 |
| Writing for Their Lives: America's Pioneering Female Science Journalists by Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette MIT Press, 2023. |
Written from access to archives of memoranda and correspondences among the editors and journalists, this book is a case of special pleading. Every rejection is laid at the feet of the Science Service management, though the author also grants that the founders were egalitarian in their evaluation of writers and the works which they submitted for publication. In fact, Science Service stands out as evidence of a paradigm shift in western culture from tradition and privilege to merit and meritocracy.
It is certainly true that even into the 21st century, men who hold power discriminate against women who do not. That is the definition of sexism. And it applies to racism, or any other “ism.” The problem is not prejudice but prejudice with power. At Science Service that prejudice never existed though it remained very real (even rampant) in the wider world.
Jane Stafford was granted a special award for medical writing by the American Society for the Control of Cancer and correspondence across December 1937 and January 1938 reveals that she could not accept the award in person because women were not allowed to enter the Harvard Club. And the ASCC and Harvard were among many others that had no intention of changing their by-laws lest a roomful of men feel uncomfortable in the presence of a woman. (page vii-viii)
“As novelist Josephine Tey’s fictional historian reminds us, ‘Truth isn’t in accounts but in account books.’ Hidden within the Science Service records at the Smithsonian Institution Archives were sufficient examples of ‘account books’ (budgets, financial reports, pay lists, rejection slips to stringers, carbon copies, memos, and handwritten notes in letter margins) to shed light on workplace interactions, the writing process, and reactions to success, rejection or criticism.” (WFTL, page xii)
It is easy for us to accept that such rooms should be more-or-less 50-50. I believe that because most women are smarter than most men, the populations of academic societies will be shifted toward the women, if not within this generation then by the end of this century. A century ago, that hypothesis would have been dismissed on metaphysical grounds: men are essentially different from women—different from each other in their Aristotelean essences.
The question that Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette does not ask is why does not everyone else in the world see the same obvious truth that she does? In fact, at least one other person does:
https://www.mpg.de/female-pioneers-of-science/caroline-herschel
'Caroline Herschel's legacy is undoubtedly lasting'
Astronomer Sherry Suyu from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics on comet-hunter Caroline Herschel, the first salaried female astronomer
[Q] Obviously, much has improved for women in science since the 18th Century. In your view and your experience, what do you regard as changes that have happened in terms of women in science?
[A] The situation of course has improved in contrast to Caroline's time. In many areas, women and men now enjoy equal opportunities and there have been many positive changes. But there are still fewer women in STEM at higher levels – mainly I think because it is difficult to combine a professional career in science with having children. I think that employers should provide more support for women, so they can combine having a family with having a career. Scientists are evaluated by productivity. In that sense, when women start a family, their productivity is seen to decline as women who have families often take a break from their careers, hoping to return after a few years. But in reality, it's not that easy to continue with the same level of work productivity as before while rearing children. This means that in career terms, women still tend to be punished for having a family. Also, ironically, the time in women's lives when they want to have children and the time when they really want to work hard on their careers often coincides, when women are in their 30s. I think this should be reflected by family friendly initiatives in the workplace - women shouldn't have to choose between a family and a career.
https://www.mpg.de/frauen-in-der-forschung/caroline-herschel
https://www.mpg.de/female-pioneers-of-science/caroline-herschel
Das Gespräch führte Tanja Rahneberg Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
That program would allow women to work from home at the highest levels of management while men report to work to carry out the various tasks. Of course such generalizations must also acknowledge the Non-Binary Alphabet of Choices. Reconciling all of them equitably is a complex mathematical problem. However, if we only consider each person to be an individual, then the math is much easier.
As for broad social change, during the late Middle Ages, English women who were shoemakers were called Shuster, bakers Baxter, brewers Brewster, and weavers Webster. It was a time of changes.
“The 1820s was the last decade in which no college for women existed. The first of its kind, Mount Holyoke, was founded not too far from Amherst in 1836. … Yet the very existence of Mount Holyoke (following a new array of academies providing high-school education for girls, and opening up posts for women teachers) must have shifted ideas for women’s futures.” (page 29) Lives Like Loaded Guns: Emily Dickinson and Her Family’s Feuds by Lyndall Gordon, Viking, 2010.
How much were the writers actually paid for their stories? How much did Science Service charge? We follow Hallie Hershberger in sales and advertising but never learn what the numbers were. There is very little mention of money, except as for example, Emma Reh in Mexico wrote to the home office for advances which were denied. Reh then sold her stories to other news outlets and even to other news reporters. LaFollette’s tone is that Emma Reh was not given everything that the author wants her to have had. I see Emma Reh as a very successful freelancer (“stringer” in journalism) who traveled to archaeological digs in Mexico and sold her reports. Ultimately, Emma Reh failed to deliver the book she promised. The economic problems at that time (the 1920s and 30s) were not hers alone. Failures happen and Reh accomplished much.
“We were founded as an independent nonprofit in 1921 by newspaper magnate E.W. Scripps and zoologist W.E. Ritter, who wanted to improve the quality and accuracy of science journalism. We remain true to that mission today.” — https://www.sciencenews.org/about-science-news (Accessed 6-June-2026.)
Science Service writer Gabriele Rabel reported from Germany from 1932 to 1938. LaFollette writes: “[Science Service editor, Frank] Thone expressed hope that ‘the financial sky will clear,’ but informed Rabel on March 6, 1933, that ‘in view of the monetary crisis which has suddenly developed in this country, it would be well if you did not send us any more manuscripts until further notice.”
LaFollette seemed not to understand the Great Depression of the 1930s. The rolling bank failures began in Detroit on February 14, 1933. Michigan Governor William Comstock declared a banking holiday. The proclamation had been signed at 1:00 AM, published, and delivered to bankers when they arrived for the start of the business day. Two weeks later, outgoing President Herbert Hoover hesitated to declare a national bank holiday, so the newly-inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt did just that on March 6, 1933. The flow of money in the United States stopped.
PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS
