Monthly Archives: March 2005

Canadians Can Go Back to Masturbating in the Comfort of Their Own Homes

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned a man’s conviction in one of the most bizarre cases this writer’s heard of — a British Columbia man had been convicted in 2000 of indecency for masturbating in his own living room.

Two of the man’s busybody neighbors were able to witness the event through an opening in the man’s living room blinds. Of course in order to do so, first they had to uses first binoculars and then a telescope (the husband actually tried to videotape the man).

The man already served a four month prison sentence (!), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 9-0 that since the man clearly did not realize he was being watched — and who expects the idiot neighbors to pull out a telescope (doesn’t Canada have Peeping Tom laws?) — he was not acting indecently.

Writing for the court, Mr. Justice Morris Fish wrote,

I do not believe it [the indecency law] contemplates the ability of those who are neither entitled, nor invited, to enter a place to see or hear from the outside — through uncovered windows or open doors — what is transpiring inside.

Thank goodness it is once again safe to masturbate in the comfort of one’s home in Canada.

Sources:

Court OKs masturbation at home. Wendy Cox, Cnews, January 27, 2005.

Living romo window not public, Supreme Court rules. Globe and Mail, January 27, 2005.

Share

Wage Gap Decreases as Men’s Wages Fall or Hold Steady

Posted on by
Reply

The recession that started in 2001 has had one interesting effect on wages — it has resulted in a further closing of the wage gap between men and women as men’s wages held steady or declined over the past few years while women’s continued to rise.

According to the New York Times, a Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows that women now earn 80 percent of what men do, compared to just 62 percent 25 years ago. But, according to The Times,

It turns out that almost half of that gap closed during two comparatively short periods of relatively hard times, totaling about six years. Those periods correspond with the recessions and cutbacks in the work force that marked the opening years of the last decade and the current one.

But while the changes came about as a result of recessions, they persisted even after those recessions were over. The Times surveys various experts who offer different explanations for this, from the fact that men tend to be over-represented in industries that were hit by both recessions such as manufacturing, to companies replacing high-paid men with slightly lower-paid women for administrative and professional jobs, to the increasing educational attainment and tendency for women to work full time.

The Times notes that Bureau of Labor statistics show a big increase in women’s employment in “executive, administrative and managerial occupations”. Women today hold 46 percent of those jobs, compared to just 32 percent in 1983. Similar gains occurred in professional jobs as well.

Given that women now constitute the majority of college graduates, those trends are likely to continue and the wage gap is likely to decline even further as more women work full time and marry later, focusing on their careers in their 20s and 30s. (In 2000, for example, the average age at first marriage was 25 for all women, and even older for college-educated women).

Source:

Women are gaining ground on the wage front. Louis Uchitelle, The New York Times, December 31, 2004.

Share

Medical Ethicists on Fertility Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

The other day I mentioned the case of Adriana Iliescu who gave birth to a baby girl at the age of 66. One of my personal pet peeves are medical ethicists who condemn this, and none is worse than medical ethicist megastar Arthur Caplan.

Caplan condemned Iliescu giving birth saying,

“. . . [reproductive decisions] are too driven by the desires of couples and not enough by the interests of children.”

. . .

Caplan called it [Iliescu giving birth] “completely unethical and immoral,” noting that average life expectancy for Romanian women is 73 years. The fact she is single makes it worse because it raises the odds the child would have no one to care for her if the mother dies, he said.

Now the reason I can’t stand ethicists like Caplan is that they apply moral principles in dealing with medical issues that we would never tolerate in other areas.

As I mentioned in my previous post on this issue, the claim that reproductive decisions are driven by selfish interests of parents is silly — almost all children who are intentionally conceived are done for the selfish interests of parents. I doubt there are many women who sit down with counselors and go into detail about all the advantages and disadvantages of having children and decide whether or not it truly makes sense from a purely altruistic point of view. We have children in large measure to fulfill the overwhelming biological drive to do so and the emotional fulfillment that being a parent brings.

So why should we then complain that people seeking fertility treatment are just like the rest of us? Why should they be held to some ridiculous altruistic standard?

The complaint about Iliescu’s age and unmarried status also could broadly apply to large numbers of women who regularly have children (in fact in some countries providing fertility treatment to single women of any age is very controversial and in some areas banned).

