He'll Always Be My Canadian.

Last week was....bizarre. In fact, this entire month has kind of been strange. I don't know if it's the transition from Christmas vacation back to work and school or the dreary days of snow or maybe the general feeling of malaise that my job carries during this season of tax preparation and insurance renewals, but something is just off, for lack of a better word.

Add to that the crowning glory of bizarre as I watched the world's most proud Canadian take an oath to my country, the United States of America, last Thursday. This was a decision years in the making that has brought tears, arguments, jokes, and laughter to both Jesse and I. During the application process, we decided to keep it just between the two of us. As Thursday approached, we reached the point where we realized it was probably appropriate to tell people before it happened rather than after.

Most people replied with "congratulations!" and I smiled politely at them and said thanks, not really wanting to get deeper into all the issues that go along with it.

For me, in some ways, I felt deeply sad that in order to become an "American", one is asked to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen." This is required, whether one has dual citizenship or not.

I guess I understand the reasoning somewhat, but it's still a hard pill to swallow. No matter where a person comes from, no matter how great or how war-torn or how equal or how unfair a country is, the places we are born and the places we live growing up are entrenched in our souls. We are shaped by our society whether or not we want to be. To "renounce" that, regardless of whether one was shaped for the better or for the worse, seems like denying a part of one's identity. I am sure this section of the oath will have different meaning to different people. For me, as an American, I feel some desire to put a disclaimer on it.

My ambivalent feeling wasn't helped along much when during the check in process, an older Iraqi woman turned in her papers, and the lady checking her in started questioning her about her marriage. The woman spoke little to no English, but through a translator explained that she was a widow. A few minutes of chatter about this, and then the check-in lady says something about her not signing that she is willing to bear arms. "Are you willing to bear arms?"..."You must sign that you are willing to bear arms."..."You have to bear arms." The woman clearly didn't understand and though I know it's a formality that must be addressed, it was in all ways, a ridiculous scene.

Anyway, everyone got checked in and then they took all the people to be sworn in up to the courtroom while the rest of us waited downstairs. I guess during this time, they were seating them in a certain order and explaining to them what would be asked of them during the ceremony. After a good half hour or so passed, they came back to fetch the rest of us and we all crammed into elevators to go up to the courtroom.

I realized once we were in, this was my first time at a court hearing. We did the "all rise" thing, the judge came in, someone presented the applicants, then motioned for the court to grant them citizenship as petitioned. The judge accepted and then launched into a speech. He started off with the typical hoo-rah that I expected. America is wonderful, a great country, all that stuff. Then, he paused and said something to the effect of "Now, I must take a minute to address the places from which you all came." (There were about 60 being sworn in, from places as diverse as Pakistan to England to Mexico to Bosnia.) When he said that, I think I braced my heart a bit for what was about to come next, unsure of his stance and what he was going to say.

What followed was not only a relief, but actually made me tear up a bit. In essence, he spoke of the importance of remembering one's history, of telling stories to your children of the places you grew up, of never forgetting your roots. I was overcome with thankfulness to hear him acknowledge the individuals' history and the sacrifices that people were making in order to take this oath. It was to me, the most beautiful part of the ceremony. I hope that, if Jesse and I ever do finally get around to having children, they will grow up having fond memories of both Canada and America.

I hope they will experience the beauty of the Canadian Rockies, know what a toque is, and grow an appreciation for a cold Molsen. I hope they play with sparklers on the 4th of July, sing the Star Spangled Banner, and learn their lesson if they don't run away from a lit firecracker fast enough. I hope they feel unsure of who to root for during the Olympics. I hope they never fall into believing the stereotype that Americans are self-absorbed and politically ignorant or that Canadians live in igloos and say "aboot". I hope they are proud of their father and the land he grew up in and I hope they feel a sense of ownership over it, too. And I hope they breathe in America, loving her for all her potential - even that which goes unmet. I hope, above all this, that they manage to rise above political boundaries and see people first and foremost as human beings just like themselves; people who are capable of feeling pain and love; people who choose to accept or reject.

Book Review

I started reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer a couple days ago. I forgot what it's like to be so into a book you don't want to put it down. I haven't enjoyed a book this much since Anderson Cooper's Dispatches from the Edge. It's been a really easy and fast read so far - mind you, not always light reading, but fast and easy none the less.

Someone once told me that you should measure how good a book is by two things: Does it make you laugh out loud? Does it make you cry out loud? Eating Animals has done both for me. Two nights ago, I sat in bed laughing my way through a chapter. Last night, I sobbed my way through the one that followed. (Side note: My husband was kind enough to show me an impression of myself reading, in which he repeatedly gasped dramatically and clutched his chest.)

Eating Animals is, of course, a book about food ethics. Not a short supply of those these days...in fact, they seem to be quite the trend. Omnivore's Dilemma has been one of the most popular, and though I tried to read it, it never really gripped me. What I like about Foer's book is that it is two parts deeply human, one part fact. Maybe it's that I identify with his logic and his struggle, or maybe it's just that he is a darn good writer. Either way, the book is worth checking out.

I am a little more than half way, currently in the chapter "Slices of Paradise/Pieces of Shit". Things I have loved thus far:

1) Foer does a nice job of including voices from every angle in this discussion. He includes letters in this book - letters that are frank, that are moving, that are really beautiful. There's a factory farmer who is so honest and makes such solid points that even I, disdainer of factory farms, felt some tinge of compassion for him, a slaughter-house worker turned animal activist, a small "old-school" turkey farmer who writes beautifully of how he finds himself not thankful, but apologetic every year on Thanksgiving, a PETA worker, a meat producer... beautiful letters.

2) While it's plain to see which "side" Foer lands on, he is fair and logical. For instance, a good page plus is devoted to outlining why Americans would be wise to eat dogs.

3) He briefly, (yet frequently) banters back to Michael Pollan (author of Omnivore's Dilemma).

5) The book is essentially stories. It is framed as a dialogue, not a presentation.

6) I have read so many compelling paragraphs that I simply could not choose which one to post on here.

All in all, Foer is just plain witty. I plan to finish up the book today. If you are looking for a good read, add this to your shelf.

Charity

Over the last few years, I have thought a lot about "causes" and social justice issues. When there are so many things wrong in the world, how do you decide which one to put your effort into? There are many, many thing that tug on my heart, as I'm sure they do many others. But, the fact of the matter is that I don't have the time, money, or the energy to contribute to every cause that weighs on my heart. In the end, I have to choose.

After having spent a few years involved with various ministries, non-profit organizations, and even for-profit businesses with a "good twist", I decided my giving is maximized when I myself am maximized.

By that I mean, certain efforts I was involved in totally and completely drained me, left me frustrated, and became utterly un-enjoyable. The only reason I kept doing it is that I had committed to doing it, but often times, I was counting down the days until my commitment was over.

Eventually, I pretty much stopped doing all together. I was just burned out, tired, and frankly, pretty much a crabby, pissed off type of person.

Then, slowly the ache came back - I'd hear stories that stirred my heart, learn about causes that I desperately wanted to help with, and found myself really wanting to give back in some way. So, I did another long round of searching for a "fit", which resulted in me trying on a lot of "wrong fits" (and even one, year long wrong fit that I roped Jesse into doing with me...sorry babe.) Eventually, I started heading back to the exact same spot I was in, burned out and tired.

So, I decided to lay off of it all for a while again....but then that ache of wanting to be involved with something came back. With memories of the many failed attempts at "helping" fresh in my mind, I decided to approach things differently.

I decided to be 100% selfish. And it has been awesome.

That sounds bad at first, but it's actually a good thing. This time, when I approached "getting involved", I was highly selective. It had to be something that a) I looked forward to doing, b) I could easily afford, c) I felt extremely passionate about, and d) I could "test run" and easily bail on should I change my mind.

Thus enter a flyer I saw while walking to class one day a couple years ago. A local dog shelter needed people to walk dogs. Even though it got my interest, I didn't jump on it. In fact, months went by and I passed that same flyer dozens of times, each time thinking "maybe". After all, when I had intended to "give back", I was sort of thinking about people, not animals. Even so, I kept it tucked in the back of my mind, since it did fit my requirements: I love dogs, I had been wanting to get more exercise anyway, I was already passionate enough about the humane movement that I had given up meat, I could pick when I wanted to do it, and I could stop anytime I wanted.

