Mixed Feelings About Rosie the Riveter

WIRED has a real honest-to-goodness woman engineer on the cover, and she isn’t just a couple of breasts.

She is, however, striking the Rosie the Riveter pose. It was her idea, and while I get that the idea is that “women are the workforce” and “we can do it,” it’s also worth remembering that “Rosie” and her fellow female workers were let go after the war-—their services were no longer required. It’s difficult for me to separate that part of the story from the Rosie icon, and I’m not sure I want to. It’s important to remember that history because we’re not so far removed from it that it can’t be repeated.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer used the Riveter pose in her 2010 campaign, which I found offensive at the time in large part because of the irony of her use of the “We Can Do It” tagline while she repeatedly takes orders from Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce. She has recently broken ranks with him, but I’m sure that’s just to keep up appearances. Pearce almost always gets his way, and when he doesn’t, it usually isn’t because of Brewer.

It’s not like it’s special that Arizona has a woman governor. She’s the third consecutive (Jane Hull and Janet Napolitano are her immediate predecessors), and she’s the fourth overall. It’s also not like she did anything special to win her first gubernatorial election, except sign the notorious SB1070 and take a few cheap shots at President Obama. Arizona has had its share of good governors and more than its share of bad governors, and Brewer is on the wrong side of that divide. Her adoption of Rosie seeks to capitalize on girl-power iconography for cheap political gain while her administration more accurately reflects the post-WWII reality of women making way for men.

A new geek website aimed at women, The Mary Sue, uses several comic Rosies as its identifying icon(s). While I have some issues with some of their reasoning for using “The Mary Sue” as their name, I’m left wondering why they couldn’t come up with something new and original for both the name and icon. Isn’t it time we let Rosie rest? Isn’t it time for a new icon? Isn’t it time for a name and an image that aren’t already hobbled with baggage that belonged to our mothers and grandmothers? Don’t we deserve it?

This Is As Far As We’ve Come? Really?

In a story that is too disgusting and despicable for words like “disgusting” and “despicable” to adequately convey how horrible it is, 18 “men” allegedly gang-raped an eleven-year-old girl. The New York Times had a public relations nightmare when the first article it first ran on the story appeared to blame the victim (sorry, “alleged victim”) or at least sympathize with the alleged rapists. More recently, a female Republican lawmaker in Florida made statements that all but exonerated the rapists. Because an eleven-year-old girl who dresses provocatively (according to the rapists and their allies) and acts older than she is (whatever that means—the lack of precise and verifiable accounts of this apparently slutty behavior on the part of a child leaves it to readers’ imaginations) obviously had it coming to her. She was asking for it. When it comes to rape, apparently, men should never be held accountable for their actions if it is remotely possible to blame the victim.

There are times when I think it would be nice to be a believer, because then I could believe that anyone who thinks that an eleven-year-old child (or anyone else, for that matter) provoked a gang-rape would spend eternity in the vilest pits of hell. On the other hand, being an atheist means I can’t pretend that there will ever be any real justice for this girl, and I can’t pretend that promises and threats of an afterlife make the crime any less heinous than it actually is. Pretending only helps the rapists.

Easier than pi

In honor of March 14, known in silly circles as “pi day,” I bring you pie. Well, photos of pie. (Of course, 3.14 is a simplistic approximation of pi, so it makes sense that the pie is such a simple recipe that it’s practically cheating.)



Preheat the oven to 350º F. Start with a crumb crust. I used vanilla wafers, but graham crackers or ginger snaps or any number of plain cookies unencumbered by chips or nuts or fruit (etc.) will do. You’ll need at least 1 ½ cups of crumbs, but no more than 2 cups. To the crumbs add 3 tablespoons of sugar. Melt 4 tablespoons of butter or margarine (more if you need it, less if the crumbs have a lot of fat in them). Slowly add the melted butter to the crumbs and mix (use a fork or your hands). When the crumbs are fairly evenly coated with the melted butter, pat the mixture into a 9-inch pie plate. Bake for 8-10 minutes. Cool completely.

At this point, you’re going to melt a large chocolate bar (or its equivalent; I used a bittersweet chocolate from Trader Joe’s, and I used too much of it, if it can be said that there is such a thing as too much chocolate). Use a glass mixing bowl as the top of a double boiler for melting the chocolate. When the chocolate is completely melted, allow it to cool for about 20 minutes. Add whipped cream (whip at least ½ pint real whipping cream yourself, or use one regular tub of whipped cream or whipped topping—this kind of cheating is allowed in this recipe) to the cooled chocolate by folding it in. Once the cream is thoroughly (but gently) mixed into the chocolate, distribute the chocolate into the crust. Chill until set.

