Watch the video of my talk on RBG - Oct. 27, 2020

On Tuesday evening, Oct. 27, at 6 p.m. I gave a zoom talk on Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the Midwood Public Library. Among the items showed and discussed was the Oct. 8, 2020 cover of the New Yorker magazine which has Ginsberg’s court collar made up of the symbols for woman, and a recent New York Times article on an ace high school female tennis player who sued to be on the male team in 1972 (there was none for women then), went to the ACLU and had Ginsberg represent her.

If video is not appearing above, you can click on https://youtu.be/_JEte7-HcXM to watch

Bonnie Anderson Comment
Talk on RBG

On Tuesday evening, Oct. 27, at 6 p.m. I’m giving a zoom talk on Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the Midwood Public Library. You can sign up by going to the Brooklyn Public Library site. I also may be able to link it to here. I’ll be speaking for about 20 minutes and then taking questions. Among the items I’ll be showing and discussing are her 1993 speech when Pres. Clinton nominated her to the Supreme Court, the Oct. 8, 2020 cover of the New Yorker magazine which has Ginsberg’s court collar made up of the symbols for woman, and a recent New York Times article on an ace high school female tennis player who sued to be on the male team in 1972 (there was none for women then), went to the ACLU and had Ginsberg represent her. You can watch the video of my talk here

Bonnie Anderson Comment
Who Was Ernestine Rose? A video interview

An interview I did on the life of Ernestine Rose for a Jewish site:

Jewish Culture & Jewish Awareness Episode 40: Who was Ernestine Rose?

Dustin Hausner, the Jewish Outreach and Program Director at the Wayne YMCA interviews Bonnie Anderson, Author. In the book The Rabbi’s Atheist Daughter: Ernestine Rose, International Feminist Pioneer. Bonnie Anderson introduces you to Ernestine Rose and her work on Women’s Rights, Ending Slavery and Freethought Movement.

Ginsberg and After

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was both timely and untimely.  Timely, because she was 87 and had been battling severe cancer for many years, and untimely because she died while Trump was in office.  Breaking with their own statements when Obama was president and Republicans prevented even a hearing of his candidate for a year, the party decided to push through a new candidate for the court in a few short weeks.

         Given this situation, what can Democrats and their supporters do?  The most important action, I believe, is to try and convince some Republican senators not to go ahead with their party’s maneuver to control the court.  Here are the phone numbers of five Republican senators who might support a delay.  All of them go to voice mail, so if you call, you do not need to talk to anyone.

  • For Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, dial 202/224-2523, ext. 1

  • For Sen. Corey Gardner of Colorado, dial 202/224-5941, ext. 1

  • For Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona, dial 202/224-2235, which will go directly to voicemail

  • For Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, dial 202/224-6665, ext. 3

  • For Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, dial 202/224-5251, ext. 1        

         I think it is worth phoning these senators even if they have already announced that they will support Mitch McConnell’s attempt to rush through an appointment.  As McConnell himself declared, this issue is political, and if these senators receive enough calls asking them to desist, they might.

         Finally, even if this new appointment goes through, there is a powerful remedy.  In this nation the Supreme Court does not make laws, except in constitutional issues.  Congress does.  If, for instance, the new conservative court out laws abortion, congress can pass a law making it legal.  So I believe it is now even more important for Democrats to vote in large numbers, hopefully to give Biden a mandate as well as control of both the house and the senate.  It is the only force that can stop the degradation of this nation which Trump and his corrupt attorney general, Barr, have engineered in recent years.

Suprem

The Past and The Present

A German friend wrote me about how much shame he was feeling belonging to a nation that had been so inhumane during the Holocaust. Here is what I wrote him.

Shouldn’t I be feeling the same shame about U.S. slavery? After all, tens of thousands of Africans were kidnapped, forced on ships, starved and chained. If they survived, they were sold itot slavery, often of a horrific kind. They were, beaten, whipped, forced to wear hideous torture devices (masks that held their mouths closed except for eating, etc.) They were confined in small cabins, beaten and forced to labor hard all week. The women were raped and if they bore children, these children were often sold away from them. Husbands and wives were separated and often sold to different plantations.Nor did this end when slavery was abolished.As soon as they could, white Southerners reimposed horrific conditions, the so-called Jim Crow laws of the 1890s. These mandated segregation, forbade blacks to vote,, kept them in menial jobs, etc., etc. And they were reinforced by lynchings — public ceremonies where black men were strung up, castrated and left to die. Lynchings were commemorated by potscards sent all over the United States. Nor has this ended today. Blacks are dying in far greater numbers than their percentage of the population from the coronavirus.