Finally, months later, I bit the bullet and gave it a try. And now, nearly a year and a half later, I'm still doing it, and I still look forward to it, and I still believe in it, and I still get energized when I go, and I still regain perspective on my life when I go, and I laugh there, and I don't care how I look there, and my heart is still soft there, and I still cry when a particularly bad story of abuse or neglect comes my way, and I still rejoice when a particularly good story of success, health, and a happy, new home comes my way.

And finally, I feel like I caught of a glimpse of what God intended in our giving. It's a mutual exchange. I'm not giving and receiving nothing in return - thus immediately making it not about charity or about one side being "in need", but about community, about a shared sense of value. I have something to give, but I also have something to receive.

I'm not set up in a place of power or of "betterness", which can easily come when I'm giving without receiving. Instead, because I receive, the giving is made even better.

And that receiving piece is, in my opinion, what makes many charitable causes fail. We don't see that even in our giving, we must receive. I know that's backward from everything I ever learned, especially in Christian circles where it's all about "dying to self" and "giving without expecting anything in return", and yes, it's true that Jesus did do that...but you know what? I'm not Jesus.

I think someone who is God and human and the whole kit and caboodle probably has an upper hand in that he could probably find a way to give any way he pleases, and in a way that never belittles the "other side". But I don't know if us humans can do that, unless we are also willing, and expecting, to receive, because we are far dumber than God, far more self-centered than God, and even in our attempts to "be like God", we have a way of really jacking things up.

I'm beginning to think the most unselfish way of giving is actually seemingly quite selfish, where we do anticipate and expect something in return, for it is this expectation of receiving that expresses our attitude; an attitude in which we are essentially saying that we can learn and grow and be better because of what someone else can offer us. We see that it is not just "me" that has something to offer, but that everyone, no matter their walk of life, has something valuable to give this world, and something we can learn and grow from that can not be found within ourself.

So, all that to say... my conclusion from this is that while there are a million causes worth fighting for, things seem to click best when we choose those causes in which the giving comes easily. That is not to say that it is not a still a sacrifice, but that is to say that it comes easily because it truly is coming from the overflow of our heart.

A silly example of this is my vegan-ness. As Jesse could tell you, cheese was my absolute, most favorite food in the world. I love, love, love, a good sharp cheddar. Feta in my salad...oh a nice Parmesan... and I could tell you about the most amazing Amish cheese and the way it crumbled on the block, but slowly melted in your mouth...oh my goodness, amazing. I always wanted to go to Paris with Jesse and spend a week eating nothing but bread with every single different type of cheese the city could offer. I've never really been a foodie, but cheese was the one food that could literally just make me stop and take in the moment of the taste...

Needless to say, being vegan is a sacrifice for me. But, at the same time, I find it comes incredibly easy. And I can only assume that is because my heart is really full with a love and desire for "the cause". So, in that sense, my sacrifice is coming from the outflow of how I feel in my heart, and that is what I mean when I say giving should come easy. I don't mean that it's not without sacrifice or difficulty.

So now that I have written a load full.... funny, what I had originally intended for this post was to do a simple intro paragraph and then post what I'm getting ready to below. Instead, my intro became a post in and of itself! But, what sparked this was something I read on Wayne Pacelle's blog about charities.

He was asked to give the commencement address for a university in Georgia, and spoke on charities in American life. I thought his words were worth sharing:

Wherever there is some great need in this country, you will find groups devoted to meeting it. Wherever there is some great wrong in this country, you will find groups that are laboring to right it. And what keeps all of these groups going is the commitment of members, volunteers, and donors who could all be doing something else with their time.

The jobs we keep are just a part of who we are. The mark we leave in the world will be seen way beyond the places we go to work. People will see your character in the company you keep, the words you say, and the causes you serve.

I challenged every student in my audience to find something special that mattered to him or her, to find a meaningful calling to fulfill. We are all driven by different passions, but it is that pluralism of interests that, in the aggregate, creates a civil society. Some are passionate about fighting poverty or protecting the environment or combating disease. When we each pursue these passions, or multiple passions, we get closer to covering the whole. As someone who cares deeply about animals, I am so relieved that there are others who share a passion for correcting other social ills or problems.

Well said, Wayne.

Food Inc.

