A Graduate Student’s Weblog

Women of Reform: A Review of Four Articles

May 18, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Out of an initial attempt to look at the history of the Settlement House movement of the early twentieth century, a volume of literature that addressed female reformers of this period presented itself, making the Settlement Houses per se’ almost secondary to the women leaders themselves.  Having defined the topic of interest in this way, four articles were chosen, from a multitude, for this review paper: one from the Journal of Social History, one from Daedalus, which is an interdisciplinary journal covering “arts, sciences, and the humanities, as well as the full range of professions and public life,” one from the Social Service Review, and finally one from American Quarterly. [1] [2] The selection of these four journals serves to illustrate how the study of the female reformers of this period requires an interdisciplinary approach in order to come near to having the most robust understanding of this history.  In other words, it is not enough to provide a verbatim of the life of Jane Addams short of accounting for the complex matrix of social and cultural upheaval that was taking place in the United States during her lifetime as Victorian sensibilities were stressed and gave way under the strain of the Industrial Revolution.  But the selection of these articles also reflects a deliberate attention to the early development of social work as a profession during this time frame coupled with a desire to somehow work in that definition of “social justice,” well known to the 21st Century but that was in development in the early 20th century—perhaps in development at Jane Addams’ Hull House, to be more precise.  Thus the inclusion of the article Mary Richmond an Jane Addams: From Moral Certainty to Rational Inquiry in Social Work Practice by Donna L. Franklin.

Both Mary Richmond and Jane Addams have some stake in being attributed with having started the profession of social work as we know it today (Franklin, 505). Both women were born into the Victorian era of the 19th Century and both women were, as daughters of their age, deeply committed to the Christian tradition.  It would therefore be a mistake to not give some attention to how the Western theological tradition, i.e. Christianity, or rather more specifically Protestantism, shaped the views and behaviors of these early female social reformers— all four articles in this review do precisely that.

It was (and is) the Protestant work ethic that compounded the social problem of poverty that was being exasperated as the United States moved from a primarily rural society to one of urban centers and wage labor (Franklin, 505).   At the same time, the overwhelming Calvinist consensus that the condition of being in poverty suggested a person was “morally reprehensible” was being undermined by a pragmatic alternative which taught that “individuals who lived in poverty were not necessarily morally reprehensible but were influenced by a macrosystem [sic] that affected social functioning” (Franklin, 507).   These conflicting philosophical positions were the cultural soup from where the profession of social work began to emerge, and it was Jane Addams’ Settlement Houses and Mary Richmond Charity Societies (COS) where social work was first done in a scientific, rational way.   Nevertheless, it is well documented that Mary Richmond and Jane Addams did not agree on how work was to be done: the later felt that those who received aid were to blame for their plight and should be encouraged to work toward “self sufficiency” while the former provided aid and studied the social conditions that caused poverty– this debate continues in social work (Franklin, 510).

Additionally, this review might also help to further illuminate possible reasons why it is mainly middle class, or rather bourgeois women, who were the Progressive Era reformers and why, even today, the profession of social work is fielded by around 79% white, middle class women.[3]
Nevertheless, the commonality in wanting to address the problem of suffering among the poor can be understood in terms of how these women accepted the Victorian female role, almost whole cloth.

Jill Conway, in her article entitled Women Reformers and American Culture, 1870-1930 (1971-1972), noted that the stereotype of femininity, as it was expressed in thirties, forties and fifties, differs very little from the image and expectation placed upon Victorian Age women.   And so Jane Hunter’s Inscribing the Self in the Heart of the Family: Diaries and Girlhood in Late-Victorian America (1992) is illuminating on this point, which is crucial in understanding how and why female Progressive Era activists worked for social justice in the way that they did.  Hunter argues that the roots of early 20th Century activism extends back to the Victorian family. She used diary entries from that era in order to better understand what was going on in the minds and hearts of the Victorian girl (Hunter, 51).    The result is a more robust understanding of what was going on in the internal life of girls, or rather their “…discourse of the self,” as Hunter puts it (Hunter, 52).

These diaries reflected the careful presentation of the self that Victorian girls created in the pages of their diaries, which would be read by their parents (Hunter, 54).  They also serve to illustrate well the complexities of how the fading moralism of Calvinism was giving way to Romantic secularism, and how that cultural transition experienced by Victorian girls, and subsequently the lives of Reformers like Jane Addams and Mary Richmond (Hunter, 54-55).  In an early article entitled Jane Addams: An American Heroine (1064), Jill Conway makes a similar observation about her heroine, namely that “they [women activists] had a total belief that a trained and well stocked mind would fit them for new roles in life” (Conway, 1964, 761).  And this was precisely what the diaries were about more than anything: systemizing priorities , even  as the diary writing evolved and some girls used their diaries as a kind of rebellion against the ideal of the “good girl,” passive and by her mother’s side (Hunter, 56).