You can adjust the density or richness of the pie by adding more whipped cream and/or using less chocolate.

This is a ridiculously easy recipe, and it’s good even when the ingredients aren’t anything special. So if you use real whipping cream and a good quality chocolate, it’s fantastic. And still easy.

Why Public Broadcasting Is Important

“I urge you, I urge you to put the people's airwaves to the service of the people and the cause of freedom. You must help prepare a generation for great decisions. You must help a great nation fulfill its future.”

Newton Minow’s 1961 speech to broadcasters is best remembered for its description of television as a “vast wasteland,” and those who argue that PBS and NPR are no longer necessary do so on a few additional passages that call for more variety in programming and more channels of television. The speech predates the founding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS and NPR. At the time, there were only three networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Now we have many networks providing a wide variety of programming. Surely the plethora of television stations available to those with cable television render public television (and, by extension, radio) obsolete, critics say (George Will among them).

The main thrust of Minow’s speech, however, was not the lack of variety in programming, but the lack of a voice in television that served the public interest rather than corporate interest. The title of the speech is “Television and the Public Interest,” and while “vast wasteland” was used only once in the speech, “public interest” was used nearly a dozen times. Yes, there are many stations that provide a wide variety of programming, but they serve corporate interests.

And they serve only a handful of corporate interests.

In the 50 years since Minow’s speech, mergers and takeovers have allowed corporations to purchase themselves some echo chambers, but there remain only a few voices, and their primary focus is not “service of the people” but service of their corporate owners. (Note that George Will ignores the "public interest" argument altogether and that most of his argument is largely straw men.)

Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is under attack. The CPB says that federal funding makes up only a tiny percentage of its budget, but local PBS stations that receive funds from the CPB would suffer a great deal if funds are cut.


PBS makes its own case for its survival here.

Interesting Lineup

Ron Barber, one of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's staffers who survived the shooting on January 8, is organizing a benefit concert, scheduled for March 10, to raise money for the new Fund for Civility, Respect, and Understanding. Tickets are on sale at the Tucson Community Center.

So far, the concert has lined up Jackson Browne, Graham Nash and David Crosby, Keb' Mo', Dar Williams, Ozomatli, Nils Lofgren, Sam Moore, Calexico, Jerry Riopelle, and Alice Cooper.

I am not making this up.

Are You a Radical Feminist?

Until recently, I'd never considered myself a "radical feminist," because I didn't think the rights I wanted for myself or for other women are all that radical. At least, I don't think they'd be considered "radical" if we were talking about the rights of men, so why should they be "radical" for women? It's easy to forget sometimes that it's been less than a century since we won the right to vote.

What's happening in the GOP, with its attempts to redefine rape, call rape victims "accusers" instead of victims, defund Planned Parenthood, allow hospitals to refuse medical care for women if saving them means killing any fetuses they may be carrying, defunding Head Start programs because women should be staying home with the children, and any number of other measures (I was going to provide links for each of the listed assaults on the rights of women, but they're all found easily enough on a Google search on "GOP war on women"), has led to such a limited view of what rights the right wing thinks women should have that it's becoming more and more difficult not to be a radical feminist. In fact, I think it should probably be embarrassing not to be a radical feminist.

So, how do you tell if you are a radical feminist?

You might be a radical feminist if you believe that women don't cease to be valuable human beings in their own right the second they become pregnant.

You might be a radical feminist if you believe that rape victims should be treated the same as other victims of violent crimes.

You might be a radical feminist if you believe that women who have sex and enjoy it are not by definition sluts.

You might be a radical feminist if you believe that a hospital should not be allowed to deny life-saving medical treatment to women if it means sacrificing the life of a fetus, regardless of the odds of survival for the fetus.

You might be a radical feminist if you believe that medical doctors are better equipped than a clergyman (any religion, any rank) to decide if an abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life.

You might be a radical feminist if you believe that women have more to offer society than the constant use of their reproductive organs for the purpose of reproduction.

You might be a radical feminist if you trust women to decide for themselves what constitutes acceptable risk to life and limb.

You might be a radical feminist if you notice the irony in "small-government" politicians insisting that government try to control the reproductive options of half of the population.