I become increasingly passionate about the way we "do food" in America. As such, I am eagerly anticipating the release of Food Inc. in June. Please go see it!!

The Pattern of Life

I've thought a lot the last few years about career and family and what it means to be a woman walking somewhere in between (which I don't technically consider myself to be part of, because I don't have kids yet). Even so, feeling like someday I'll have to choose has weighed heavily on me at times. I think it is a pertinent issue for women in my generation, whether or not it's consciously on women's minds.

As I look toward the possibility of grad school, I feel very mixed. In so many ways, I want it to work out, yet there must be some part of me that would just feel all together relieved if it doesn't. The program I applied to is out of state, which I don't think I've ever mentioned on here before. So, to go means living apart from Jesse for a while (because of the house and other details), putting us in a harder spot financially due to the living arrangements plus the likelihood of more student loans and basically starting life fresh somewhere else - alone. But it also means a really, really good step toward building my career. To not go, means I'll most likely slink into some job that is just so-so and helps pays bills. But it also means being in the same place as Jesse and the finances feeling some relief since one of us would be done with school all together. Both versions of life have appeal and drawbacks.

I've been realizing more and more, there are very few "right or wrong" decisions in life. Most are just different, with different ups and downs. Of course, many have heavy implications - like this whole grad school thing for instance, would probably have a big impact on when we have kids. But, it's not like there is a right or wrong time to go through big life changes. Yet somehow, there is this pressure about right and wrong times in life. Not just for women, but people in general. For instance, if people aren't married by about age 30, they get a lot of questions or people trying to hook them up, as if something must be wrong, because they aren't following the right life pattern. Or if kids aren't had by x years into marriage, there is a lot of question and assumption. I've even been asked "Why don't you want kids?", a question based on the fact that I've been married a while and don't plan to have kids in the near future. Or not going to college right after high school, that was like the end of the world to some people when I announced I wasn't going - as if I had just given up all chance of ever graduating. And I remember this past holiday having a conversation with a parent who was deeply, deeply concerned that their high school senior child didn't want to go to college right away. But...universities are always open...even for people who aren't 18. So why is it that people get so bent out of shape when you (or they) don't follow the "pattern"? And who made up this pattern anyway? It's all so silly. And I've been very guilty of living by the pattern, whereby I put all these deadlines on myself.

Well, if we decide to have kids biologically instead of adopt, then the risk of birth defects begins increasing starting at age 30, and by age 35, well just forget it...but if I go to grad school, that hardly leaves any time to work in a career that I worked so hard for before I'd be nearly out of time to have kids and then I'd just be giving up everything I worked so hard to get in the first place... and so was the pressure of the pattern.

Now, I've realized that either way will be okay. If I go to grad school, if I don't - life will be dramatically different either way, but both options, in one way or another, get me closer to the life that I want to build.

I think I've finally realized, the most important thing is not what I do, but who I love.

And love can look a lot of different ways.

Made in the USA

I used to think that I could generally trust that if a product was made in the USA, the worker received at least minimum wage and was protected under US federal labor laws. However, it has unfortunately been pointed out me via one of my classes this semester (aptly named "Social Problems") that this is not actually the case. If you have ten minutes or so, please check out this video. (Watch the Quick time version, as the Real Play one has issues.)

I'm deeply ashamed that any part of the U.S. - territory or mainland, would allow this type of stuff to go on. It's deceiving to consumers who have put their trust in the government and the "Made in the USA" label, and it's deeply deceiving to the foreign nationals who have put their hope in the US as a place that could help provide a better life. I just feel so ashamed of the deceit that happens in the name of my country. And again, with so many of these workers coming from the Philippines, it's even more personal to me, because I imagine some of the people I know there - and this could have been them.

No one takes ownership of these problems and I think that is our issue. The government says they send OSHA inspectors. The retailers say they passed inspection. The consumers say they didn't know. Well, now (if you watched the video), you know. And knowing means responsibility.

No matter how far down the chain the consumer is, we play a part in this stuff if we purchase the products. Sad to say, my all time favorite jeans are found at the GAP. I had done research on them before because they have been accused of child labor and other things in years past, and I sincerely thought they had cleaned up their act in modern times. And indeed, I do believe they have made strides comparative to where they used to be. However, in light of this video, I think I'll have to put any GAP shopping on hold. Poop on you, greedy corporations.