But diary writing was just one aspect of the lives of bourgeois girls which was part of a number of activities intended to fill up the idle time that their family’s wealth created for them. Some other activities included piano lessons and a formal education (Hunter, 52).   Curious then it is that Mary Richmond was uneducated and Jane Addam’s family was not wealthy enough to send her to the best schools in the East.  Nevertheless, both Jane Addams and Mary Richmond shared what Conway argues as “total belief that a trained and well-stocked mind would fit them for new roles in life” (Conway, 1964, 761).   These new roles in life were part and parcel of their sense of mission, perhaps also of guilt, that because of the blessings of their lives of leisure, they should be giving something back to the world.  As women, the world of business and politics (as least as a direct path) was cut off to them, and so they chose “careers” that were both available to them and also in keeping with the fact that they believed that women were the “custodians of race morality, were exempt from humans passion, and, because of their maternal instincts, were less prone to violence than men” (Conway, 1964, 762).  Franklin echoes this point, adding that “women did not reject the Victorian notion that women should exude self-sacrifice, purity, and spiritual superiority; rather they moved these  qualities our of the home and into the public world of professional work” (Franklin, 511).

First and foremost, the women accepted the ideal that women were more pure and able to do good in greater measure than men.  As mentioned before in part, Franklin noted that the Victorian women was considered to be more pure than the Victorian man and thus more able to nurture and take care of the needs of the poor (Franklin,  510).  Additionally, Conway (1971-1972) pointed out that there was a “specialized feminine perception of social justice” that female reformers made their claim was worker under. This claim  represented a mix of Calvinism, Liberalism, and Pragmatism.

Protestantism, or more precisely Calvinism, dominated the religious life of the bourgeoisie in the United States in the mid to late nineteenth century.  Calvinism taught that hard work, an orderly life, and prosperity were signs that one was one of the elect and destined for an eternal reward; conversly, Calvinism taught lack of such things as money and property, revealed that a person was not of the elect and was destined for eternal punishment (Franklin, 506).   Liberalism is the political philosophy that teaches that individual freedom is the most important of all political goals while Pragmatism is that philosophical position teaches that practical experiences are a vital component of truth.[5] The “specialized feminine” mix of these elements into the female reformer of the turn of the century is perhaps personified best in the person of Jane Addams.  Her success at Hull House is a testament to how she was able to order her life along these philosophical lines without upsetting the social order with respect to the role of women.  But unlike Mary Richmond, Addams was able to look beyond the Calvinist answer about the cause of poverty a gave a first look at how macro systems, alongside individual problems, contribute.

Today women chose the profession of Social Work in the context of many other career choices and opportunities, not with respect so much to their gender but as a privilege of living in a Liberal society– the same privileged Mary Richmond and Jane Addams enjoyed within the context of “happily” owning the Victorian definition of “women.”

In terms of poverty, far more women of every ethic background find themselves in poverty (with their children) than do men.[6] So in a sense, women continue to work for the improvement of their own lives as a gender, just as they did at the turn of the century.

Works Cited
Conway, Jill (1971).Women Reformers adn American Culture, 1870-1930. Journal of Social History. 5, 164-177.

Conway, Jill (1964).Jane Addams: An American Heroine. Daedalus. 93, 761-780.

Frankin, Donna (1986).Mary Richmon and Jane Addams: From Moral Certainty to Rational Inquiry in Social Work Practice. The Social Service Review. 60, 504-525.

Hunter, Jane H. (1992).Inscribing the Self in the Heart of Family: Diaries and Girlhood in Late-   Victorian America. American Quarterly. 44, 51-81.

[1] http://www.amacad.org/publications/daedalus.aspx

[2] Since two of the articles I used were written by the same author I chose to include a fourth for the review paper.

[3] http://www.socialworkers.org/naswprn/surveyTwo/Datagram2.pdf

[4] Working at Townbe Hall in London and her remarkable conversation with Tolstoy.  From the fotenotes in Franklin.

[5] Elizabeth Anderson. Dewey’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[6] Starrels, M. E., & And Others. (1994). The Feminization of Poverty in the United States: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Family Factors. Journal of Family Issues, 15(4), 590-607.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: History · Social Work

Rosen, R. (2006). The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, Revised Edition (Revised.). Penguin (Non-Classics).

May 6, 2009 · Leave a Comment

“…one can’t build little white picket fences to keep the nightmares out.” ~Anne Sexton

Professor Emerita of University of California Davis, Ruth Rosen is a uniquely qualified historian to write a history of the American Feminist movement.  Her qualifications stem from the fact the she was something of a “revolutionary” herself, participating in many of the struggles that she writes about and adding her own anecdotes throughout the text, which is coupled with the fact that she is an historian and social commentator of some distinction. As a journalist for publications like The Nation, Rosen has brought her sense of social justice for women to the forefront, and as a historian she has focused on the experiences of poor and working class women– starting with her dissertation, which was about women and prostitution.[1]

Clearly The World Split Open was written with Dr. Rosen’s “historian hat” on, but it is written in a journalistic style that makes it at once entertaining and interesting. Scrupulously referenced, the book’s notes section is nearly one hundred pages and is followed by a robust glossary of important terms, making it also an excellent textbook for women’s history survey courses. Rosen’s references include books, interviews, newspaper articles, and her personal experiences as a comrade participating in the struggle of the women’s movement.

Rosen tells the story, her story, by starting with an annotated chronology that begins in 1848 and ends with the beginning of the story of the modern women’s movement in the 1950s. It is in this first chapter, that Rosen entitled Dawn of Discontent, where one will see the first striking resemblance to Betty Friedan’s The Feminist Mystique. Clearly, Rosen was heavily influenced by the late Friedan and admits that Friedan’s book “had broken the silence and and begun unmasking the reality of women’s lives”  (8). The motif of The Feminist Mystique permeates her history in The World Split Open.