So what do I think should be done? I think that we much acknowledge the evils of the past, but focus on the present. We should prize equity and strive to make this world a better place.

Is There No Virtue Among Us?

In 1788, discussing the future constitution of the United States, James Madison posed this question. Arguing that legislators would neither “do every mischief that they possibly can” nor express “the most exalted integrity,” he supported “the great republican principle that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.” (“Republican” then was used as a contrast to monarchy.)

If there is no virtue among us, Madison continued, “then no form of government can render us secure.” No checks and balances, no separate branches, no limits on presidential power can guarantee “liberty and happiness.”

This principle has been on my mind since Trump’s election to the presidency in 2016. From the time he made fun of a disabled reporter during the campaign, I thought “How can anyone vote for him?” But that was just the start of the degradation of public life, ordinary human decency, and yes, virtue, that has snowballed since his election.

In this regard, a good friend of mine has been learning how to canvas effectively through a group called Changing The Conversation Together. It does not involve using reason, but rather in appealing to emotions. If the canvasser can establish an emotional connection, then she can ask, “Do you think Trump’s actions are decent?” Most people will say “No,” and then the connection has been made

So what is necessary now is to re-establish decency and virtue among us. “If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community,” Madison continued, “ It will be exercised in the selection of” our representatives. Without it, no government can be a force for good. This principle gives us a place to begin to reform our nation.

Make Sure You Vote!

                                   

          A short while ago, a white woman in her thirties told me, “It it’s Biden, I’m not going to vote.”  I tried arguing with her, saying that Trump was much worse than Biden, but I got nowhere.  She maintained that both of them supported corporate capitalism and that if Biden were president, nothing would change.  I was very upset with her, but then I remembered that I had done exactly the same thing she was advocating.

         Back in 1968, I could not bring myself to vote for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, to be president.  Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson’s vice-president, had supported the Vietnam war, which I’d marched against for years.  Nor did he repudiate the dreadful police riots in Chicago against peaceful demonstrators at the Democratic Convention.  So I voted for Eldridge Cleaver, the Black Panther who ran on the Peace and Freedom ticket.  Cleaver had no chance of winning, but this action made me feel righteous.  However by doing it, I helped make Richard Nixon president – an outcome I deplored. 

         I felt guilty about this action of mine for years.  I never believed that Humphrey was nearly as bad as Nixon.  Nixon’s presidency was a national disaster, culminating in Watergate.  Nor do I believe that Nixon was nearly as bad as Donald Trump is, although there are interesting parallels between them.  In both Watergate and Trump’s attempt to get the president of Ukraine to give him dirt on Biden, the cover-ups are almost worse than the actions. 

Just as Humphrey was superior to Nixon, so Biden is far better than Trump.  Equating the two, for whatever reasons, is a false and dangerous identification.  It could make Trump president for a second term, further eroding democracy in the United States.

         Some people believe that evil-doers should be allowed to obtain power, because then voters will see how dreadful they are and revolt against them.  This tactic was tried in Weimar Germany in the early 1930s.  Some members of the powerful German Socialist Party advocated this strategy against the Nazis, calling it “Socialist Defeatism.”  I think we all know how that turned out.

         In conclusion, it’s vitally important to vote – even if the candidate isn’t your favorite, even if you object to some of their views or positions, even if you don’t like him or her.  The alternative is so much worse.

Abortion

Abortion

 

     Just after our college graduation in 1964, my close friend Enid became pregnant.  She didn’t want to have a child then. We and other friends asked everyone we knew for references and finally found an M.D. who would give her an abortion.  It would be in his office -- a plus -- but at 5 in the morning.  He used dilation and curettage, basically scraping the inside of her womb to remove the embryo.  Normally this procedure was performed with anesthesia, but he didn’t use any.  Enid left his office screaming and bleeding.  Fortunately, she was not permanently damaged and went on to marry her boyfriend and have a healthy daughter with him.    

     The doctor charged $900, an incredibly exorbitant sum then.  According to Google, it is equal to $7300 today.  Enid had $300, I loaned her $300, and her boyfriend had $300.  It took her years to pay it back.

         This was the best-case scenario when abortion was illegal in the United States.  Other women, desperate to end a pregnancy, went to quacks, used hangers and other sharp implements, or ingested poisons.  Many developed bad infections, which often sterilized them; others died.   In the 1940s, 1000 American women perished from unsafe abortions each year.  Hospitals created “sceptic abortion wards,” which reduced this number.  By 1972, the last year abortion was illegal here, 39 women died out of 130,00 attempting to end their pregnancies.[1]  Outlawing abortion does not stop women from trying to have it done, it just makes the procedures unsafe and often fatal.

         In 1976, I had a legal abortion.  It was done in a clinic on an out-patient basis, using suction.  It barely hurt and I recovered rapidly.  I never became depressed about it and never regretted having it. 

         The new anti-abortion bill just passed in Alabama allows doctors who perform the procedure to be sentenced to 99 years in prison, longer than for many other crimes.  As a historian, I’ve had to go back to 1943 to find an equivalent punishment: pro-Nazi Vichy France executed two people then for performing abortions.  Abortion remained illegal in France until 1974.  Beginning in 1971, feminists and doctors signed public documents declaring that they had had or had performed abortions, forcing the government to legalize the procedure.  In communist Romania, which made abortions virtually impossible to procure, orphans overwhelmed the nation’s ability to care for them.  The resulting under-funded orphanages, crammed with unwanted children, resulted in many illnesses and even deaths.

         The sovereign state of Alabama, however, has gone even further than Romania.  Under their bill, no exceptions are allowed for either rape or incest.  What about the eleven-year-old raped by her father?  Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.  Imagine the cruelty of making a severely abused child carry such a pregnancy to term.  

In other states limiting abortion less severely than Alabama (often by shortening the time allowed for ending a pregnancy to six or eight weeks, when most women don’t even know they are pregnant), doctors are punished and women are stigmatized.  The people that carry no blame are the fathers, the men who impregnated the women.  This male exemption, embodied in the still common saying, “She got herself pregnant,” is one reason many of us believe these laws are made to control female people.

         The solution to curtailing abortions is not to outlaw them, but to provide adequate contraception.   I have always believed that once anti-abortionists coined the phrase “Pro Life,” the battle was lost.  I think the women’s movement should have spearheaded its efforts on the issue of contraception, since many anti-abortionists also oppose contraception.  89%  of Americans are in favor of it and a sizeable majority – 60% as of last year -- are in favor of legal abortion.[2]  But contraception itself was technically illegal here until 1965, when the Supreme Court ruled that married couples could use it.  Unmarried couples had to wait until 1972. 

     In many European nations, contraception is cheap, easy to obtain, and often provided free to high school students without question.  Many American high schools are still preaching abstinence.  The result is far fewer abortions in Europe.  In a 2012 study published in The Lancet, the abortion rate in the Netherlands was 9.7 out of 1000 women; in the United States, it was 19.[3]

         People are going to have sex, even if they don’t want babies.  Accepting this fact, rather than trying to outlaw it, is the key way to curtail abortions.  Outlawing it is both ineffective and cruel and will result in many illnesses and deaths.  A great deal of history proves this fact.


[1] Wikipedia, “Unsafe Abortions.”

[2] Gallup Blog, May 1-10, 2018; Vox, 2017.

[3] The Lancet, February 18, 2012, vol. 379, issue 9816, pp. 625-632.

Masculine Privilege

Masculine Privilege

         When the U.S. Senate rammed through the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh last weekend, it perpetuated anti-female biases as old as Western civilization.  “The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior,” wrote the Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose teachings supported laws for centuries, “The one rules and the other is ruled.”  The Bible also preached male superiority.  Under Jewish and later, Christian, teachings women, children, and slaves were not allowed to testify in court because they had “flighty minds” and women were routinely valued lower than men. 

         These prejudices shaped views on rape for millennia.  The accusation by the woman known only as “Potiphar’s wife” that the Hebrew prophet Joseph had raped her remained a symbol of falsehood for ages and was frequently depicted by artists like Rembrandt.  The fear of such an “uncorroborated” rape charge and the consequent protection of men constituted law until recently.  Up to 1972, a woman had to produce two witnesses to the act to prove rape in New York State, as well as show defensive wounds on her body.

         I and many others found Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s assertion of sexual harassment against Brett Kavanaugh completely convincing.  She had done her best not to make this charge public: by writing Pres. Trump directly when he put Kavanaugh on his short list of nominees, by contacting her congressional representative and asking her to keep the news private, and then by writing Sen. Feinstein and making the same request.  When questioned, she did not seem at all partisan.  She admitted she was fearful and emotional, but kept those feelings under control.

         All this was used against her.  Why had she not come forward sooner?  (In my rape crisis program, we had a pamphlet called “I Never Told Anyone,” because this practice was so common.)  Why had she come forward at all?  How dare she “smear” this exemplary candidate?