(Long-winded, but important) Politics

I've gotten a good number of e-mail forwards this week about politics, most of them trying to sway my vote on way or another. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Some people have asked me why I am voting how I am, so I will spill it here. Ignore this post if you are all fired up over politics or sick of hearing about it. (I have been enjoying all the political banter between people, so I am going to milk it while I can.)

A few things to mention before I begin -

First, let me say I'm an independent. My presidential vote happens to land on the Democratic side this round, but my overall ballot swings both ways and generally always has. (By the way, there is a short political typology test here if anyone is interested in checking out how their views line up with different US parties.)

Second, let me say I am sincerely impressed with Obama (as if you hadn't figured that out yet), and yes, I'm biased. But at the same time, I'm not totally black and white, and I know Obama has faults and McCain isn't all bad. In fact, I don't have terribly much against McCain other than I just simply don't agree with many of his policies, and I don't feel his vp candidate is ready for office.

Third, if you wonder where I am getting my statistics and facts, I'll tell you. =) The source is either cited in text in the blog, and if it's not, then it means I am pulling the fact from various sociology textbooks - namely Crisis in American Institutions and Social Inequality: Forms, Causes and Consequences. Both are excellent reads and I would highly recommend them to anyone. (You don't have to say it, I know I'm a total geek for recommending textbooks for leisure reading.)

So now that you have my full disclaimers, here we go:

Morally, many people side with McCain for abortion/gay marriage issues. Regarding gay marriage, I honestly don't know if homosexuality is right/wrong or somewhere in between, and I really don't care if I never figure that out. What I do know, however, is that I firmly believe every US citizen should have the same legal rights. Currently, homosexuals do not have the same freedoms as heterosexuals. For example, things like hospital visitation rights, being added to a healthcare plan, or filing joint taxes. I don't feel a need to "protect" marriage. My marriage is holy and sacred all by itself and I don't need to dictate someone else's love life in order to keep it that way. (And secondly, if we really want to "protect" marriage, here's a novel idea - uphold your commitment and stop getting divorced.)

Regarding abortion, I think it's wrong, and especially during late term, I think it's cruel. But I also think it's complicated in most situations and I also think that having it be totally illegal would create major health risks because people would try to have abortions illegally and unsafely. I don't have the answer for abortion rights and I don't think Republicans or Democrats will ever have a good answer either. I think generally, women facing that decision will do the best they can with what they have and what they know.

Financially, I like Obama's plan and I really don't like hearing John McCain say that corporations are paying record high taxes. In reality, US corporations today have one of the lowest tax rates in the history of the nation. For example, if corporations paid the same tax rate today that they paid in the 50's, then tax payments to the US Treasury would be $380 billion higher than they are right now. There are insane amounts of loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes, and believe me, they take advantage of everyone of them.

Healthcare, I like the starts of Obama's plan. I like that you would be able to choose public or private. I like that everyone can be covered. I know in this area, some people are saying he's socialist or what not. But he has said that he knows America could not operate on a socialist health care plan. The other concern is that it would end up costing too much to offer this coverage to everyone. But, when the Canadian government converted to 100% socialized healthcare, their total healthcare costs actually declined, and beyond that Obama's plan isn't even socialist. He's simply providing an alternative to those who may be having trouble getting private insurance. And McCain's plan? I don't see it functioning for the long term. Taxing health benefits? A $5000 break? That's like putting a bandaid on a brain tumor. I've lived without health insurance and I know what it's like to pay for stuff out of pocket or to wait to go to the doctor until you feel really, really crappy because you don't know how you'll afford it. And trust me, from that standpoint, Obama's plan is looking a whole lot better.