You might be a radical feminist if you notice the irony in "pro-life" people not batting an eye at the loss of a woman's life.

You might be a radical feminist if you believe that rapists alone should be held responsible for the rapes they commit.




Does anybody have anything else to add?

Women of Egypt

Last week in Cairo, CBS correspondent Lara Logan was attacked while doing her job. I will not allow this space to become yet another outlet for the ugly speech about the “responsibility” Logan bears for the violence committed against her. Blaming the victim is wrong, and I suspect that if there were not an element of sexual assault in the attack, it would not be an issue.

I prefer to focus on the fact that the attack was stopped by Egyptian women, with the help of some Egyptian soldiers. There are at least some women in Egypt who now believe that they can stand up for themselves and for other women. There are at least some women in Egypt who now believe that they don’t have to take harassment from men just because they dared to leave their homes. There are at least some women in Egypt who now believe that they can be a force for their own good and for the good of all women in their own country.

The women who stopped the attack are heroes. Let’s hope that part of the story wasn’t an isolated incident. Let’s hope that part of the revolution continues.

This May Be Overkill (Which Is to Say, Long)

As previously mentioned, Dr. C. Martin Gaskell was not hired by the University of Kentucky, in part (but not in whole) because of lecture notes which he has published on the internet titled “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.” The hiring committee had access to the 2005 version of these notes, which are available in the depositions related to Gaskell’s lawsuit which can be found at the National Center for Science Education’s website.

The hiring committee focused on the science in these lecture notes, but didn’t focus on what may have been more problematic for them if they’d hired Gaskell—his attitude towards atheism. UK’s governing regulations state that their faculty and staff may make public statements on anything, but they must make sure that their statements are, among other things, “accurate.” I’m sure Dr. Gaskell believes his statements about atheism are accurate, but they’re so incompletely researched that allowing him to continue giving his lecture about astronomy “supporting the details of Genesis I” could have led to lawsuits UK would have had a harder time defending.

Gaskell opens the introduction of his lecture comparing the encyclopedia entry (from the New Columbia Encyclopaedia, 1975 ed.) for “God” with that for “Atheism.” He compares a proposed entity with a belief that no such proposed entity exists—it’s almost as legitimate a comparison as apples and oranges. He states how impressed he is with the comparative lengths of the entries for “God” (24 cm) and “atheism,” which he reproduced in the lecture notes, and I’ll do it here, as well (from his lecture notes, although I have looked up the original):

“Atheism, denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from AGNOSTICISM, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism such as Robert O. [sic] Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism.”

While this article has several problems, I will focus on just a few, beginning with the one that he could have fact-checked with the same encyclopedia. Robert Ingersoll’s middle initial is actually G., an error which apparently has not come to Dr. Gaskell’s attention since he started giving these lectures, and the error is Dr. Gaskell’s. The New Columbia Encyclopaedia gives Col. Ingersoll his correct middle initial, and in the encyclopedia’s article on Ingersoll, he is identified as “the great Agnostic” and the author of books including Why I Am an Agnostic. Yet, in the very same encyclopedia, in the article on atheism, which emphasizes in its first sentence the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, he’s identified as a “preacher of the gospel of atheism.” Dr. Gaskell could not be bothered to turn a few hundred pages in his single-volume encyclopedia to find out who Robert Green Ingersoll was. This is the extent of fairness Dr. Gaskell feels he should give to atheists and agnostics.

“Notice that there are no ‘proofs’ or arguments offered for atheism,” Gaskell writes, “just a reference to ‘a popular belief in a conflict between religion and science’… No logical or philosophical arguments are offered because there aren’t any!” (To be fair, Gaskell has since omitted his assertion that there aren’t any logical or philosophical arguments for atheism, but I am focusing on the lecture notes that the UK hiring committee had available to them, and I thought it important to note what Gaskell thought about atheism as recently as 2007.) In researching atheism, he went no further than two short encyclopedia articles and couldn’t be bothered to check the few facts in them.

If I had been on the hiring committee at UK, I would have been extremely concerned that Dr. Gaskell would not have treated any openly atheist or agnostic students in his classes fairly. If he won’t look up “Ingersoll” in the same encyclopedia he used to deny the existence of arguments for atheism, if he won’t bothered to talk to atheists to find out what we actually think before asserting that we don’t, if he thinks that a cursory look at a couple of encyclopedia articles is all he needs to do to understand atheism, why should an atheist or agnostic student in his class not think that Gaskell is discriminatory against them?

