Important Books: The Feminine Mystique

Betty Friedan in 1960. Photograph by Fred Palumbo, World Telegram staff photographer. Courtesy of Library of Congress New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection.

The Feminine Mystique was the seminal book of the women’s movement of the 1960’s. Journalist Betty Friedan exploded a myth that had seeped into post-war American culture: that a woman’s greatest potential could be found in the role of housewife and mother, and that the pursuit of any other goals would detract from this glorified position in society.

A housewife and mother herself, Friedan had begun to notice in the late 1950’s that many of the women she spoke to felt trapped and useless, though they couldn’t explain why. Many were middle-class, college-educated, with well-off husbands, healthy children, and beautiful homes in the growing suburbs. They had everything that they had been told they should want as women, most having voluntarily left college and career to start families. Yet they were, as Friedan noted, “desperate.”

The Feminine Mystique systematically deconstructs the image of the “happy housewife hero,” exploring its roots in pseudo-psychology, advertising, and the residual sexual segregationist attitudes that had pushed back against the suffrage movement that won women the vote in the United States in 1920. The mystique, she argues, encourages self-imposed cultural oppression.

Just underneath the veneer of the mystique, however, much darker trends were forming: increases in suicides, alcoholism, tranquilizer use, and other problems. Friedan argues in the book that these propensities were damaging not only to women, but to men and society as a whole.

At times, Friedan lets speculation carry her a little too far. She blames the mystique for the increasingly “overt manifestations” of homosexuality in men, positing that it causes women to engage in a “passive, childlike immaturity which is passed on from mothers to sons…” At one point, she even wonders whether the apparent rise in psychological disorders such as autism are a product of the mystique (though she is careful in this instance to point out that the experts suspected that earlier and better diagnosis was the most likely explanation).

Such speculation only shows that Friedan was, as she says of Sigmund Freud’s own mistaken explanations of Victorian women, “a prisoner of his culture.” Homosexuality was still listed in medical texts as a psychological disease, and autism was only beginning to be understood. On most matters, the book is perceptive and challenging – and did such an apt job of putting words to the inexpressible malaise so many women at the time were feeling that it helped spark a major social revolution.

Tips on Arguing: Avoid Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is generally defined as saying one thing while doing something that contradicts it. It can be summed up in the phrase, “practice what you preach.”

Safeguarding against hypocrisy is a boost to any argument you make. When you profess to believe in something, people will look for concrete examples of that belief. If they see that you aren’t following your own example, then they may conclude that you have some other motive for what you say, such as getting money or support from a certain group.

Just because someone acts hypocritically doesn’t mean that his or her argument is invalid. A smoker who discourages her children from smoking has good reasons for doing so. Those reasons are not cancelled out by the smoker’s habit.

Hypocrisy does, however, tend to undermine the arguer by complicating his or her claims, and that’s why it helps to avoid acting contradictorily.

Avoiding hypocrisy can be more difficult than it sounds at first. In the course of our lives, we frequently change our positions on multiple issues. Someone who is a heroin addict at 18 but becomes a drug counselor at 28 might be accused of hypocrisy. Strictly speaking, though, the accusation would be wrong – the former addict’s change of action would be consistent with his change of opinion.

There are also different levels of hypocrisy. For example, the Connecticut Post published an assessment of Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch’s “greenness” on Earth Day. Finch was quoted as saying that he liked taking the train to keep his carbon footprint low. Yet according to the article, Finch had opted to fly (a much less fuel-efficient method of travel) on three out of five trips over the past year to Washington, D.C. He only took the train twice.

If this is a major hypocrisy, another note from the article could be thought of as a minor contradiction: Finch’s family composts most of their biodegradable waste. On the day that the reporter was in his home, though, there were some cornhusks in the trash.

If the occasional item misses the compost pile, does it negate the vast majority that makes it in?

Finch admits that he’s “not perfect.” Perhaps in the quest to eliminate hypocrisy, it’s best to realize that his statement applies to all of us.

Did the Dutch Influence America's Governmental Institutions?

New Amsterdam, the early Dutch settlement that would later become New York as it appeared in 1651. The drawing appeared in Arnoldus Montanus's "De Nieuwe en Onbekende Weereld" in 1671.

Although the Netherlands had begun to colonize the North American continent as early as 1609 (1), they remained a minority ethnic enclave in the New York and New Jersey areas throughout the pre-unification days preceding the Revolutionary War. They were already under British rule by the time of American Independence, and had adjusted somewhat to certain English sentiments.

Many Dutch colonists nonetheless retained some of the ideas brought from their former homeland. Furthermore, American merchants, intellectuals, and politicians were well aware of Dutch culture, and the colonies had been on friendly terms with Holland for much of their history. Such contact and knowledge carries with it a high likelihood that the process of American nation-building was influenced by Dutch precedents. John Adams himself wrote that, “The originals of the two republics [Dutch and American] are so much alike that a page from one seems but a transcript from the other...” (2)

During the Revolutionary War, the Dutch colonists were instrumental in the patriots’ victory. In his article “The Dutch-American Guerrillas of the American Revolution,” William Marina notes that “the most accurate appraisal is that the Jersey Dutch Whig majority was solidly in favor of defending American rights.”

“Early in 1775,” he says, “New Jersey was one of those states that made the transition from Royal to revolutionary government ‘without the firing of a gun.’” (3)

Despite years of good relations with England, the Netherlands also sided with the Americans during the fight for independence. George M. Welling explains in his book The United States of America and the Netherlands:

“The city of Amsterdam in the meantime, however, started its negotiations with the Americans in secret. A plan was drafted for a treaty of trade and friendship to become effective as soon as Holland would recognize the independence of the United States. But by then relations between Holland and England had deteriorated still further on the issue of the Dutch trade with the rebels. When England got hold of a copy of the secret treaty, it used it as a pretext to declare war on the Netherlands.” (4)

Holland was the second country (after France) to join the battle on the American side, and it was the second to officially recognize American Independence, in 1782 (5). From both inside and out, the Dutch played a pivotal part in the actual effort that made the U.S. a sovereign society in the first place.