         The candidate himself used all the tactics unavailable to a woman like Blasey Ford, but at his disposal as a straight man.  He showed extreme emotion, gulping and panting, crying and screaming.  He accused his accusers of being partisan “destroyers.”  He insisted that nothing could be corroborated.  When questions did not suit him, he turned them back on his questioners.  These tactics worked.  The eleven white male Republican senators on the committee instantly took his side.

         I have not used the word “white” before because of course this scenario occurred earlier, when the black Supreme Court candidate, Clarence Thomas, was accused of sexual harassment by a black law professor, Anita Hill.  Thomas also invoked male privilege, while adding the race card, charging that believing Hill would constitute a “high-tech lynching.” His tactic worked as well as Kavanaugh’s twenty-seven years later. 

Has anything changed since then?  Yes, there are more women in public office.  Yes, women have some more rights.  But still, as Sen. Patrick Leahy proclaimed on October 6, after declaring that he had voted in favor of many Republican judges, Kavanaugh “has been relentlessly dishonest under oath…I have never seen a nominee so casually willing to evade or deny the truth in service of his own raw ambition.”

         Complaining, as many others have, that only ten percent of Kavanaugh’s judicial record had been made available to the Judiciary Committee by its Republican majority, Leahy went on to denounce the “sham” FBI investigation.  Limited by Pres. Trump to last only one week and to question very few persons, it “fell short by design.”  Kavanaugh was voted in 50-48, almost completely on party lines.  The vote was marked by unprecedented demonstrations against it.

         Events like this have consequences, since they encourage those who share the same convictions.  Trump empowered Kavanaugh; Kavanaugh empowered, among others, an associate professor at Brooklyn College to write in his public blog, “If someone did not commit sexual assault in high school, then he is not a member of the male sex….The Democrats have become a party of tutu-wearing pansies, sissies who lack virility, a sense of decency or the masculine judgment that has characterized the greatest civilizations: classical Athens, republican Rome, and the nineteenth century United States.”  What did all three of these societies have in common?  They owned slaves and subordinated women.

         What can we do now?  By 1853, the eminent Quaker Lucretia Mott had fought for decades to end slavery and demand the vote for women. She declared, “Any great change must expect opposition, because it shakes the very foundation of privilege.”  Mott lived to see enslaved peoples’ emancipation, but died almost forty years before women’s suffrage became legal in the United States.  Like her, we must keep on keeping on. The most important effort now is to get out the Democratic vote on November 6.

        

Write These Senators Soon About Kavanaugh

I found Christine Blasey Ford completely believable. I thought Brett Kavanaugh furious, partisan, dishonest and disrespectful — exactly the wrong temperament for a Supreme Court justice. I don’t think further corroboration from the FBI is needed. From his first time in Congress, when he declared that no president had searched harder or longer for a candidate than Trump did for him, to his denial of drinking, knowledge of “boofing” and “the devil’s triangle,” he perjured himself. It’s important that we write at least the following Senators, urging them to vote “no”: Sen. Collins of Maine, Sen. Flake of Arizona, Sen. Manchin of West Virginia, and Sen. Murkowski of Alaska. I plan to write them all again and hope many others will as well. It’s better to act than to stew over injustice.

The best way to contact these senators is to Google their name and then go to “contact” on their websites. Doing this, I never learned their individual email addresses, but know that my message got through. Telephone their offices if you can — again, their phone numbers are on their websites. And if you know people in their home states, urge them to write or phone as well.

Bonnie AndersonComment
Living In Crazy Town

For me, it began during the presidential campaign when Trump mocked and imitated a disabled reporter. I thought, “How could anyone vote for him after this?” It continued during the debates, when he stalked Hillary, tromping around the stage and looming over her. Although she was a weak candidate, I was shocked when he won and depressed that so many Americans voted for him. Yet again, I deplored that the Electoral College gave the election to someone who had lost the popular vote.

Crazy Town continued during one of his early cabinet meetings, when everyone in the room, led by Mike Pence, groveled and tried to outdo each other in sycophantic praise for Trump. I had never witnessed anything like it. Despite this, seemingly endless firings and replacements followed over the next two years, with one hireling after another running afoul of an irrational power freak. As George Packer wrote in the September 24th New Yorker, “A coarse and feckless viciousness is the operating procedure of his White House, and the poison spreads to everyone. Only snakes and sycophants survive.”