Instead, the UK hiring committee focused more on this passage:

“It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations.”

Gaskell never identifies what the “unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations” are,” but instead refers his readers/audience to the books of Phillip Johnson, who is largely credited with founding the Intelligent Design movement. In my readings in anthropology, biology, and evolution, the only “assumption” I’ve seen that could remotely be seen as “atheistic” is the scientific principle of rejecting supernatural explanations for natural processes.

It is interesting that Gaskell, who claims to have no problem with evolutionary theory, would refer his readers and audiences to Johnson, who majored in English literature before studying the law but who apparently has no significant education in science. Johnson believes that evolution is completely unsupported by evidence, a claim with which biologists strongly disagree. It seems to me that if you believe that evolution has occurred and is occurring, you do not refer your students to books by someone who does not and makes grotesquely inaccurate statements about it.

Gaskell’s references to Phillip Johnson and his near endorsement of Intelligent Design make me question how he intends his readers and audiences to take the first part of the quote above (the part about “significant problems in evolutionary theory”). It is phrased so that if he is questioned about it, he can say, as he did in his deposition in the lawsuit against UK, that all he meant was that introductory textbooks gloss over how complicated the science really is. But by referring his readers to Johnson, who claims that there is no evidence in support of evolution (a statement he can only make by ignoring all of the evidence in biology and geology and all of the work in those fields for the last 160 years or so), the statement can easily be taken a completely different way. It’s a clever turn of phrase that allows believers to reach the conclusion that evolution is junk science while still allowing Gaskell to retain the mantle of real science himself. I cannot and do not claim that he wrote that passage that way deliberately; there is too much lazy research and lazy writing in the rest of the piece to support such a claim. But if he truly accepts evolution, he may want to consider rephrasing it and/or adding a caveat to his endorsement of Johnson’s works.

Returning to atheism at the end, Gaskell writes:

“I don’t think that these questions about the origin of the universe (and of life) are just remote irrelevant cosmological questions. They profoundly affect our world views, our morals, and the way we live our lives. There is a profound difference between believing that God created the world and people in the world rather than insisting that our origin of our universe is to be traced to an accidental chance combination of blind impersonal physical forces. It [h]as been said that it is doubtful whether the latter purely mechanistic atheistic view of our origins can be a sufficient basis for such human values as goodness truth, justice and beauty, etc. And it has been argued that in the atheistic view, man is left without ultimate meaning and value, that it is pointless to speak of ‘human rights’, for example, and that in atheism existence is ultimately absurd.”

All of these statements about the absurdity of life as viewed atheistically come from Christians. They certainly don’t come from atheists. They’re straw men. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, human values and ethics require neither the promise of eternal reward nor the threat of eternal punishment but rather derive from social ties, education, and our innate sympathy. Gaskell lacks the courage to discuss atheism with atheists, or he would have done it at some point in the last fifteen or twenty years that he’s been presenting this lecture. When it comes to atheism, Gaskell allows his prejudice to guide him.

Gaskell’s lecture notes have many problems I have not covered, some because I don’t have sufficient knowledge in certain areas to deal with them, and all of them because I have no more time to devote to this. I believe I’ve supported my opinions that Gaskell is dangerously prejudiced and just as dangerously uninformed, and that his research, at least when it comes to subjects he finds distasteful (e.g., atheism, biology), is shockingly lazy and unreliable. I don’t know about you, but I would not take any class taught by Dr. Gaskell, and I would question the value of an education offered by a college or university that hired him.

Gaskell vs. University of Kentucky

(I am not a lawyer. I have no special legal qualifications. This is commentary by an interested outsider.)

In 2007, Dr. C. Martin Gaskell applied for a position at the University of Kentucky. The position ultimately went to another candidate who does not have a Ph.D., has significantly fewer publications, and significantly less experience than Dr. Gaskell. Gaskell was led to believe that the decision was made on the basis of his religious beliefs. As a result of this belief, Gaskell sued UK.

The case has been settled, with the UK paying Gaskell $125,000 while admitting no wrongdoing. This was probably the best Gaskell could have done for himself, and it likely spared UK millions of dollars. Pragmatically, financially, it was the best decision for both plaintiff and defendant.

