Tuesday, January 23, 2018

You Don't Know Rosie

Rosie the Riveter, and the perpetuated myth about who she was and what she stands for, is another example of "collective misconception," the phenomena known as the Mandela Effect. One group of  people repeat a thing enough times, and then enough large groups simply accept it as true and keep repeating it, that it then "becomes true." It is kind of amazing, and also terrifying.

First of All, It's Not Her

In 2015 when Naomi Parker Fraley's daughter-in-law saw a picture of Ms. Fraley from when she was a factory worker, she says that saw a resemblance to the woman in that iconic "We Can Do It!" poster.

By that logic, my grandma was also Rosie. So was yours if she worked in a factory during WW2. Condolences about Naomi Parker Fraley passing today at the grand age of 96. I am sure she was a fine lady but, and with no disrespect meant, it's not her.

It's a puzzler, that 2015 claim by the daughter-in-law that Fraley was the model for Rosie the Riveter. We already know who Rosie was, as the books already confirm that the model for the real Rosie was a young lady named Mary Doyle Keefe. Well-known to have sat for the famous Rosie painting, Mary Doyle Keefe was a nice lady who passed, coincidentally in 2015, at the age of 92.

...aaaaand It's Not HER, Either

 Yes, today every news organization carrying the story about the passing of Ms. Fraley is showing the iconic image and saying it is "Rosie", but no, that "We Can Do It!" image does not depict Rosie the Riveter.

So it's a double-Mandela mega-dose of wrongness. Not only was Fraley not the model for Rosie, but the woman everyone thinks is Rosie is not Rosie.

"We Can Do It" was a poster that Westinghouse used in 1943 at the factory, internally, in an effort to cut down on absenteeism. There was a lot of that kind of thing in the forties. Ask your grandma. "We Can Do It" was never intended to be about empowering women, and it sure as heck ain't our Rosie.

An artist named Howard Miller drew the "We Can Do It!" poster. Miller's factory lady doesn't have a name, nor red hair. Westinghouse doesn't even use rivets.

Another Howard Miller poster.
From the Smithsonian: 
"Artist J. Howard Miller produced this work-incentive poster for the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company. Though displayed only briefly in Westinghouse factories, the poster in later year [sic] has become one of the most famous icons of World War II. 
As women were encouraged to take wartime jobs in defense industries, they became a celebrated symbol of female patriotism. But when the war ended, many industries forced women to relinquish their skilled jobs to returning veterans." 
Researcher Kelly Shanahan adds:
"This poster was commissioned by the Westinghouse electric and manufacturing company as a part of the United States effort to increase production and dedication within the warehouses. This poster was actually only posted for two weeks in February in 1943 and was never titled as Rosie the Riveter that she has become known as today. The poster was rediscovered in the 80's [sicand misinterpreted as a symbol for the feminist movement and involvement in WW2. Miller never intended for "Rosie " to last longer than her two week poster debut, however she has somehow become ingratiated into society as a symbol for those women working in WW2."

Norman Rockwell painted the real Rosie the Riveter.  

She was one of the great iconic Rockwell covers for Saturday Evening Post. He even put her name on her lunchbox, gave her greasy overalls far too big (the rolled up cuffs just kill me), and he boldly painted a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf under her foot. Rockwell gave his Rosie cheeks pinked from hard work, red hair, well-muscled forearms and a big ol' rivet gun. It's kind of a big deal.

Whole Lotta Rosie

So well received was Rockwell's May 1943 cover that he painted more "rosies" for more covers, and that is how "Rosie to the Rescue" became a hopeful and patriotic carillon call to women everywhere, and remains an iconic inspiring figure to this day – if you know where to find her. The real Rosie will always be seated smartly upon her post, on her Post, covered in grease, goggles pushed up so she can eat her lunch before going back to work. You go, real Rosie. We see you, girl. ∎
Rosie the Riveter
Norman Rockwell, 1943

Model: Mary Doyle Keefe

Further Reading (Saturday Evening Post):




Sunday, January 21, 2018

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Throwback Thursday: 2016

TRUMP:....Look, Putin...

WALLACE: Wait, but...

TRUMP: ... from everything I see, has no respect for this person.

CLINTON: Well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.

TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.

CLINTON: And it's pretty clear...

TRUMP: You're the puppet!

CLINTON: It's pretty clear you won't admit...

TRUMP: No, you're the puppet.

CLINTON: ... that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 -- 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

WALLACE: Secretary Clinton...

CLINTON: And I think it's time you take a stand...

TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else.

CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.

TRUMP: She has no idea.

CLINTON: I am quoting 17...

TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.

CLINTON: ... 17 intelligence -- do you doubt 17 military and civilian...

TRUMP: And our country has no idea.

CLINTON: ... agencies.

TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.

CLINTON: Well, he'd rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely...

TRUMP: She doesn't like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.

WALLACE: Mr. Trump...

TRUMP: Excuse me. Putin has outsmarted her in Syria.

WALLACE: Mr. Trump...

TRUMP: He's outsmarted her every step of the way.

WALLACE: I do get to ask some questions.

TRUMP: Yes, that's fine.

WALLACE: And I would like to ask you this direct question. The top national security officials of this country do believe that Russia has been behind these hacks. Even if you don't know for sure whether they are, do you condemn any interference by Russia in the American election?
TRUMP: By Russia or anybody else.

WALLACE: You condemn their interference?

TRUMP: Of course I condemn. Of course I -- I don't know Putin. I have no idea.

WALLACE: I'm not asking -- I'm asking do you condemn?

TRUMP: I never met Putin. This is not my best friend. But if the United States got along with Russia, wouldn't be so bad.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

My New Favorite Hat


The record playing in the background is 
Love Songs for the Hearing Impaired
Dan Baird



Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The Phone Is Not The Problem

This week is when I try to figure out what makes sense about 
people, 
who have bought a product, 
criticizing the company that makes the product, 
because people are getting too much use out of the product they bought. 
What chapter of The Modern Capitalism Handbook deals with this?


"What Is She Talking About?"

If your kid is addicted to her iPhone, doesn't that seem like a problem that would be solved not by the iPhone's maker, but by you, their actual parents? To my ears, the crazy is busting out with this aggressive blaming, specifically of the device, and the company. In the BLOGCAST video I talk about my mom limiting my TV, but same goes true for the phone. Like when I was twelve and called all those "story lines" and then my mom got a huge big phone bill and so I was banned from the phone when she wasn't home. I certainly didn't get my own phone. I couldn't be trusted, no phone for me. Now, with this "study" that they're demanding of Apple. What do we expect the data will show, hmmmm? I'd expect the results will start off showing phone use across OX, how many hours a day, using what platforms, which apps, and it'll show the geo-locations of all these children. Here's my question: shouldn't every mom and dad already be in control of knowing all that stuff about their own actual kid's phone use, especially the fallout, which is: should they be using the phone this much? When we were kids, "the phone" was just a phone, but the approximate analog version of this whole conversation would have been, "I don't want you watching that goddamn General Hospital! And no Atari until you finish your homework! And no calling Colleen until after 7, for fuck's sake! Go outside! And stay where I can see you." Or is Apple now in charge of all that pesky stuff. "Parental controls," are you freakin' kidding me.

Further Reading

If you are concerned about the increasingly negative impact of technology (which is really no laughing matter, despite my laughing about this "Apple is ruining our kids" iPhone story) then I recommend you check out an online publication called The Technoskeptic. They take a serious look at our dependence on tech of all kinds, and what you can personally do to avoid the pitfalls of  "too much technology." There are articles and a podcast. Please donate if you can. 

Views