Trade - I like Obama's caution and consideration of all factors. I feel like McCain really puts profits ahead of everything else. An example of this came about in the last debate. Columbia was McCain's example of choice regarding free trade. He spouted all the benefits of it and implied that Obama was a naive young pup who doesn't know a thing about trade because he has stated that he is not all for a free trade agreement with Columbia. On the surface, McCain's argument makes sense because trade seems to simply be about economics and world allies. But if you look deeper, it has really heavy human rights ramifications. There is so much screwed up stuff happening in Columbia with US corporations paying paramilitary groups to kill people (workers) who threaten the bottom line of profits by wanting to unionize, etc. (I'm looking at you Chiquita bananas!!!) If we just sign this free trade agreement, in many ways, we are telling the world "profit before humanity", "our own interests come before anything else", "money matters more than lives". And certainly, especially with America's current global reputation, we don't need more of that message sent. As such, I don't think it's a bad thing when Obama is cautious to sign a deal that has major human rights flaws. It's ironic really to me, because all along, Obama has been criticized for a lack of foreign policy experience, but when I listen to them, it seems that Obama has a more proper worldview as far as consideration of all aspects instead of just economic or military ramifications. Obama has also been active in support for Darfur, which obviously, hits close to my heart. I like that he seems eager to want to restore America's global identity through diplomacy, and I feel like we are in dire need of that, as most of the world hates us.

The rest of the issues regarding foreign policy and economics are probably too clouded in my mind. I have a very distinct world view about inequality and capitalism, and I know I'm very biased in that. So the rest of this is more my personal view than objectively looking at issues.

I don't believe there is a "free market" and I don't believe there is "equal opportunity". For example, over 80% of black people would have to move if we were to completely desegregate our neighborhoods in America. And how are school districts largely funded? Property tax. Which means, with large concentrations of blacks in poor urban areas, the schools located in those areas will also be poorly funded. Which means not all kids receive the same education. Which means their general life chances are different. One kid grows up having access to computers and up to date textbooks while the other is using outdated books and has no technology at his school. Which one do you think will get accepted into college? This is an example of what I mean when I say that America is not "equal opportunity" or that there is no "free market". The reality is, some people have better chances than others at making a good life. Hard work doesn't always pay off.

There is a huge myth in American that poor people are lazy and it's their own fault. Yet, empirical research shows that people on welfare largely prefer work to welfare, and the majority of those receiving welfare are indeed working. Welfare scams are the exception to the rule, not the norm. (This citation is both thanks to my text, plus numerous other places. One interesting article online is here.)

I by and large believe that inequality is a result of the structure of our social institutions, not the result of individual character or work ethic. And here's the thing, when you travel globally (outside of business), your life changes. Things aren't simple anymore. You see the poverty and the crap and you suddenly realize that you are a part of the cause and you realize that it's not about being a world power anymore, and it's not about being an economic leader anymore. And humanity is infinitely more connected than you ever realized.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about with different world views - our friend, Rex, in the Philippines, literally grew up on a trash dump called Smokey Mountain. A few years ago, the government there did some sort of land grant and built "condo" type places for the people who were living on the landfill. Now, Rex and his family live in a one room "condo", sleep on the cement floor at night with a few cardboard boxes, and just generally struggle with paying for food or other necessities. Recently, we received an e-mail from him. He wanted to write us to make sure that we were okay because he had heard about the economic crisis in the States and he was worried about us. Experiences like that make all these giant abstract ideas like "free trade" suddenly personal. It's people just like Rex who are affected by trade agreements or by what we as individuals buy when we go to the store. "Free trade" isn't always free to those on the other end.

In reality, our wealth means someone else's exploitation.

Which brings me to another point - many people criticize Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth" around or for wanting to "take from the rich and give to the poor". And, I'm sorry, but when I think about people like Rex, I can't help but think that that is exactly what this world needs. If me having a little less, or paying a little more for a t-shirt or for my groceries means someone like Rex has a fighting chance of decent living standards - things as basic as food, housing, and clean water, then give me less and charge me more. I don't see any issues with spreading wealth in order for basic human rights to be met - whether that be health care in America or food on the table in Africa. If those basic human needs are met globally, then by all means, deregulate, fight it out and let capitalism run its course. But if we are going to play that game, then let's at least make "free trade" truly free and ensure that people really do have equal opportunity.

1943

In 1943 Transportation Magazine ran an article to help employers during World War II. Of course, during this time, many men were overseas, so companies were being "forced" to look at the female candidates. I thought you might enjoy some of their very enlightening suggestions:

*Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilites of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses, which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.

*When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy...

*Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making critcism. Women are often sensitive; they can't shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirits and cuts off her efficiency.

And here comes my personal favorite -

*Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick, and wash her hands several times a day.