Nevertheless, Rosen does not end with Friedan’s critique.  Instead, she moves the reader past the early days of gender enlightenment to what she terms the Rebirth of Feminism in section two of the book. This reference to “rebirth” emphasizes the fact that women’s movement issues lay somewhat dormant through the fifties and early sixties.  In this section, Rosen begins by laying out the reasons that Liberal Feminism gave way to the Radical Feminist movement.  She argues that, even though women had not yet put a name to many of their concerns (56), the children of the fifties rejected the “patriotic role” of Cold War mother and to take a more strident stance on issues of patriarchy and systems of power through “bohemian adventures, love affairs, marriage, the civil rights movement, antiwar activities, and the New Left Movement with unarticulated fears of replicating the world of their mothers” (58).

The middle part of the book addresses, in part, how women experienced the “conversion” from the trap of The Feminist Mystique into a new female consciousness.  As an example of this, Rosen uses the experiences of Gloria Steinem and others, who were already older and working when they experienced “conversion” (208).   Younger women, Rosen argues, were experiencing the shift in female consciousness in colleges and in small groups, while women of Steinem’s age were experiencing the conversion in “the struggles,” such as the anti-Vietnam War movement, “La Causa” of Cesar Chazev” and press coverage of feminist events, as in the case of Gloria Steinem (209).

Rosen also describes how the conservative Right in the United States responded to the new female activism.  In her retelling of the story of Sagaris, a feminist institute created at Goddard College in the summer of 1974, Rosen points out the fear that was rampant among traditionalists and the Right, i.e.  that ever-present fear of women rejecting their historic roles and finding new political and economic voices (254).  This fear is also illustrated well in Rosen’s discussion of how the FBI infiltrated women’s groups along side such New Left organizations such as the Students for  a Demoncratic Society (SDS), “the Black Panther Party, the Native American Movement, the Yippies and many other protest groups” (240).

The weakness of the book is that it seems at time one sided toward the experiences of the middle class, white woman.  It doesn’t pay nearly enough attention to the history of female minorities caught up in or on the periphery of the movement, although this might be inevitable since work is just starting to be done in this area.  Another weakness of the book as a history is its ideological leaning.  While no person, historian not, can be 100% non-biased; Rosen seems to not even recognize hers.

The strength of the book is its telling of the story of the modern women’s movement in a journalistic style that is at once educational and entertaining.  Her own experiences as an activist in the movement give it the kind of persuasive power that cannot be learned from books– that is, as hearing the story told by person who was there.   Therefore, Rosen’s book is strongly recommended for all students of women’s history who desire to have a deeper understanding of the modern struggle for women’s rights from the perspective of those who struggled.

[1] http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Rosen/rosen-con0.html

→ Leave a CommentCategories: History · Social Work
Tagged: , ,

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

March 25, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963

In this now classic book, author and founder of the National Organization of Women (NOW), the late Betty Friedan, argued that that there was a problem afflicting post-World War II women which had no name. Friedan dubbed this problem The Feminine Mystique and argued that it was a distinctively American philosophy that women started to embrace following the end of the war 1945 and that by 1949, women were reduced to only one definition: “the housewife- mother” (44). Friedan further argued that this philosophy convinced women that their only value was in the fulfillment of “femininity” found in “sexual passivity, male domination and nurturing maternal love.” (43).[1] It was a philosophy that, as Friedan put it, caused “her limitless world to… [shrink]… to the cozy walls of home” (44).

The first chapters of the book are organized to show evidence for The Feminist Mystique in the media, psychology and counseling, education, and in virtually all American institutions of the early sixties. Following the evidence, Friedan included her estimation of how this problem was affecting the individual women living the philosophy. And finally, Friedan laid out for her female readers a bold strategy for emancipation entitled “A New Life Plan for Women” (338).

Looking at this book through the lens of history, one should note that this was a very influential book to the minds of very many women and was acclaimed as an “excellent sociological study.” [2] Nevertheless, it is easy to disagree on this later point because the book is a far cry from what is typically considered an academically rigorous attempt to establish evidence for a unified sociological theory. Instead, Friedan seems to have used a pre-determined Marxist motif of “power and oppression,” which she layered on top of her evidence.

Furthermore, the evidence that was used to support Friedan’s hypotheses is at best qualitative/appeals to authority and at worst anecdotal evidence drawn from her interviews with middle class housewives. These selective interviews, while poignantly describing the pain felt by some women of the era, are hardly evidence that all American women were/are harmed by the philosophy of The Feminist Mystique.

Another major weakness of this book is that is completely ignores the plight of women who are not in the stable, middle class status of the stereotypical housewife. Nowhere is this omission more palatable (or perhaps offensive to the modern reader) than in Chapter 12 where Friedan analogizes The Feminist Mystique to a “comfortable” concentration camp (283). For Friedan, “the problem” for “women” is not food, clothing, shelter and safety—problems faced by poor women—but only an existential problem: self-fulfillment or “sleep walking” in a “comfortable concentration camp,” and obviously a modern, middle class family home is far removed from a concentration camp (282-283).

The strength of the book is its persuasive appeal to majority class women of the early 1960s. Even now, it gives the reader a glimpse of the passion that the progressive, middle class leaders of the 20th century women’s movement felt coupled with and the pain that many of American’s upper-middle class women experienced as they lived out the role that was assigned to them after 1949. Another strength of the book is the fact Friedan took the time to give a solution to the “problem with no name,”—a solution that she admitted in the Epilogue was difficult, but might be the best part of the book.