My dismay has increased as it has become clear that the Republican Party, in both the House and the Senate, has followed this corrupt lead, betraying its long-held values. A balanced budget? Let the deficit sky-rocket as we give more tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. Suspicion of Russia? Let it disappear as the president meets privately with Putin and praises him to the point that many of us consider treasonous. And now, the Supreme Court. The hypocritical claim of “Let the people decide” used in an unprecedented blocking of Pres. Obama’s right to appoint a justice, has now been trashed. Attempting to rush Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation through before the November elections, the scant Republican majority in the Senate allowed less than 10% of his papers released, dismissed any objections to his evasive answers, and now seems not to have done its basic homework. Three and perhaps four women have come forward claiming he sexually harassed them. All have asked for FBI investigations of their charges, something they would be extremely unlikely to do if they were just trying to “smear” him, as he claims.

Do I believe them? You bet I do. I worked as a rape crisis counselor at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Greenwich Village for fourteen years. In all that time, we had only one false claimant — a con-woman who went from city to city and was easily caught. We even had a pamphlet titled “I Never Told Anyone,” since this was so common. Look at the harassment Christine Blasey Ford, the first accuser, has experienced: death threats to her and her family, hacking of her email, etc., etc. It remains far more difficult for women to come forward with charges than for men to deny them.

And now the eleven Republican men on the Judiciary Committee are pondering whether to question her themselves or to hire a female attorney to present a better picture. She of course is not allowed to have her attorney present, nor to bring in corroborating witnesses. The echoes of the Senate’s base treatment of Anita Hill many years ago are deafening. And the context for all this is Trump’s own boasts about “pussy grabbing,” his infidelities, and his own sexual harassment of women. If you elect a clown, expect a circus.

Letter to Senators About Kavanaugh's Confirmation

I sent the following letter to every Republican senator and to those Democrats in red states.

Dear Senator

     I entreat you not to race through the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.  Judge Kavanaugh has an extensive record of opinions on vitally important issues, very few of which are being made available to the Senate.  The National Archives, a highly respected bi-partisan government agency, has denounced this process as both unprecedented and unrepresentative of its mission.

     Rushing through his confirmation so that it precedes the November elections also violates what seemed to be a Republican principle.  "Let the people decide," was your party's proclamation in the again unprecedented move to prevent a vote on Pres. Obama's supreme court nominee for almost a year.  To deny that saying now, when it might work against you, is both unseemly and unpatriotic.

     I say this as an American who cherishes many of our nation's traditional values.  I know I am not a constituent of yours, but on this issue, you are acting as a national and not a state representative.  In addition, I believe in a two-party system.  I fear that if the Republican Party again betrays fundamental traditions and principles of the United States, it will undermine its own values and eventually cease to exist.

                                                   Sincerely,

                                                   Bonnie S. Anderson                                                                                                                             Professor Emerita of History                                                                                                               City University of New York

"I Am Not A Member Of Any Organized Political Party -- I'm A Democrat"

     Attributed to the humorist Will Rogers in 1935, this saying is unfortunately still true today.  I must get emails from at least ten different Democratic groups each day: TrainDemocrats, Democratic Attorney Generals, Democratic Governors, Democrats for the Senate, the House, against gerrymandering, the Democratic Leadership Council, and Obama for America in addition to my two Democratic Senators, Gillibrand and Schumer, as well as pro-Democratic organizations I belong to, like MoveOn, the ACLU, and Emily's List.  Plus the Democratic candidates I support, like Beto O'Rourke, Jacky Rosen, and Danny O'Connell, as well.  The tone of these messages has become increasingly hectoring: "Does Bonnie Support Donald Trump?," or "We Are Counting On YOU To Fill Out This Survey!"  Every survey ends with an appeal for more funds and the more you give, the more you are asked to give.  

     Give me a break!  It's gotten so bad that I've begun to unsubscribe from these sites.  I would feel much better if these Democratic groups unified, worked together instead of separately, and convinced me they were an organized party.  The messages I'm most comfortable with are the ones that promote voter registration, urge voters to get out and vote, and to vote for whichever Democrat is running, not just their "perfect" candidate.  I know there's a split in the party between those who want to appeal to the center and those who favor more left-wing causes, but why do we have to choose?  A broad, successful political party can and should represent both factions.  That's the only way Democrats will succeed, not just this November, but in the future as well.

     In addition, as someone in her 70s, I don't want anymore leaders of my age.  It's time for a new generation to take over.  So, no, I don't support Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden, no matter how much I like them or agree with them.  This goes for Nancy Pelosi as well.  Age diminishes energy in everyone and it's time for a change.  As the Republican Party has ceded its values and soul to Donald Trump, it's easy to call for a new Republican model.  But think it's high time for a new Democratic paradigm as well.  May it come soon!

Treason

The Constitution of the United States very carefully delineated what constitutes treason, as all the founding fathers were acting as traitors to Great Britain.   Treason "against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "  I, and many others, believe that Donald Trump's press conference with Vladimir Putin on July 16, gave "aid and comfort" to Russia, especially when the president declared that he believed the assurances of the Russian leader over his own intelligence services.

