Social media: an irritant as well as balm for most intellectual property problems?

That chaps my a$$!

Chaps my a$$!

Kathleen L. Sheppard, a historian of archaeology who blogs at Adventures in History in Archaeology, reported on an interesting article she read at the online publication Broadly, a channel at on “The Forgotten Egyptologist and First Wave Feminist Who Invented Wicca,” Margaret Murray, by writer Sarah Waldron.  Sheppard was first excited that the subject of her book–the only book-length biography of Murray published in any language–was also the subject of a mainstream publication!

Sheppard’s heart sank as she realized that “the article is quite good.  But, to be honest, it is good because most of the work was done by me,” and uncredited in any fashion by the writer:

I saw the article, posted by a fellow Egyptologist on facebook.  I read it, excited to learn more about Murray’s work.  Maybe there was something in there that I could learn about her witchcraft studies.  As I read, I realized that I wasn’t learning anything new.  In fact, I was reading my own words, spit back at me, in an online article that was and is being enjoyed by thousands of people.  Some of my own phrases, and most definitely my unique analysis of Murray’s life and career, were there for thousands to see.  Usually, this makes me very happy.  Murray is still little-known outside of a small group of historians and Egyptologists even though she is central to the discipline.  I got to the end of the article and realized there were NO citations.  Not one.  I did a ctrl+F to search for my name, thinking I must have missed where I was mentioned in the article as Murray’s biographer and owner of many of the ideas therein.  Nothing.

Sheppard wasn’t interested in money–she just wanted due acknowledgement for her book and her unique intellectual contribution.  As she explained in the first blog post: Continue reading

“She will wait for the appropriate time. . . and she will crush them.”

Memories of 2008!

Memories of 2008!

This just in from the Benghazi hearings:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent several hours at the United States Capitol on Thursday compiling a mental list of people she will destroy at a later date, an aide to Clinton has confirmed.

Clinton gave no outward appearance of compiling such a list as she answered questions relating to her tenure as Secretary of State, the aide said, but was busy assembling the list nonetheless. “This is the kind of multitasking that she is very good at,” he said. “Believe me, the entire time she was talking, she was working very hard on that list.”
In response to reporters’ questions, the aide said that there was “no firm timetable” for Clinton to destroy the people on her list. “She will wait for the appropriate time,” the aide said, “and she will crush them.”

Continue reading

Berkeley star astronomer Geoff Marcy resigns, but why only now? Advice to the desperate on why you should never STFU about harassment or abuse.

Make some noise!

Make some noise!

You probably have seen in the news today that star University of California-Berkeley astronomer Geoff Marcy has resigned because details of the university’s inquiry into a decade of sexual harassment charges and his weak reprimand were published by BuzzFeed last Friday.  Here’s a typical take on the matter from Inside Higher Ed and republished at Slate this morning:

One of the biggest names in astronomy resigned his professorship at the University of California at Berkeley on Wednesday over the fallout from a damning investigation into his conduct with female students. The news demonstrates that not even star scholars enjoy impunity when it comes to sexual harassment, but in the end it was Geoff Marcy’s fellow scientists—not the Berkeley administration—who forced him out.

A vigorous peer pressure campaign launched Friday, upon news of the investigation and Berkeley’s lukewarm response, seemingly backed Marcy into a corner and, in so doing, sent a strong message to academic science: Even if your institution doesn’t reject you for harassing students, your colleagues will.

Oh, really?  I mean, I completely agree that his astronomer colleagues are the ones who have known about this kind of behavior all along.  For example, from the very same story:  Continue reading

Sometimes I don’t know what to say.

