Will Jonathan Pelto Run for Governor of Connecticut?
I hope so — I’ll vote for him!
On issues related to education, Connecticut’s Governor Dannell Malloy is one of the worst governors in the nation.
Jonathan Pelto, who served in the state legislature, is considering a run against Malloy. Pelto knows that Malloy has repeatedly let down students, parents, teachers, and communities. Malloy has followed the money–the hedge fund money–which supports charter schools for the few.
Pelto would also challenge Malloy’s corporate tax breaks and his failed economic development policies.
Win, lose, or draw, Pelto’s candidacy would be a breath of fresh air for Connecticut. It would force Malloy to defend his giveaway of public education to private corporations.
Thoughts on the National Women’s History Museum, Women’s History Scholars, and Public History
My latest post at Nursing Clio
Is Blogging Scholarship? Reflections on the OAH Panel
My answer is a hearty “yes,” especially for those who want to engage with a wider audience outside of academia. Wish I could have been there in person instead of following on Twitter.
On Sunday, at the 2014 OAH Annual Meeting, I was part of a roundtable discussion entitled “Is Blogging Scholarship?” Several other participants have posted their thoughts on the subject; there was also a great deal of live-tweeting, and our own Joe Adelman has also joined (and developed!) the conversation. The discussion itself was fantastic, and was videotaped for later broadcasting. But in reflecting on the panel, I’ve found there are some points I wish to re-emphasize, and some problems I have with the way the entire roundtable was framed.
View original post 1,399 more words
Why this women’s historian doesn’t support the National Women’s History Museum (for now anyway)
via New Republic, where historian Sonya Michel observes, “The National Women’s History Museum Apparently Doesn’t Much Care for Women’s Historians.”
Michel writes that in the midst of Women’s History Month, ” Joan Wages, the president and CEO of the National Women’s History Museum, abruptly informed me and my fellow historians on the museum’s Scholarly Advisory Council that our services were no longer needed. For three years, we had been trying to help Wages’ nonprofit organization develop an overall vision for the institution it hopes to build on the National Mall. Oddly, this move came just as the NWHM is about to win the preliminary congressional approval for the project it has been seeking for sixteen years. But the enabling legislation, which will set up an exploratory commission, offers no guarantee that scholars who have built the field of women’s history will have a role in the institution. Both Wages and lawmakers seem to think that a women’s history museum doesn’t need women’s historians. Without them, however, historians fear that the exigencies of congressional politics and day-to-day fundraising will lead to the creation of a museum that seeks to be as non-controversial as possible—whatever the cost to its scholarly reputation.”
This dismissal of scholars, says Michel, “followed yet another example of a museum offering that embarrassed those of us who were trying to ensure that the institution was adhering to the highest standards in our field. In mid-March, the museum announced that it had launched a new online exhibit, “Pathways to Equality: The U.S. Women’s Rights Movement Emerges,” in conjunction with the Google Cultural Institute. Never informed that the exhibit was in the works, much less given an opportunity to vet it, we were appalled to discover that it was riddled with historical errors and inaccuracies. To pick just one example: Harriet Beecher Stowe was described as having been ‘born into a family of abolitionists’ when, from the time of her birth through her young adulthood in the 1830s, her family actively opposed the abolitionist movement. ‘Pathways to Equality,’ noted Kathryn Kish Sklar, the nineteenth-century specialist who pointed out the error, ‘could have been written by a middle-school student.’” [actually I think this is too kind. Middle school students in Connecticut wouldn’t make these mistakes!]
This article confirms my general impressions of the NWHM “virtual” museum — although it’s okay for basic information (most of the time anyway) it’s definitely lacking in depth and sophisticated analysis.
I read Michel’s article a month after attending an excellent session on “Gender: Just Add Women and Stir?” at the National Council on Public History meeting in Monterey. The session reported on a 2013 study trip to historic sites in and around Boston hosted by the Pew Center for Arts and Heritage. The participants in the study trip “were struck by the wide variety of ways they saw gender and sexuality interpreted — or in some cases, not interpreted at all.” The session discussed the question of “how do we move beyond the ‘just add women and stir’ model of gender interpretation?”
It seems to me that the NWHM needs to ask the same question. Is having a women’s history museum on the Mall simply going to be a monument-size version of “just add women and stir” history? Right now, things don’t look good.
A few years ago I agree to be a “charter member” which involved a relatively modest donation. For now, though, I’m throwing their renewal invitations in the trash. I’m also taking the advice of Kristen Ann Ehrenberger who reported on the Women Historians of Medicine listserv, “I wrote to my Congresspersons as a historian, woman, and voter and urged them not to support HR 863 / SB 399 as currently written. I would like to see historians speak up for substance over donors so this does not become an example of simplistic, populist history overtaking the careful, nuanced work of actual scholars on American women.” This sounds like a fine idea to me.
Update: On Facebook, I asked the National Collaborative for Women’s History Sites what they thought of all this and their reply was: “The NCWHS Board has not taken a formal position on the National Women’s History Museum, but various board members are deeply concerned that respected scholars in women’s history express reservations about the absence of serious commitment to historical scholarship. We share your admiration for this piece by Dr. Sonya Michel….”
Another update: Here’s is the National Women’s History Museum’s reply to Michel’s article and Michel’s rejoinder.
President Obama’s visit to #CCSU, annual women’s history month proclamation
Happy Women’s History Month readers! Tomorrow, the President will be visiting my campus. Unfortunately, I wasn’t one of the lucky few to get a ticket. So, I’ll be watching it online instead. Meanwhile, here’s the President’s annual Women’s History Month Proclamation:
Presidential Proclamation —
National Women’s History Month, 2014
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Throughout our Nation’s history, American women have led movements for social and economic justice, made groundbreaking scientific discoveries, enriched our culture with stunning works of art and literature, and charted bold directions in our foreign policy. They have served our country with valor, from the battlefields of the Revolutionary War to the deserts of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan. During Women’s History Month, we recognize the victories, struggles, and stories of the women who have made our country what it is today.
This month, we are reminded that even in America, freedom and justice have never come easily. As part of a centuries-old and ever-evolving movement, countless women have put their shoulder to the wheel of progress — activists who gathered at Seneca Falls and gave expression to a righteous cause; trailblazers who defied convention and shattered glass ceilings; millions who claimed control of their own bodies, voices, and lives. Together, they have pushed our Nation toward equality, liberation, and acceptance of women’s right — not only to choose their own destinies — but also to shape the futures of peoples and nations.
Through the grit and sacrifice of generations, American women and girls have gained greater opportunities and more representation than ever before. Yet they continue to face workplace discrimination, a higher risk of sexual assault, and an earnings gap that will cost the average woman hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of her working lifetime.
As women fight for their seats at the head of the table, my Administration offers our unwavering support. The first bill I signed as President was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination. Under the Affordable Care Act, we banned insurance companies from charging women more because of their gender, and we continue to defend this law against those who would let women’s bosses influence their health care decisions.
Last year, recognizing a storied history of patriotic and courageous service in our Armed Forces, the United States military opened ground combat units to women in uniform. We are also encouraging more girls to explore their passions for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and taking action to create economic opportunities for women across the globe. Last fall, we finalized a rule to extend overtime and minimum wage protections to homecare workers, 90 percent of whom are women. And this January, I launched a White House task force to protect students from sexual assault.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2014 as Women’s History Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month and to celebrate International Women’s Day on March 8, 2014, with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. I also invite all Americans to visit www.WomensHistoryMonth.gov to learn more about the generations of women who have left enduring imprints on our history.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-eighth.
BARACK OBAMA
Sorry Ms Magazine, “We Are Water” is not a Feminist Read
via Ms Magazine Blog, where columnist Anita Little included We Are Water by Wally Lamb in a list of 25 feminist reads for the holidays. Here is Little’s explanation:
“Male feminist Lamb’s novel is rooted in the upheaval of an already divided family after the matriarch, Annie Oh, decides to marry another woman, Viveca. Set in the first years of the Obama presidency, the book explores race and cultural inclusion as well as themes of family and childhood abuse.”
When I read this, I was in the middle of reading We Are Water for my book club. In the comments of Little’s post, I wrote, “Wally Lamb might be a male feminist but so far I’m not seeing anything feminist about “We Are Water.” It’s also painfully bad to read. I’m half way through reading it for my book club and am going to have to force myself to read the rest of it.”
Since this was a book club selection, and I pride myself on finishing a book before our meetings I slogged through the rest of Lamb’s novel. Now that I’m done, I can’t figure out why Little considers it a feminist read. Maybe it’s because the main character Annie Oh leaves her husband for a woman. However, this lesbian relationship isn’t feminist to me — Viveca is just as domineering and patronizing, if not more so, than Annie’s ex-husband. Their relationship seems based mostly on money (Viveca’s) and celebrity (Annie’s), not love or affection.
Or maybe it’s because Annie is an “angry woman” who uses art as her outlet. But the descriptions in the book just sound like bad art, not feminist art. For example, Annie had a meltdown while trying to decide between the dresses Viveca chose for her to wear to the wedding. Rather than deciding, Annie threw red wine all over the dresses and Viveca’s designer dress as well, then made up for this by calling it art. Barf!
Perhaps it’s because Annie is a survivor of incest. Yet her survival tactics include beating the crap out of her son. That’s not feminist — it’s horrible.
So, in short, this not a feminist read in my opinion. It’s not even a good read. The characters are one-dimensional and only one (not Annie) is remotely likeable. One of my fellow book clubbers likened it to a bad first draft by a mediocre writing student or aspiring author. Lamb really phoned it in this time.
Our next book club selection — The Invention of Wings by Sue Monk Kidd — also made Little’s list. Now, this is a feminist read! (It’s hard for a book about the abolitionist Grimke sisters not to be).
Female Role Models Whom I Will Miss
Signal boost for my latest post at Nursing Clio
2013 in review
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 6,000 times in 2013. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 5 trips to carry that many people.
Radio Inteview
lara@post.harvard.edu
www.themodernperiod.com