      The Constitution is even more careful about a conviction for treason -- it requires "the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."  Neither seems likely to happen, although I found Rachel Maddow's reportage last night on the Russian spy, Marina Butina, intriguing.  Maddow asserted that the prosecution's papers included the charge that Butina had successfully influenced Trump not to appoint Mitt Romney as Secretary of State, but to choose a figure more acceptable to Putin.  Rex Tillerson, the ultimate choice, had been given a medal by Putin.  (It was Tillerson who later called Trump "a moron.")

     Even in the darkest days of our republic, charges like this are virtually unheard of -- the only exception is just before the Civil War, when some previous presidents were accused of siding with the Confederacy.  We are indeed living in interesting times, which a Chinese proverb considers a curse.  It will indeed be interesting to see what happens.

 

When The Supreme Court Goes Too Far and How To Overcome It

     In 1856 and again in 1857, the Supreme Court heard arguments about an enslaved man brought by his owner to a free state.  He claimed his freedom, but the court ruled that African-Americans could never be citizens and therefore had no right to the protection of law.  Dred Scott was deemed a "piece of property" and returned to his supposed owner in the South.

     A few years later, the Civil War overturned this dreadful ruling.  I think it's important to keep historical passages like this in mind, as we enter an era when the court may rule against important civil rights gain of the last half century.  Justices can also change their opinions when they are on the court.  Hugo Black, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and an opponent of equal rights for blacks in his early years, evolved into a staunch defender of civil liberties, even though he did justify the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II.  Chief Justice John Roberts recently cited this case, saying that it was nothing like the third Muslim ban, which his court recently upheld.  I, and many others, think it was, since it blocks large groups based on race, religion, or nationality.  But situations and justices can change.

     In addition, the Supreme Court does not necessarily have the final word.  Years ago, I argued with an Englishman who declared that we "had government by court."  The people are the basis of our government.  If Congress passes a law against a Supreme Court decision, the law prevails unless the Court can and does declare it unconstitutional.  It's important to remember this in difficult times.

     And if we think our times are difficult, let's remember earlier eras.  Ernestine Rose continued to fight against slavery before and after the Dred Scott decision.  She succeeded in that fight, but did not live long enough to see women get the right to vote.  In this regard, I highly recommend a wonderful anthology which appeared last year: We The Resilient: Wisdom for Americans from Women Born Before Suffrage.  The editors Sarah Bunin Benor and Tom Fields-Meyer interviewed 78 women from all races, ethnicities and classes about their lives, first before the 2016 election, and then after.  They all recommended persisting in your ideals.  They had lived through the Great Depression, the second world war, McCarthyism, etc. and they maintained that important struggles can be won if we don't give up.  They advise courage, hope, humor, keeping on, and knowing that conditions will change.  They provide inspiration for today to continue working for our beliefs.

ME TOO TWO

     It wasn't until a few weeks after I posted my "Me Too" blog that I realized I had left out the most important and shocking sexual harassment I had experienced: a man exposing his erect penis to me in the lobby of our building when I was ten.  I had walked home from school as usual and thought nothing of there being a white man in his mid-thirties in the small lobby behind the glass front door -- people often waited there to be buzzed up to apartments.  He turned around, showed his penis to me and said, "Do you want to play with it?"  To my chagrin, I said, "No thanks" -- I was mortified that I said "thanks."  I rushed into the building, rode the elevator to our fifth floor apartment, and told my mother what had happened.  She called the police, who came right away.  When I described the man as in his mid-thirties, my mother said, "Oh, children never know how old people are," and I felt completely undermined.  He was not caught.

     For years afterwards, I used to walk past the building's door to make sure no one was there before I went in.  This childhood experience was one reason the exhibitionists I experienced in graduate school had such an impact on me.  But it wasn't until I talked with other women that I realized that this experience "counted."  I think I had just assumed that since I wasn't a grown-up, it didn't matter.  I had had another sexual encounter when I was even younger, probably seven or eight.  I was walking home on Lexington Avenue and a man started walking with me and talking.  He asked me if I knew about what I heard as "my cult."  I didn't know the word "cunt" yet, but that must have been what he said.  I walked away and didn't think too much about it.

     When I talked with my sister and friends about these experiences, after I published my first blog, I realized that they were not only part of my experience of sexual harassment, but perhaps the most important part.  I also realized that virtually every woman I knew shared these experiences.  "It was the way the world was," a number of them said and that was true.

      I hope these situations are changing.  My dear friend and writing partner, Judith Zinsser, gave me a birthday card with a cake with candles on the front labelled "Feminist Birthday Cake."  When you open the card, it reads : They're not candles, they're the patriarchy going up in flames."  May it become true.

ME TOO

When I first heard about the #me too movement, I thought, "Not me."  I had never been raped nor sexually molested.  When I thought about the subject in more depth, however, I realized I had experienced extremely hostile work environments and also two sexual attacks.  But I had rationalized them and explained them away.  If a card-carrying feminist like myself could do that, then I think it needs explaining to others.

In graduate school in New York, I suffered from a number of men exposing their erect penises to me -- on the subways and especially, in libraries.  There was an "exhibitionist," the euphemistic term for this, in the Columbia Library stacks, a dark and scary location all by itself.  Columbia's solution was to give every female researcher a whistle, so that we could blow it if he arrived.  It's hard enough to do research without that handicap.  When I told a dinner party of hetero couples about this, the men all laughed and said that they would love it if a woman exposed herself to them.  I and the other women declared it was not about sex, but about power.  They didn't get it.  This would have been in the late '60s.  I hope that times have changed....

During that era, my then husband and I had dinner with another couple at their house.  When we went to leave, the husband helped me on with my coat and then put his hands on my breasts.  We left and I told my husband.  We decided to never see them again.  But that's all we did.

A number of years later, in the 1980s, I had just moved in with a man.  An old boy friend came to see me.  As soon as he entered, he lunged at me, grabbed me and thrust his tongue in my mouth.  I angrily pushed him away and he said, "You know you wanted it."  I made him leave and told him I didn't want him in my life.  

Finally, in the early 1990s, I became a member of the Graduate Faculty of the City University of New York, whose offices were on 5th Avenue and 34th Street.  When I joined, a female colleague told me to never get on an elevator with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the eminent biographer of FDR.  Schlesinger was known for grabbing women's asses.  I never did and as far as I know, he was never challenged much less stopped.

When I think about these experiences in contrast to Ernestine Rose's life, I'm struck by how much progress we have made.  She hesitated to speak about either prostitution or divorce, although she eventually did about both, for fear of being accused of "free love," a blanket charge of dissipation aimed only at women.  I hope that the Me Too movement, which has now gone world-wide, will continue to empower women and bring down male perpetrators, including our current president.

Great Review in the Journal of American History

Mari Jo Buhle, the eminent professor of American Studies at Brown (now retired), gave The Rabbi's Atheist Daughter a rave!  Among other comments, she wrote Rose's "identities come together seamlessly in this highly engaging biography by Bonnie S. Anderson, a scholar rightfully renowned for her stellar work on the international woman's movement and feminism."  She ends by saying that "Anderson sagely concludes that Rose's concerns for racial equality, feminism, and free thought, enriched by an international perspective, gain new importance during an era of resurging religious fundamentalism."  To read it, follow this link

Ernestine Rose's Obituary

The New York Times recently published a section called "Overlooked," writing obituaries about women whom they never covered despite their importance.  I just submitted my suggestion for Ernestine Rose.  However, the Times has received over 2000 new suggestions and seems to want to write the obituaries themselves.  Therefore, I'm posting my obituary of her here.

This "Queen of the Platform in the 1850s became forgotten in the early twentieth century.

by Bonnie S. Anderson

     An outstanding orator for women's rights, free thought, and anti-slavery, Ernestine Rose was far more famous in the mid-nineteenth century than her co-workers, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.  Lecturing in 23 of the existing 31 states, at a time when women rarely spoke publicly, she earned her reputation despite major handicaps: she remained the only immigrant as well as the only atheist in the early women's movement.

     Born in Poland in 1810, she was the sole child of Rabbi Potowsky, who educated her as a "surrogate son" at home.  When she interrogated the Bible, he told her "little girls must not ask questions," even though little boys were supposed to do so.  She later told a reporter that this "made her an advocate of religious freedom and women's right" at an early age.

     When she was 15, her mother died, leaving her a substantial inheritance.  Her father betrothed her to a man she did not want to marry, writing a contract that if she did not go through with the wedding, her fiance would receive her money.  When her betrothed refused to release her from the engagement, she took an unprecedented action for a young girl, traveling alone by sleigh to plead her case before a district court.  Ernestyna Potowska succeeded.  She remained immensely proud of this triumph, invoking it in later years to demonstrate what women could achieve.  The court awarded her the money and when she returned home, she discovered her father had remarried a girl her own age.  Realizing that she could not live happily with her new step-mother, she left her family, Poland, and Judaism forever.