In both my grad class and my undergrad class this week we’re discussing Sharon Block’s Rape and Sexual Power in Early America.  This is a book that goes over very well with college students, given their vulnerability to sexual assault as well as Block’s analysis of the racial and class dynamics of rape complaints and prosecutions.  I was pushing my students on the question of why more hasn’t changed over the past 300 years, and decided to ask them if they knew someone who had been raped.  All of us but ONE person out of 17 or 18 of us in the discussion section raised a hand. Continue reading

You Must Remember This, the podcast

YouMustRememberThisI have a new obsession.  If it were a man, my husband would be jealous (or so I would hope.)  All weekend and much of this week so far, I’ve been listening to the You Must Remember This podcast, which is written and voiced by Karina Longworth.  Its tagline is “exploring the secret and/or forgotten histories of 20th Century Hollywood.”

Why do I love it?  It’s like eating a bag of potato chips, or a box of candy, but they’re really smart potato chips, and really nutritious candy.  I think I’ve shared here before that on the rare occasions I read history books for pleasure, I read twentieth-century U.S. history.  Longworth’s research and writing are all that, plus celebrity gossip, and more!

But by far, the best thing about You Must Remember This is the clear feminist through-line of Longworth’s analysis of the careers of women artists.  I burned through the entire 12-part series she did last summer on “Charles Manson’s Hollywood” while washing my windows on Sunday afternoon, and this almost made window-washing a pleasure.  This series includes a riveting analysis of Manson Family murder victim Sharon Tate’s short acting career along with a consideration of the not-very-revolutionary aspects of the Sexual Revolution for most women, even (or especially) women in the industry.  Since then I’ve heard her fascinating reconsiderations of the careers of Marion Davies and Mia Farrow. Continue reading

Functioning like a senior scholar with junior scholar prestige and pay


Well, I ain’t got it, anyway.

That’s my life these days!  And it’s why you haven’t heard from me very much lately.  I suppose it’s true for most of us advanced–not to say superannuated–Associate Professors.

I’m trying to get a grip on this friends, but it seems like already I’m swamped with requests for letters of recommendations, manuscripts to review for presses, articles to review for journals, serving on a postdoctoral fellowship committee, and all kinds of worthy work that I want to do, because 1) it’s only fair, considering that I have been the beneficiary of this kind of work from others, and 2) it’s probably the most direct way I can advance feminism in my field and my profession.  By writing letters recommending other feminists for jobs, fellowships, and publication, I’m effectively throwing down the ladder and  trying to pull others on board. Continue reading

Ghost children: Carly Fiorina’s invocation of fetal and maternal suffering

One of these things is not like the others.

One of these things is not like the others.

Miss me, friends? I’m having a great time in the classroom again with my students, but clearly I need to figure out how it was that I was once able to manage my day job and to blog daily.  Maybe I was younger?  Maybe I felt like I had fresh ideas once upon a time?

Although I didn’t liveblog or Tweet about it, I watched the Republican debate Wednesday night from start to finish.  I thought it was both highly entertaining and permitted the candidates to stake out and articulate their positions.  There were some very important differences among the Republicans on the main stage–on federalism (good according to Mike “Two Buck” Huckabee when it permits a state to resist marriage equality, and bad according to Chris Christie when it permits Coloradoans to spark up without fear of Johnny Law), on U.S. borders and whether it’s good or bad to speak Spanish, on the previous decade-plus of warfare and other intervention in the Middle East, and on the most important question of the night:  whether to honor your wife or your mother by putting her face on a sawbuck.  (Srsly?)

I miss Rick Perry, but only because he was the closest thing to a handsome man anywhere near that stage.  I’ve also decided that Rand Paul looks like just about every boy I had a crush on in high school in the 1980s, with pretty much the same haircut too.  (Don’t judge.)

But this is a blog written by a women’s historian, and there is a woman running for President again on the Republican side, so let’s talk about Carly Fiorina and her interesting offensive on motherhood last night.  Amanda Marcotte wonders “What Was Up with Carly Fiorina’s Grisly Abortion Rant?” in the debate last night.  I don’t think it’s so difficult to guess–Fiorina is the only person on the stage who didn’t have children of her own.  While the male Republican candidates eruped in a patronizing ooze about their wives and families when given the opportunity to introduce themselves to the general public, each of them name-checking their wives and most listing their children by name, Fiorina was at a disadvantage in the DNA-bestowing contest. Continue reading