There is nothing at all objectionable about Iliescu’s decision to have a child, even at 66. Caplan simply repackages a noxious disrespect for the reproductive rights of individuals and repackages it as “medical ethics.”

Source:

Study finds wide range of ethics at fertility clinics. Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press, January 25, 2005.

Share

New Zealand to Ban Up Skirt Filming

Posted on by
Reply

According to the BBC, New Zealand is planning to crack down on up skirt filming — wherein voyeurs use camera phones, camcorders or other devices in public to surreptitiously film under women’s clothes.

A surprising number of jurisdictions, including many states in the United States, discovered as the practice became more common they didn’t have specific laws to address the problem (and, generally, recording video in public places is considered unproblematic in most instances).

New Zealand Justice Minister Phil Goff told the BBC,

It is the most serious form of intrusion that someone can make into the privacy of another individual, filming them in the most intimate situations that you can imagine. Technology makes the problem much worse, both in terms of offensive publications and in terms of voyeuristic behavior. We’ve got to update the legislation to cater for the changes in technology which make it easier for people both to capture the images and to distribute them.

New Zealand is currently proposing changes in its laws that would make up skirt filming punishable by up to three years in prison. Knowingly possessing video or other materials obtained in this manner would be punishable by up to one year in prison.

Source:

NZ aims to jail ‘up skirt’ snappers. Kim Griggs, The BBC, December 9, 2004.

Share

Washington State Senator Proposes Repealing Law Making “Slander of A Woman” A Crime

Posted on by
Reply

Washington state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles recently introduced legislation in that state’s senate that would repeal a 1909 Washington state law making “slander of a woman” a crime. The law makes it illegal to use “false or defamatory words or language which shall inure or impair” the reputation of a virtuous woman, though the statute does allow individuals to slander “common prostitutes.”

Although it hasn’t been used in decades, the law was upheld by Washington’s state Supreme Court in 1914, which affirmed the conviction of a woman who was fined $50 for slandering another woman.

Kohl-Welles told the Associated Press, “This is one of those old laws that is really irrelevant now.” In a radio interview, Kohl-Welles added,

It violates equal protection — not only is it patronizing and a relic of a time when there were different cultural traditions, where women were placed upon a pedestal but were not given equal rights ? but its also unconstitutional.

Kohl-Welles’s proposal to strike the law passed the state Senate in February and goes on to the state House.

Source:

Seattle Senator wants to repeal slander law. Associated Press, January 24, 2005.

Share

Adriana Iliescu Gives Birth at 66 — Good for Her

Posted on by
Reply

Some people were apparently horrified at the thought of 66-year-old Adriana Iliescu becoming apparently the oldest woman to ever give birth thanks to fertility treatments which she underwent for nine years before giving birth to Eliza Maria Iliescu in January.

For feminists like Ellen Goodman, the birth was a morality tale about the horrors of women forced to put aside children to get ahead in their careers. Goodman, in fact, seems to be under the impression that no one ever worked 70 hour weeks in their 30s until women entered the work force.

Medical ethicists did their standard, annoying hand wringing. Romanian authorities initiated an ethics investigation of Iliescu’s doctor. University of Calgary professor Chloe Atkins, who apparently specializes in medical ethics, told the Calgary Sun,

Personally, I think in that case, it was a very selfish decision. She probably won?t be around for much of the child?s life.

Atkins would like to see economic and health-related factors used to restrict fertility treatments. Because nobody with poor long-term health prospects or income ever had a baby before Iliescu. The selfish line is often used but also a bit odd, since I suspect that the overwhelming majority of children who are intentionally conceived and born for purely selfish reasons (namely that their parents selfishly decide that they want to be parents).

I think this was an unmitigated good with absolutely no downside. Anytime we can figure out how to bring new people into the world to loving parents, there simply are no drawbacks. Bravo to Ms. Iliescu.

Source:

World’s oldest mother becomes dubious poster ‘elder’ for having it all. Ellen Goodman, Detroit News, March 4, 2005.

‘World’s oldest mum’ raps critics. The BBC, January 19, 2005.

?Selfish? mom spurs age debate? Andrea Radke, Calgary Sun, January 21, 2005.

Share