The Feminist Mystique should, of course, be read by any student of gender, women’s history or related academic disciplines, and will still be useful as a therapeutic study for some women in our culture. It would seem that remnants of the 1963 social order still remain in the middle class today and for those women who are still afflicted by the “problem that has no name,” reading The Feminist Mystique might have the power to emancipate, or even save.[3] It might also be appropriate to recommend this book to Hispanic and/or African American women whose families are transitioning from the poor or working class but at still are hanging onto the traditional roles of their culture. And finally, as with all classics, The Feminist Mystique speaks to different readers in different ways. It raises relentless human questions about one half of the species—the half that happens to have had no voice for most of recorded history. In this light, one might further suggest that this book should be read by every living person.

[1] Freeman, Lucy. “’The Feminine Mystique’.” The New York Times 7 Apr 1963.

[2]Reed, Evelyn. International Socialist Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, No. 166, Winter 1964, pp. 24-27; Review of “The Feminine Mystique,” by Betty Friedan, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1963. 410 pp

[3] In my own work with women as a therapist I have recommended The Feminist Mystique to several women who seemed to me to be an anachronism with regard to how their relationships worked at home. But for the most part, the women that I work with are seeking self-fulfillment in their education and would likely see The Feminine Mystique as anarchistic in many ways.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: History · Social Work
Tagged: , ,

The Other Women’s Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America

February 21, 2009 · Leave a Comment

Dr. Dorothy Sue Cobble brings an important aspect of women’s history to the forefront in The Other Women’s Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America. Her expertise in both labor and women’s studies converge in this history of the women of organized labor from about 1930s until about 1960, which she argues is a movement in between the first wave (suffrage)and second wave (modern women’s movement) of American “feminist” activism (7). It was during this period that women entered wage-labor and unions in large numbers. Using source materials found in union newspapers, conference minutes, etc., along with well-documented secondary sources such as monographs on labor and women’s history, Cobble tells the story of this largely forgotten movement of women who worked for social justice for women within the context of the American Labor movement.

Cobble tells this story in eight chapters. Each chapter deals with one aspect of the struggle for women’s rights as wage laborers. The distinction between women’s rights and women’s equality is made, in varying degrees, in each of these chapters, which deal with subjects like wage justice, the concept of the “double day” (i.e. the fact that most wage laboring women work a second job taking care of children in the home), rights, and the whole idea of “equal rights” in the pursuit of social justice for women.

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
 But the “social justice” that Cobble suggests the women of organized labor were working for was fundamentally different than the “social justice” that the women of the modern feminist movement are well-known for promoting. Social justice for the modern feminist movement mean fulls equality with men while it meant, among other things, gender-based labor protection for working-class, unionized woman. Nowhere is this distinction between the two movements illustrated better than the in section that discusses the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in chapter two of the book (60-66). On the one hand labor leaders like Pauline Newman bitterly opposed the ERA because they felt that the ERA would undermine hard-won gender based state labor laws, while feminists like Alice Paul, who had worked tirelessly for women’s suffrage, believed that the ERA was a natural next step in the emancipation of women and “firmly believed that women should enjoy the same freedoms as men, including ‘freedom of contract’ (62). The debate between the two groups essentially boiled down to this controversy over what “freedom of contract” would mean for working class women. Opponents of the ERA in labor felt that the amendment would shift all of the power towards the side of owners of labor and create even greater inequality for women, especially working-class women. Cobble argues that this debate was essentially a struggle between the working class and the elite, quoting and agreeing with historian Carl Brauer who noted that “the debate over the ERA had distinctly class, interest group and ideological overtones, pitting affluent, business-oriented, and politically conservative women against poor, union-oriented and politically liberal women” (61) .

“Double Day”

Another interesting, and distinctively working class aspect of this struggle, is described by Cobble in chapter five, entitled The Politics of the “Double Day” where she argued that women of the labor movement understood that there had to be a fundamental restructuring of the work world in order for there to be “equality” for women in the workplace. “Double day” is a euphemism for the reality that women who work must also care for children and household and part of their traditional role. “Women of leisure,” as leaders within the labor movement described them, didn’t realize that their reduction of the women’s movement to simply full equality with men in the workplace neglected this fact, which still held true in the homes of working-class women . Therefore, a fundamental restructuring of the workplace, as opposed to full equality, was fought for in order to allow for this gender difference: for instance, a 6 hour work day and on-site company day care facilities– the idea being to “combine wage and family life”(122). In other words, the women of labor struggled for a pragmatic politics of reform that advanced women in workplace without questioning her traditional role in the household.

A major strength of Cobble’s book is a focus on the social justice aspects of the labor movement, or rather, how the woman of labor and the mass unionization movements in general, promoted social justice in the workplace for both women and men. She points out that this other women’s movement was about class struggle as (sometimes literally) opposed individualistic goal of full equality championed by “elite” women on the political Right. Another strength is the thorough among of research and documentation used throughout the book coupled with the pictures from the period. Cobble masterfully integrates the story of the struggle of the women of labor with direct quotes from their leaders and anecdotes that make the story entertaining and educational. If the book has a weakness, it is that Cobble at times seems too critical of the feminism that followed the women’s labor movement, or was in political opposition to it as a contemporary.

