that cropped up, however.)  In the early 1980s I learned to use computers for “word processing”—they were scary at first but far superior to typewriters–and never looked back.

Today, every boy learns to type at an early age.  In the era of computer technology, it’s unthinkable for them to dictate their words, or write them out in longhand, and expect an underling to input them into the computer.  Men in every profession now want and need to use the technology that’s still mainly accessible through typing, and they spend hours sitting in front of keyboards in the workplace and in their homes.  Everywhere there’s a computer hookup, there are men busily typing away.

(Only those males fearful of the new technology still cling to the old ways.  These men continue to rely on secretaries or “assistants” and, yes, their wives to do the typing.  Example:  Bill Marriot, CEO of the hotel chain, blogs–but has his secretary type it for him.)

I often wonder how many of us have observed this sea-change in our lives.  Forty or fifty years ago, typing was largely done by women. Today both men and women head for the keyboard without even thinking about it.

What a shift!

[A version of this commentary previously appeared as an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.]

Leave a comment

Posted in gender equality

Tagged , , ,

Welcome to my blog!

Posted on September 13, 2012 | Leave a comment

I’m launching this blog to express my thoughts.

Many of the posts I plan to include have been published as commentary elsewhere.

Please watch for those, and for new ones I will be adding.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

My publications

Posted on September 13, 2012 | Leave a comment

I’m a lifelong writer who has also worked as a lawyer and law professor. In recent years, writing has become my primary focus.

I’m the author of two novels, A Quicker Blood and Jealous Mistress.

I’ve written articles, book reviews, and op-ed pieces on the law, on travel, on the environment, and other topics, published in professional journals and in the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Daily News, the Baltimore Sun, the ABA Journal, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, the Los Angeles Daily Journal, the San Francisco Daily Journal, and other publications

I’ve also worked as an editor on two publications.

Here’s a list of my publications as of September 2012.

Fiction 

Two novels:

A Quicker Blood, a thriller published in 2009

Jealous Mistress, a murder mystery published in 2011

Both are available for purchase on Amazon.com.

“Neglect,” a short story published in Chicago Lawyer Magazine (prizewinner in its First Annual Fiction Contest), August 1993

San Francisco Chronicle Publications  

Twelve op-ed/commentary pieces, January 2007-December 2011:

“No butts about it,” January 29, 2007

“A good man is not so hard to find…if he’s been cloned,” September 16, 2007

“Charitable organizations presume too much,” October 28, 2007

“Why emulate Chicago?,” June 16, 2008

“High heels are killers,” July 4, 2008

“Gender equality came via the keyboard,” September 14, 2008

“Toys for boys and girls,” December 24, 2008

“Federal waste we can end,” January 28, 2009

“Before you buy, ask: Is it reunion-worthy?” May 12, 2009

“To travel cheaply, sleep on the sofa,” July 23, 2009

“Unequal pay harms U.S. women,” April 23, 2010

“Politics afflicts the Christmas tree trade,” December 15, 2011

Chicago Tribune Publications

May 13, 1996, “Pension Problems Come Alive, Along with Practical Guidance” (book review of The Pension Book by Karen Ferguson and Kate Blackwell)

June 28, 1992, “Foul play: Some games have no winners” (commentary)

October 12, 1991, “How much is a child’s love worth?” (op-ed piece)

April 12, 1989, “Playing by the Rules” (travel)

September 11, 1988, “Law School Ladies’ Day is No Longer Such a Trial” (commentary)

March 15, 1987, “Intellect Can Sprout in London’s Bloomsbury” (travel)

November 23, 1986, “Questionable Language: to a Person, We Could Use This Cure For Sexism” (commentary)

March 18, 1986, “It’s All the Lawyers’ Fault!” (op-ed piece)

Money-saving tips for travelers to Paris, 1982 (also published in the NY Daily News)

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin Publications

March 21, 2003, “Author:  Racial ‘pathologies’ still plague U.S.” (book review of “Interracial Intimacies:  Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption” by Randall Kennedy)

February 24, 2003, “A case of contempt” (book review of “The King of Torts” by John Grisham)

July 22, 2002, “Searching for truth; decisions of consequence” (book review)

October 23, 2001, “Structure your writing to make your point”

May 23, 2000, “Sometimes both sides lose” (book review)

November 19, 1999, “Sexual autonomy as the foundation for a new law on rape” (book review)

August 18, 1998, “Watch out! Your vacationing relatives may be ‘living with’ you”

March 11, 1998, “Getting tough in fight against pollution”

December 17, 1997, “State should recognize value of children’s companionship”

March 15, 1996, “Horrific acts spark attorney’s internal debate” (book review)

January 25, 1996, “Ensuring future security with private pension plans” (book review)

January 9, 1996, “Personal liability under Family Leave Act”

August 1, 1995, “Insurance case yields ruling on allocation”

June 22, 1995, “Insurer forced to cover sex abuse claim”

June 6, 1995, “Admission withheld, admission denied”

May 4, 1995, “2d Circuit says it’s reasonable to rely on insurance broker’s coverage statements”

April 27, 1995, “Distinguishing between law and equity”

April 11, 1995, “Officers escape some liability for failed S&L”

March 30, 1995, “Pollution case weighs personal liability”

September 12, 1994, “Appeals court rejects bank’s claim for lien”

July 13, 1994, “Judge allows parents to recover in vaccine-injury case”

May 24, 1994, “Court invokes two-part test for preferential transfers”

Nov. 19, 1993, “Making Adoption Accessible, Affordable and Acceptable” (book review of “Family Bonds” by Elizabeth Bartholet)

Oct. 20, 1993, “‘Lax business practices’ prove fatal in bank dispute”

May 24, 1993, “United flight attendants on strong legal grounds”

July 2, 1993, “Courts must do their part in fight against sexual harassment”

February 2, 1993, “Court rules IRAs exempt from a bankruptcy estate”

January 12, 1993, “Landowners’ indifference’ will not be rewarded: court”

November 2, 1992, “After 4 losses, lenders win in 5th Circuit”

Some Other Publications 

“Legal Writing 101:  Some tips on creating a framework that makes your documents clear and easy to understand,” The Recorder (legal publication in San Francisco) (December 21, 2009) 

Book reviews of Unwanted Sex: The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law by Stephen J. Schulhofer appear in 86 American Bar Association Journal 86 (August 2000); Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (Nov. 19, 1999); Los Angeles Daily Journal (Dec. 28, 1999); San Francisco Daily Journal (Dec. 28, 1999)

Book reviews of We Love Each Other, But by Dr. Ellen Wachtel appear in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (May 23, 2000); Los Angeles Daily Law Journal (June 13, 2000); San Francisco Daily Journal (June 13, 2000); 22 Pennsylvania Family Lawyer 73 (Dec. 2000)

“You’re a lousy dentist!” November 1998 (focus: defamation), in the ADA Legal Adviser: A guide to the law for dentists, a monthly newsletter published by the American Dental Association

The high cost of getting old, August 1998 (focus: long-term care insurance), in the ADA Legal Adviser: A guide to the law for dentists, a monthly newsletter published by the American Dental Association

One patient’s tale of trouble, November 1997 (focus: insurance coverage), in the ADA Legal Adviser: A guide to the law for dentists, a monthly newsletter published by the American Dental Association

Do you want a perfect lawn or a healthy family? Pioneer Press Forum, May 30, 1996

Mozart and the Abuse of Women, Today’s Chicago Woman, April 1996

Granada Memories Will Live On (commentary), Chicago Sun-Times, March 5, 1990

Symbolic Synagogue (travel article about Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island), Raleigh News & Observer, January 1, 1989 

Legal London: A Brief Walk Lets Visitors Judge Its Historical Treasures (travel), Baltimore Sun, Jan. 18, 1987

Legal London: A World Rich in History (travel), Chicago Sun-Times, June 15, 1986

A Walking Tour of Legal London: The Inns and Outs (travel), Raleigh News & Observer, May 18, 1986

Everything you always wanted to know about the federal judiciary (but didn’t know you could find in a book), Washington University alumni publication, 1985

Travel article about the Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, Denmark, New York Daily News, 1982

Travel article about Paris, New York Daily News, 1982

Articles in professional journals

Book review, 86 American Bar Association Journal 86 (August 2000), reviewing Unwanted Sex: The Culture of Intimidation and the Failure of Law by Stephen J. Schulhofer

Preemployment Inquiries and Examinations: What Employers Need to Know About the New EEOC Guidelines, 45 Labor Law Journal 667 (1994)

Book Review, 17 Illinois Family Law Reporter 159 (July 1994), reviewing Elizabeth Bartholet, Family Bonds: Adoption and the Politics of Parenting (1993)

The Fourth Circuit decides that ‘indifference’ will not be rewarded, March 1993, Environmental Control Law (Illinois State Bar Association newsletter)

Twenty Tips for Associates, 7 CBA Record 24 (Feb. 1993) (with Elias N. Matsakis), reprinted in 34 Law Office Economics & Management 143 (1993) and selected by the editor to appear in LOEM Manual at sec. 18.07 (1993 update)

Hoffman Homes decision limited USEPA’s power to regulate isolated wetlands, September 1992, Environmental Control Law (Illinois State Bar Association newsletter)

A Fairer Hand: Why Courts Must Recognize the Value of a Child’s Companionship, 8 Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 273 (1991)

Book Review, 62 Kentucky Law Journal 1161 (1974)

Business-Sponsored Mechanisms for Redress and Arbitration, in Staff Studies Prepared for the National Institute for Consumer Justice (1973)

The Captive Patient: The Treatment of Health Problems in American Prisons, 6 Clearinghouse Review 16 (May 1972), reprinted in Medical and Health Care in Jails, Prisons, and Other Correctional Facilities: A Compilation of Standards and Materials (American Medical Association, Commission on Correctional Facilities and Services, 1973)

Legal Analysis of Problem Situations, in Freya Olafson, Confidentiality: A Guide for Neighborhood Health Centers (Monograph No. 1, Neighborhood Health Center Seminar Program, 1971)

Abortions for Poor and Nonwhite Women: A Denial of Equal Protection?, 23 Hastings Law Journal 147 (1971) (with Alan Charles)

The State of Emergency Medical Services Under the Highway Safety Act, or Don’t Be Caught Dead in an Ambulance, 5 Clearinghouse Review 72 (June 1971)

A Child of a Different Color: Race as a Factor in Adoption and Custody Proceedings, 17 Buffalo Law Review 303 (1968)

Editing

Editor of the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary: Profiles of All Active United States District Court Judges (1984-85)

Editor and author of articles in the ADA Legal Adviser (newsletter published by the American Dental Association; winner of the 1998 Silver SNAP award) (1996-98)

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized