You might think that a savvy girl of the seventies, complete with a working mother and 13 years at an all-girls' school, would grow up with a strong sense of her powerful, feminist self. But I didn't. Despite living in New York City; that every teacher I had seemed hell bent that girls were "smarter" than boys; and that I was gifted with parents who never once made me question my intelligence or abilities; somehow, I learned early on that my "real" power was in my hiding of it. I internalized the false understanding that anything obviously strong or direct was distinctly masculine, aggressive and in poor taste. It was still the early days, when the fight for equality was pretty much won, but learning what to do with it was a balancing act, performed by most women with varying levels of finesse. Those who I chose as role models leaned on the more cunning side of feminine power. I am embarrassed to admit that I dismissed the more outspoken women around me as bitter liberal feminists (in my warped opinion all bad), and I disregarded them as unhappy, complain-y, or downright bitchy.
At 41, I'm just now beginning to feel comfortable with the distinction between strong and bitchy, direct and hostile. More succinctly put, I am just beginning to get comfortable with my own power. A wise woman said poignantly the other day that I am, what she calls, "hatching." I am allowed to say no, for real this time. I am allowed to put my needs first because it will allow me to serve others more genuinely. And I am allowed to advocate, not manipulate, but get up loud and clear and advocate for something I believe in, starting from, as my professor recently put it "a position of conviction not from a point of compromise."
In the book, Remaking the North American Food System, authors G.W. Stevenson and Kathryn Ruhf discuss three approaches used to create social change; Warrior, Builder and the Weaver. Of course, I assumed as I read, I am a Builder -- it suits me. Creative, entrepreneurial and working on alternatives within the existing system, I was, in my opinion, too non-political to ever be a Warrior. Besides, I thought (full disclosure), why would I want to be a Warrior? They're so masculine and angry. So when that same professor (Marion Nestle) recently asked the class of women in front of her why we seemed so reluctant to be Warriors, and why we seemed somewhat put off by the word "political" I blurted, audibly, "It just seems so aggressive."
That was a pivotal moment for me. Professor Nestle looked at me, not incredulously, but almost with curiosity and maybe, just maybe, the slightest hint of pity. Why was conviction aggressive? Why was standing up for something you believe in and valuing your own voice masculine? Why is political a dirty word?
So here I am hatching, and yes, getting political. I own a recreational cooking school grounded by the mission of teaching people how to cook with local, sustainable produce, meat and dairy. The farms that we work with are usually small, most often beyond organic, and dedicated to putting more into our planet then taking from it. Haven's Kitchen is part of a community centered on nurturing, creating and giving. In my opinion, that's what all agriculture really should be. But in my years learning and teaching about sustainable agriculture, I've been more focused on equitable distribution and consumption: Food Justice for me was about changing the market for locally grown, low input food in order to allow underserved populations more access to it. It was also about supporting local farmers in their simple quest for things like insurance, or perhaps a tractor. My perspective was focused in such a way that I missed a huge problem that has existed in New York since the 1930s: farm labor law.
Labor laws for farm workers in New York date back to the New Deal, which specifically excluded farmworkers and domestic workers from basic labor protections, thereby systematically excluding minorities. Since then, New York farmworkers have battled for, and secured, a minimum wage and some sanitation codes for farm camps. Because farmworkers today are a largely migrant community with little ability to politically organize, however, their voices, mostly, non-English speaking, are not heard and the injustices continue.
For the past 80 years, farmworkers in New York have been, in many cases, living under conditions that are ethically abhorrent. Primarily, this is a glaring human rights travesty, but there are other implications of this situation as well. Agriculture is a $4 billion industry in this state, and it serves all New Yorkers to properly support those who are the backbone of the industry. And if we are aiming to be more food secure and less vulnerable to environmental and man-made challenges to our food system, we need to provide the labor force with basic rights of safety and compensation.
New York State currently employs 80,000 to 100,000 farmworkers, most of whom are migrant laborers of Mexican and Central American origin. I should also add here that the vast majority of farms in New York are small farms that, along with another 10 to 25 percent don't employ farm workers. So the farms being affected by this bill are of the large-scale, "Big" variety. In my opinion, on top of the pure ethics, I also feel confident that small farms would not be negatively affected by the costs of paying overtime and allowing a day of rest. From what I understand, the economics would help the small farms since currently the large-scale farms legally don't have to pay decent wages.
Here's where the politics come in: Due for a vote in the NY State Senate in June 2013, the Farmworkers Fair Labor Practices Act would amend the current law and allow farm workers overtime pay, a day of rest, disability insurance, collective bargaining protection, restrictions on child labor, unemployment and disability insurance, work sites that would be covered by NY sanitary laws, and monitoring of heat and pesticide exposure. The amendment would simply change language excluding farmworkers from current NY labor laws. I know that more New Yorkers are concerned with issues of sustainability and I believe that they simply need the facts and tools to ensure that those who grow our food are treated with human dignity. I doubt most food-conscious New York City dwellers know that many of our farmworkers are denied basic rights and privileges, and live in conditions that do not provide safety, clean water and adequate ventilation. I also have faith, growing slowly but surely, that our political system can work, and that being a part of it is neither aggressive, nor masculine, but a right and a privilege.
For more information on the FFLPA or to get involved go to: http://www.exceptfarmworkers.com/
Stevensen, G.W., Ruhf, Lezberg, S., Clancy, K. "Warrior, Builder, and Weaver Work: Strategies for the Changing Food System." Remaking the North American Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Ed. C. Claire Hinrichs, Thomas A. Lyson. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. P. 33
Organizations like the Justice for Farmworker's Campaign and Rural Migrant Ministry have helped farmworkers through political campaigns in the 1990s.
NY State Comptroller. The Role of Agriculture in New York State Economy. Report 21-2010
USDA. Census of Agriculture. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010.
The complete bill can be found at: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1862-2011. A Fact sheet and Legislative memo can be found at http://www.nyclu.org/content/legislative-memo-farm-workers-fair-labor-practices-act
Martinez, Steve, et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2010 and Etter, Lauren. Food for Thought: Do You Need Farmers for a Farmer's Market? April 29, 2010. In New York City, we now have 100 CSAs as compared to 7 in 1996.