But despite this minor concern, the book is an interesting and welcomed addition to the historiography of women’s studies. It gives the student of women’s history an insight into segment of gender studies that has been neglected and pigeoned holed as a period when “nothing much was happening worth writing about,” even though nothing further from the truth can be said. On the contrary, it was a period of expansive migration into labor and social movement for women because of the political power which follows organizing.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: History · Social Work
Tagged: , , ,

The Jesus Project = Fail

February 9, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I remember the work of the first Jesus Project (called The Jesus Seminar) which comprised of about 150 scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies or related fields.  This group dealt with (among other textual issues) the historicity of Jesus, or rather the question or whether or not Jesus of Nazareth literally existed.  Interesting question, I suppose.  But virtually all the scholars of the Jesus Seminary with the notable exception of Robert Price agreed that Jesus did exist, and this has been the consensus, before, during and after the first Seminar, which began in 1985.

Since Robert Price was one of a very small minority of detractors from this consensus, it is not surprising that he has resurrected (or at least agreed to join) a similarly entitled group with similar goals. But this time the group is fatally flawed as a academy from the start because of it’s affiliation with atheist activism.

Those of us Atheists and Agnostics, etc., of the online community who have been watching and despising the tactics and stupidity (e.g. “Theism is a Mental Disorder,” lol) of the Rational Response Squad since their “Blasphemy Challenge,”  are shocked and amazed that their resident Bullshit Artist “Rook Hawkins” has weaseled his way onto the staff of the new Jesus Project under the name Tom Verenna.   But he didn’t just weasel his way, he was allowed to weasel his way onto the project and the reason seems perfectly clear to me: TJP has an agenda, it wants to prove that Jesus didn’t exist to promote Atheism…

…You see, Rook Hawkins is first and foremost an Atheist Activist, his shtick just happens to be “critical historian”… and Kelly’s is psychology and Brian’s is, well… something, they all have the “expertise”– despite the fact that none of them (with the exception of a few of the non-core supporters) have any actual training in the areas they claim. Here is a typical RRS blurb which outlines their many “expertise”:

Brian Sapient and Rook Hawkins have been responding to irrational claims and emergencies globally since 1999. Brian Sapient specializes in debating Religion from all angles, while Rook can pick apart the bible better than those who actually believe in it. Longtime allies of the Infidel Guy and Jake from the Atheist Network, Sapient and Rook have conceived a squad that will help respond rationally to irrational claims around the globe. One of their first moves was acquiring the help of noted Scientist from the Infidel Guy message boards, Yellow_Number_Five (Mike). Mike is their newest member and is a specialist in all things scientific. He’s a chemical engineer, microbiologist, and evolutionary geek. Kelly M is the Neuropsych nerd with expertise in Philosophy. Their main man Razorcade always seems to ask just the right questions of the guests and is their rational inquisitor.   from RRS MySpace.

I also want to point out this video, which makes me laugh every time I see it.  It’s an example of Kelly’s expertise in “Neuropsych”:

So now TJP has one of these “expert idiots” (i.e. Rook the Bullshit Artist) as a “fellow” on their “academic project”…  Tell me again how the work of the TJP is academically neutral and uses sound, rigorous methodology?

TJP = EPIC FAIL

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Freethought, Agnosticism and Atheism · Opinion
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Tom Verenna/Rook Hawkins

February 6, 2009 · 4 Comments

A young bullshit artist by the pseudonym of “Rook Hawkins,” of the now infamous Rational Response Squad, is currently using the name Thomas Verenna (apparently his birth name).  Unfortunately for him, the name changed has not changed the fact that he is a full of shit.

First and foremost among his bullshittery is the fact that he often (very often) calls himself a “critical historian” and sometimes even a “public historian,” despite that fact that many of us in the Atheist world doubt that the boy even has a high school diploma.

That fact that he doesn’t have any training at all in the discipline of historical studies doesn’t seem to bother the boy one bit.

Not that being an “autodidact” (as he claims), in and of itself, is anything to be ashamed of, but when a person self-addresses themselves as a “public historian” we (those of us who study history) have certain expectations for that person, e.g. having published some original work or done research with sources documents, etc.

So what is the point?  Well, I, as a history student, am annoyed that Rook self-applies titles he has not earned in any sense of the word.

But not only that, I have been reading Rice University’s Dr. DeConick’s blog entitled The Forbidden Gospels because she has been commenting on the “new” and improved “Jesus Seminar.”  It is fairly interesting to me because of my Divinity background and the fact that while I was attending Seminary the first “Jesus Seminar” was being held.  So who appears in Dr. DeConick’s comments the other day? Rook.

So good for him, right? Wrong.  He got mentioned (wow, cool) and then wrote a rather lengthy, whiny, post on his new blog claiming that the Rice University professor doesn’t understand his (a nobody with no training) argument:

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/april-deconicks-jesus-is-bankrupt-rehashing/

…I want to start out by making it clear that April has not represented my position correctly. Even when she quotes it in block-quote format, she seems to have missed my words completely. This is a serious problem because we will continue to talk past each other.
…

She derives another ad hoc [sic] argument from thin air and talks past me. My original point was thus:…

Mythicists examine religious-meme change (how quickly did religious trends change and how much could they have changed over that period of time—for example, euhemerizing a legendary figure of Jesus into a historical setting).”…

If April is going to continually ignore vital questions, misrepresent valid points of investigation, this project will never get on its feet. Instead, we will be grid-locked in a never ending blogersation talking past each other in an ad hoc [sic] war
…
I have to ask April to carefully read the articles she wants to openly discuss publicly. If she is going to attack a position, she should at least know more about it first.

It is of course insulting to suggest that the Isla Carroll and Percy E. Turner Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University doesn’t understand his argument.  But this is Rook’s modus operandi in his on-going pursuit to present himself as something he is not.

In light of this, I certainly hope that it is merely a coincidence that Dr. DeConick’s desicion to no be involved in the new Jesus Project coicided with Rook’s latest temper tantrum.

Shame on you Rook, go to college.

→ 4 CommentsCategories: Freethought, Agnosticism and Atheism · History · Opinion
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

40th Birthday

January 13, 2009 · Leave a Comment

I had my 40th birthday last week, January 7th. This was the first birthday where I stopped and reflected on my life a little bit. All of the previous birthdays I have basically passed over with a thank you to my loved ones and personal “meh” because they just didn’t mean much to me– just another day with but with cake and few presents. But my 40th birthday got me excited.

I took time to look back and to look forward.

I spent my 20’s and the majority of my 30’s living out a grand fantasy about myself which included God, country, apple pie, and everything else that goes with that. As some of you know, my parents were adult converts to the American “Bible Belt” Christian faith and I was raised in and taught that tradition. From an early age I bought into that worldview and (to make a long story short) ended up a graduating from Seminary in the fall of 1998. After seminary, I headed up north to start a start a church, joined the Air Force Reserve Chaplaincy, and then found myself in the Regular Army as a Chaplain in the spring of 2002, in the aftermath of 911. Little did I know then that 2002 would be the beginning of the end for my comfortable, secure knowledge about how the world, and the universe, works.

When I returned from Iraq in March of 2004 I had changed my opinion on one thing: Religion. The unraveling of so many years of firm belief had a tremendous impact on me, my family and my career. It cost me my Army career in no uncertain terms and almost cost me my marriage. That my apostasy didn’t cost me marriage is the miracle of patience for which no god gets credit, my loving wife alone is responsible for it.

5 years later I am still a skeptic (i.e. an agnostic, or an atheist, or w/e) and thankfully, I have lost the zeal and harshness that comes with new found truth (i.e. Atheism); I have also become more tolerant and loving towards people of faith– which in my neck of the woods means “Christians”– while freeing myself of “belief” as defined by them.

In retrospect I have lost a few things through unbelief. I have lost the comfort that faith brings to the follower.

But I have given up comfort for what I believed to be Truth on numerous occasions in my life, why should this be any different?

At my point of departure from Christianity I just admitted to myself for the first time that the whole story of Protestant Christianity was incredible and couldn’t be true, and was, therefore, left without the answers (comfort) that the Christian religion posited without evidence. But as the late Carl Sagan said, “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” I can live with the uncertainly and I can live with the finality of this life, no problem.

In fact, letting go of my religion was good for me. I actually became a more peaceful, loving and happier person. All that certainty was bad for me… and on the flipside, my initial journey into organized and zealous atheism was equally bad for me for the same reason that religion was. Simply speaking, I discovered that when I didn’t have all the answers, I became a lot more tolerant of other people and what they said and believed.

And so looking forward, in my 40’s I plan to continue to become a more loving, compassionate, and empathic counselor, teachers, parent and husband.

I plan to continue to not know anything about the supernatural and to deny it any power over me unless it clearly presents itself to me with unambiguous (irrefutable) evidence while being gentle in counseling those who do use faith as a resource in their own lives; to use my experience as a minister to help them on their faith journey without judgment or malice.

At this point in my life I know that it is in helping others that we find ourselves, whether we be people of faith or hell bent lost sinners, like myself.

“There is more happiness in giving than in receiving.”
Acts, 20:35

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Freethought, Agnosticism and Atheism · Opinion

A Short Essay on Latin America #9

December 22, 2008 · Leave a Comment

The end of the Cold War marked another transition in US-Latin American relations. Generally speaking, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Latin America was for a long time strictly a battleground for the promotion of the conflicting ideologies.[1] Once the Soviet Union economically collapsed and began to incorporate some principles of Capitalist free trade, the United States was free to view Latin America in a new light and to begin the process of promote free trade and, sometimes, democracy on a hemispheric and global scale.[2] [3]

Robert A. Pastor, in his The Clinton Administration and the Americas: The Postwar Rhythm and Blues, explains that when President Clinton came to power in 1992, the new President had two issues to tackle with regard to Latin America: namely, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the crisis in the nation of Haiti.[4] Haiti, that perpetually abused nation state in the Caribbean[5][6][7], was enduring yet another national crisis. The first “free and fair” popularly elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was overthrown by the military with the consent of the traditionally ruling oligarchy.[8] This coup took place in 1991, the United States responded, after about 4 years of political wrangling, by an historic UN sponsored occupation of Haiti and the re-instatement of the democratically elected President and democracy itself—“the first time that the United Nations had authorized the use of force for the purpose of restoring a democracy to a member state.”[9] [10]

The second issue that President Clinton had to deal with was NAFTA. The subject of NAFTA is still a controversial one to this day, especially in Border States. The concept behind NAFTA is rather simple: open up the post-Cold War hemisphere to free trade for the purposes of helping underdeveloped nations to grow, goodwill, and lower cost labor for American industry. Since Mexico proposed (Carlos Salinas) was the first nation to become a part of the NAFTA agreement, other nations were excluded for various political reasons.[11] The consequence of this uncertainty about the inclusion of other Latin American nations in NAFTA has been that excluded nations have began to put together their own trade agreements, the most ambitious and notable being the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), which “links the economic fortunes of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay.” [12]

In the present century the previous two issues, which represent free trade and the spreading of spreading and safeguarding of democracy, seem to represent the United State’s foreign policy hopes for the Western Hemisphere. The collapse of the Soviet Bloc was an economic setback for some Latin American countries (especially Cuba), but the long period of Cold War US indifference to the social and economic condition of their southern neighbors has contributed to many, if not most, of the devastating social problem present in many Latin American States; Haiti being the most extreme example of neglect and exploitation.

Today we hope the United States will continue to promote and enforce the ideals of democracy, liberty, and equity in the Western Hemisphere. In some part of Latin America, perhaps most notably in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, a resurgence of what appears to be the “Old Left” has joined the island nation of Cuba in its continued resistance of US hegemony, even in the face of no other alternative great power. Although Chavez’s policies have brought the country of Venezuela to the brink of a civil war, his popularity among the poor working classes (58% popular vote in 1998) is a lesson that the United States should learn when dealing with Latin America in this post-Cold War century.[13] He knows that Capitalism fails in the underdeveloped nations because the promise of a better life for the common person is differed while the rich elites continue to become enriched. If, therefore, the United States hopes to integrate itself in into the hemisphere as a leader, spreader of democracy, justice and so on, it must promote also promote the cause of Social Justice for every person, as it has so long struggled for itself in its own borders.


[1] Tulchin, J. S. (1997). Hemispheric Relations in the 21st Century. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 39(1), 33-43.

[2] Dash, R. C. (1998). Globalization: For Whom and for What. Latin American Perspectives, 25(6), 52-54.

[3] Pastor, R. A. (1996). The Clinton Administration and the Americas: The Postwar Rhythm and Blues. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 38(4), 99-128.

[4] Pastor, 100.

[5] Wisner, G. (1995). Review: Abuses of Haiti. Transition, (66), 38-56.

[6] Farmer, P. (2003). The Uses of Haiti, Updated Edition (2nd ed., p. 350). Common Courage Press.

[7] Kidder, T. (2004). Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, a Man Who Would Cure the World (p. 336). Random House Trade Paperbacks.

[8] Pastor, 102.

[9] Pastor, 105.

[10]“ Linz and Stephan noted that ‘when a country is part of an international ideological community where democracy is only one of many strongly contested ideologies, the chances of transitioning to and consolidating democracy is substantially less than if the spirit of the times in one where democratic ideologies have no powerful contenders, (1996:74)’” quoted in O’Loughlin, J., Ward, M. D., Lofdahl, C. L., Cohen, J. S., Brown, D. S., Reilly, D., et al. (1998). The Diffusion of Democracy, 1946-1994. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(4), 545-574.

[11] Pastor, 101.

[12] Skidmore, T. E., & Smith, P. H. (2005). Modern Latin America, Sixth Edition (6th ed., p. 528). Oxford University Press, USA.

[13] Sylvia, R. D., & Danopoulos, C. P. (2003). The Chávez Phenomenon: Political Change in Venezuela. Third World Quarterly, 24(1), 63-76.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: History
Tagged: ,

A Short Essay on Latin America #8

December 16, 2008 · Leave a Comment

The independent Caribbean nation of Cuba was a society of tremendous social and economic inequities. Furthermore, as Skidmore and Smith point out: “The government the Cubans got in the 1920s and 1930s was among the most corrupt and brutal of the republic’s history.”[1] What this meant was that the social and economic situation in Cuba was ripe for some kind of reform and remained so until Castro’s revolution. It is interesting to note that sometimes in the literature author’s put forth that economic and social turmoil was “exploited” in Cuba by Castro and his followers in order to bring Communism to the island.[2] [3] While it is true that Castro did “exploit” these issues (in a way) to gain power, the United States, participated in perpetuating an unjust system that created the context. Therefore, those things “exploited” by the Communist were part and parcel of United States foreign policy, making the United States equally culpable for the rise of Communism on the island.
The United States, before and after the occupation of Cuba, has opposed the recognition of Cuban revolutionaries.[4] President McKinley did so in the revolution again Spain and President Eisenhower did so when Castro came to power. On the other hand, the kind of governments that the United States did recognize in Cuba and elsewhere in Latin America, were mostly dictatorial, pro-business, capitalist governments that fit into its imperialistic web.[5] The Cuban military officer General Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar was the case in point that Fidel Castro’s government supplanted. Batista fought in the war of Cuban independence and rose through the ranks of government; he was elected president of Cuba in 1940 and peacefully transferred power to his rival once his term. Nevertheless, when Batista ran for president again a decade later and the polls showed him behind, he staged a coup in Cuba and took power. Once in power he suspended constitutional rights and opened the country further to American business interests, and was especially friendly with American organized crime and gambling on the island. The United States government supported Batista, military dictator and mobster, at the expense of the Cuban people and democracy, which contributed directly to the rise of Communism on the island.[6]
Given that corrupt kleptocracies[7] like Batista’s were the only alternative for the working class in Latin America, it is no wonder that the promise of Socialism appealed to them. At that time, Latin America exports mainly primary resources for industry in other countries.[8] What this meant was that Cuba and many other Latin American countries developed a rural proletariat after the Communist model developed in the Chinese revolution under Mao Zedong. The inherent disparities of global Capitalist system coupled with the gross self-serving political policies of the Latin American ruling elite, therefore, made the Communist model quite appealing to many working class Latin Americans.