My feelings on this decision are mixed. If the case had gone to the Supreme Court, a muddled situation could have been clarified. On the other hand, there are enough conservatives on the Court and no one with any apparent understanding of science that the decision could easily have encouraged attempts by Creationists (Biblical literalists who believe the earth was created in six days) and supporters of Intelligent Design (creationism of another, but still unscientific, breed) to use the legal system to require science teachers in middle and high school to teach the Bible as science. I doubt Dr. Gaskell would have supported these efforts himself, but he wouldn’t have been able to stop it.

One of the key decisions that would have been decided in the case if it hadn’t been settled is whether it was appropriate for the hiring committee at UK to take into consideration publicly available lecture notes by Dr. Gaskell in which he blends science and scripture so intricately that determining whether he’s discussing science or religion (specifically, some form of creationism that seems to be unique to Gaskell) is next to impossible. Dr. Gaskell has these lecture notes posted on the internet. He linked to them from his website when he was at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Once the hiring committee became aware of these notes, they had to investigate.

So the question that will not be decided is: Is it appropriate for a public university to ask a potential employee about how (in this case) his religious beliefs affect his understanding and teaching of science when that potential employee has already publicly published on the internet lecture notes that indicate that he does blend science and religion (as distinct from faith)?

Overall, I think UK had sufficient and substantive reasons for not hiring Dr. Gaskell that they could have won had the case gone to the Supreme Court. Probably the most important reason is that UK advertised a position that was half teaching and half outreach (especially to K-12 teachers). Dr. Gaskell stated that after a couple of years he would have wanted to reduce both of those responsibilities so that he could work on his own research, with a third of his time devoted to each (research, teaching, outreach). Dr. Gaskell has a history of buying out of his teaching responsibilities, and his experience in outreach was not as involved as what UK is working on. If UK had hired Gaskell, right now they would more than likely be looking for someone to work part time to cover the responsibilities he’d be trying to get out of performing.

The University had other reasons for not hiring Gaskell, including interpersonal and interdepartmental politics, and an apparently fantastic interview (or at least significantly better than Gaskell's) from the candidate who was eventually hired.

Depositions in the case are available at the website of the National Center for Science Education. I will post my comments on Dr. Gaskell’s lecture notes soon.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

Gabrielle Giffords is my Congresswoman. She is also one of a very few politicians in my voting lifetime who does not make me feel cynical about the political process in the United States. I don't idealize her, which is to say, I don't think she's perfect. I don't think any politician is perfect, and I don't expect them to be. I do expect my representatives in government to listen to their constituents who didn't vote for them and not dismiss them out of hand. I want my representatives in government to use their own judgment to determine to the best of their ability what is likely to be the best course of action or the right way to vote on a piece of legislation. And because I am not an expert on anything, I expect not to get my way all the time. All I ask is that my representatives in government take their jobs seriously and recognize that people who disagree with them are not necessarily evil.

I don't agree with all of Giffords' policies, and I don't agree with her votes on every piece of legislation, but I believe that she does her honest best, and I believe that she tries to represent all of her constituents, not just those who voted for her. I know she surrounds herself with good people, which is something else about her to respect and admire. I hope she recovers completely and is able to return to service. She is one of the good ones. The United States could use more like her.

Word Nerd: Each Other/One Another

In common usage, the terms "each other" and "one another" are interchangeable. Word nerds like me make the slight distinction that "each other" refers to situations involving two people, while "one another" refers to situations involving three or more people.

So, Harry and Sally love each other, but Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice love one another.

Huckleberry Finn, now with less historical accuracy

A scholar is releasing a watered-down version of Huckleberry Finn so that the novel can be restored to American classrooms. The new version replaces the frequently repeated n-word with the apparently less offensive "slave." Twitter followers found what they think is a better idea from an off-the-cuff remark by Neil Gaiman, in which he states that because the book is public domain, the scholar could have made Huck a Klingon, but it wouldn't be Mark Twain's book. His followers on Twitter have responded by mashing up HF and Star Trek. If you think this might be interesting to you, or more entertaining than anything on television, anyway, search on Twitter for KlingonHuck and VulcanTom.

Not getting as much attention is the fact that the characterization of Native Americans has been deleted. Again, it's public domain, and young people today might not get to read the book at all without these changes, but there are better ways of dealing with historical attitudes that make us uncomfortable now than to pretend they didn't exist.



In the interest of full disclosure, I contributed to this trend, which has the potential for both hilarity and horror. Let's hope for the former.