     She went first to Berlin, then the center of liberal Judaism.  There, she read "not dead books (like the Bible) but living ones."  She also invented a perfumed paper which could be burned to bring pleasant odors to homes.  After two years in Berlin, she traveled to Paris, arriving in time for the Revolution of 1830, which replaced a conservative monarch with a liberal one.  Deploring all monarchies, she moved on to London, the largest and most industrialized city in the Western world.

     There, she "found friends as liberty-loving as herself" in the circle surrounding Robert Owen.  An immensely successful factory owner turned radical, Owen became her substitute father and new educator.  Owen endorsed socialism, free thought, labor unions, and equal marriage.  His movement attracted women and allowed them to write and speak in public.  There, Potowska began her career as an orator.  She also met and married her adored and adoring husband, the silversmith William Rose.  In 1836, the new couple traveled to the United States, settling in New York City for the next 33 years.

     In New York, Ernestine Rose began her political work, debating socialist principles in the active Owenite community there and also carrying a petition for Married Women's Property Rights around lower Manhattan.  In this era, everything a married woman owned belonged to her husband.  Rose received only one signature a month but continued on.  This work introduced her to other women's rights activists and she also began lecturing for free thought and against slavery.  She bore two children who died young.  By the late 1840s, she spent the bulk of her time traveling and lecturing.  This supported both by William and by the couple's decision to save money by not hiring a servant.

     Rose came to the fore of the women's movement in 1851 at the second National Women's Rights Convention, held in Worcester, Mass.  She had not attended the Seneca Falls, N.Y. gathering in 1848 which was both small and local.  Present at the First National in 1850, she attracted notice because of her oratory.  Delegated to present the main speech in 1851, she gave "an address which has never been surpassed," a co-worker wrote in an early history of women's rights.  Even though she was the only "foreigner" among this group of native-born Americans, Ernestine Rose became an acknowledged leader of the movement.  Lecturing to audiences of thousands, she spoke for racial equality as well as women's rights.  "Black and white, male and female, all deserve human rights," she frequently proclaimed.  "They who sat with her in bygone days on the platform will remember her matchless powers as a speaker," Susan B. Anthony later declared, "and how sage we all felt when she had the floor."

     Although Ernestine Rose attempted to unite her three causes of women's rights, free thought, and anti-slavery, she met with little success in this attempt.  Women's rights workers were devoutly Christian, often beginning meetings with prayers and hymns.  There, she muted her atheism and avoided religious discussions.  Freethinkers, for their part, tended to disparage abolitionism.  They believed the Bible to be the chief justification for slavery and thought combating religion the most important battle to be waged.  The anti-slavery movement had divided over women's rights, with the largest and most successful faction opposing them.  Abolitionists also relied heavily on Christian teachings.

     The Civil War divided the women's movement between those who thought the vote for black men should take precedence and those, like Rose, who wanted the vote for all.  During the war, her health began to fail.  In 1869, she and William emigrated back to England, returning to the United States for just one visit.  In Britain, Ernestine Rose again became a powerful speaker for a few years, embraced by the freethought and feminist communities.  However, her health continued to decline and she gave her last public speech in 1878.  Her English friends sustained her through the great tragedy of her life: William's death from a heart attack in 1882.  Ernestine lived another 10 years, maintaining her values as she became confined to a wheel chair.  "For over fifty years, I have endeavored to promote the rights of humanity without distinction of sex, sect, party, country, or color," she wrote an American couple when she was 77.  Two years later, in 1889, an English journalist wrote that "Mrs. Rose has a fine face and head, and although aged and suffering, retains the utmost interest in the Freethought cause."

     That favorite cause brought its own difficulties.  In this era, Christians tried to convert sick and dying atheists.  Rose received hostile letters from those who assumed that suffering would lead her to Christianity.  She arranged for the daughter of her good friend, the atheist Charles Bradlaugh, to be with her when she lay ill to prevent "religious persons who might make her unsay the convictions of her whole life when her brain was weakened by illness."  She died, undisturbed, in 1892.

     By the 1920s, however, she had been forgotten.  "I doubt whether one American Jew in ten thousand has ever heard of her," the Forward wrote then.  As a Jew, an atheist, a woman, and a foreigner who left the United States, Ernestine Rose did not fit into the narrative of U.S. history in the first half of the twentieth century.  The Boston Investigator, an atheist newspaper that often wrote about her, predicted in 1871 that she would be appreciated "in about a hundred years."  They were correct.  In the 1970s, women's history, African-American history, and Jewish Studies restored her importance.  She deserves to be remembered.