Furthermore, It did not help the cause of the “democratic” capitalism that American companies like United Fruit exploited their workers and were assisted by the United States government their workers resisted this exploitation.[9] But the exploitation of Latin American workers (and peasant workers everywhere in the “Third World”) is the status quo’ under the world Capitalist system and has been discussed through a Marxist analysis of inequities called Dependency Theory. This theory posits that poor states are poor and rich states become more enriched because of the way the impoverished states are integrated into the world system. The alternative to this Dependency Theory is the free market theories put forth by Capitalist economists. Free market theories posit that impoverished nation will develop and become less impoverished through free and open trade with developed nations. Certainly Dependency Theory was being put forth by Communist parties in Latin America as the root cause of the poverty in their nations. This ideology coupled with the real poverty experienced by the masses contributed further the appeal of Communism in Latin America.
As Communist was somewhat on the rise in Latin America, punctuated by the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba, so was anti-Communist hysteria in Washington. Soon after Fidel Castro came to power, presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, which failed and likely led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nevertheless, soon the “threat” of worldwide Communism shifted primarily to the East, as the United States got more and more involved in the Vietnam civil war.

[1] Thomas E. Skidmore and Peter H. Smith, Modern Latin America, Sixth Edition, 6th ed. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2005).

[2] William Appleman Williams, “Cuba: Issues and Alternatives,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 351 (January 1964): 72-80.

[3] Nelson de Sousa Sampaio, “Latin America and Neutralism,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 362 (November 1965): 62-70.

[4] Williams, W. A. (1964). Cuba: Issues and Alternatives. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 351, 72-80.

[5] Tulchin, J. S. (1988). The United States and Latin America in the 1960s. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 30(1), 1-36.

[6] “Batista had always leaned toward the United States. I don’t think we ever had a better friend. It was regrettable, like all South Americans, that he was known-although I had no absolute knowledge of it-to be getting a cut, I think is the word for it, in almost all the, things that were done. But, on the other hand, he was doing an amazing job.”
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-cuba/gardner-smith.htm

[7] Lundahl, M. (1989). History as an Obstacle to Change: The Case of Haiti. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 31(1/2), 1-21.

[8] Skidmore, 269.

[9] Posada-Carbo, E. (1998). Fiction as History: The Bananeras and Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude. Journal of Latin American Studies, 30(2), 395-414.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: History
Tagged: , , ,

More Stupidity and Incoherence from the New York Atheists

December 12, 2008 · 4 Comments

I just read through the latest newsletter coming out of the New York City Atheist, Inc. organization. Their “fearless leader” Kenneth Bronstein wrote and open letter to the President Elect which is almost the exact opposite equivalent of Chuck Norris’ similarly themed op-ed. While Chuck Norris wants the new president to forget about all that liberal nonsense and be another Bush, Bronstein wants the new President to “be courageous” and get rid of all that religion in government once and for all, especially that “God Bless America” nonsense and so on… My advice to the new President is to go with Chuck Norris because otherwise we might all get our asses kicked.

At any rate, it’s a good thing these two are making their political views known to the new President elect, otherwise the President might not understand what kind of thinking to avoid in building a wide consensus among a diverse plurality of political leaders of various religious faiths and perspectives. So thanks Chuck! …oh and thank you too Mr. Bronstein…

…But you might have had more credibility around your Atheism shtick had your “sermon” (not my words, his) entitled DEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA: STOP RELIGIOUS POLLUTION OF GOVERNMENT! not been immediately followed by an advertisement for a NYCA’s Solstice party, hosted by a Wiccan Priestess—seriously, this is so stupid no one could possibly make it up.

Nevertheless, the NYCA did have a tremendous victory recently.  They were able to force the city to remove an art project (admittedly religious) from the city sidewalk, i.e. with a little media help from their Wiccan Priestess, of course:

To cover the story, Nation Public Radio (NPR) sent reporter Margot Adler, a Wiccan priestess and author of two books on paganism [to cover the event]. Lo and behold, she happened upon the president of the New York City Atheists Ken Bronstein, an outspoken opponent of public religious displays.

…the NYCA were able to have the “prayer booth” removed from the sidewalks that they use for setting up anti-religion tables.  Good job NYCA!

And finally, what NYCA newsletter would be complete without a snide, condescending set of tips from their resident “journalist” Jane Everhart, complete with terms of endearment like “religionist” and “faithhead.”

I leave you with her “brilliant” advice:

We have grown past that phase of our interaction with religionists. Bronstein now tells NYCA members who do Street Tabling, “We are beyond that. We no longer argue with religionists about their beliefs. That dialogue is over, that battle is won. Or purpose now is to meet atheists or would be atheists and bring them into the fold, to popularize the atheist lifestyle and to prevent faithheads from ramming religion down our throats.” Or to quote an adage I tell my friends and colleagues: Don’t try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

What a load of horseshit, what a bunch of intolerant pricks these people are.


→ 4 CommentsCategories: Freethought, Agnosticism and Atheism · Opinion
Tagged: , , , , ,