When the war ended and America was left with the task of constructing a constitution for itself, all delegates, including those from New York and New Jersey, contributed. The Dutch colonies had been lost to the British in 1664 (6). However, these colonists stayed connected to Holland and did not forget some of the peculiar institutions they had brought with them. One freedom this ethnic group had brought which did not exist in England was the free press. This concept was one of the tools used to spark and fuel the Revolution, and later made it into the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights (7).

Also present in the First Amendment are the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’ (8) Although religious tolerance was promoted in a few other colonies, the level of religious liberty granted by the Constitution most closely follows the precedent set by New Netherland. According to Eric Foner, author of Give Me Liberty: An American History, “Most striking was the religious freedom that attracted to New Netherland a population far more diverse than the Chesapeake or New England… Religious toleration was extended not only to Protestants but also Catholics and, grudgingly, to Jews.” (9)

Some sources have attributed a myriad of other early American institutions to Dutch origins. In 1915, The Nation published a review of a paper written by H. A. Van C. Torchiana titled “Holland: An Historical Essay.” Torchiana is said to have enumerated a number of colonial inheritances:

“Even in American pre-national and colonial days, ‘we find a certain unity of political ideas’ – freedom of religious belief, proclaimed by William the Silent in 1577; ‘no taxation without representation,’ enunciated by the Netherlands in 1477; a comprehensive school system supported by taxation, easily traced in Holland to the thirteenth century and made general after the Reformation; written Constitutions, of which the Union of Utrecht, made in 1579, was one; and the supremacy of the judiciary, which in the low countries was a fixed principle in the time of Charles V.” (10)

Critics meanwhile have downplayed the strength of the connections between the American and Dutch societal developments. Sydney George Fisher argued instead that American institutions were the organic and unique products of individual circumstances. He believed that conscious influence on the Constitution by Dutch example is highly overrated:

“If it really had been an imitation from the Dutch, there would be some evidence of it in the debates of the Constitutional Convention. The Dutch resemblance would have been urged by some as a reason in its favor and by others as a reason against it. Afterwards, when the Constitution was before the people for adoption and closely discussed and criticised in numerous pamphlets and newspapers, the Dutch imitation, if there had been one, would have been surely referred to either by friends or by enemies.” (11)

Americans may not have had the Netherlands specifically in mind when they formed their new government. Even so, it is clear that Holland had at least an indirect impact on the American system. After all, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees “every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” (12) Years before, the Netherlands had been the first to pioneer such a foundational administrative style.

References:

1. Eric Foner. Give Me Liberty! An American History. Seagull Edition, Volume 1. (New York: Norton and Company, 2006) 74
2. Adams, Charles Francis. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States. Vol. VII. (Boston: Little, Borwn and Company, 1852) 400
3. William Marina. “The Dutch-American Guerillas of the American Revolution.” May 1, 1983.
4. George M. Welling. The United States of America and the Netherlands.
5. Ibid.
6. Eric Foner. Give Me Liberty! An American History. Seagull Edition, Volume 1. (New York: Norton and Company, 2006) 83
7. Constitution of the United States of America.
8. Ibid.
9. Eric Foner. Give Me Liberty! An American History. Seagull Edition, Volume 1. (New York: Norton and Company, 2006) 75-76
10. Paul Elder. “Origins of American Institutions.” Published in The Nation. October 28, 1915. 523
11. Sydney George Fisher. The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippencott, 1897)
12. Constitution of the United States of America.

Mineralogy at Sterling Hill

This is the first of three pieces about the Sterling Hill Mining Museum. This article focuses on the mineral collection. The next post will explore the history of the mine, and the final installment will explain what visitors can expect to find at the museum today.

I am fortunate to be married to someone who shares my enthusiasm for science. This year, my wife and I spent a weekend at the Sterling Hill Mining Museum in Ogdensburg, NJ for our two-year anniversary.

The museum is located on the grounds of what was formerly one of the most productive zinc mines in the state. It is also the “world capital” of fluorescent minerals – the area has produced over 80 varieties, and others may still be buried, undiscovered, in sections of the hillsides.

When operation costs drove the mine out of business in the 1980's, it was converted into a center for education about history and science. The primary focus is on geology and mineralogy, but there are displays to teach visitors about such things as chemistry, and the Ellis Astronomical Observatory also makes its home on the property.

In addition to minerals from the local mines, Sterling Hill hosts a huge collection of rare and interesting minerals from all over the world, many of them fluorescent.

On Friday night, we were treated to a tour of the mines by longtime museum volunteer Bill Kroth, followed by a session at the telescope he runs. On Saturday, we again visited the museum.

Willemite (Zn2SiO4) is the most common fluorescent mineral found in the Sterling Hill mine. Indeed, the predominance of this form of zinc silicate ore makes the Franklin and Sterling Hill mines unique.

A large sheet of willemite (green) with fluorescent calcite (red) from the mine.

A slab of sphalerite (ZnS), garnet and hornblende found 900 feet below ground in the Sterling Hill mine. Sphalerite is one of the main precursors of willemite. It is transformed through one of two means: by oxidation in a siliceous (silicon-rich) environment, or by alteration from hydrothermal veins. New Jersey's willemite was made via the latter process.

Willemite lining the walls of the mine.

Scheelite (CaWO4) from Trumbull, CT. The fluorescence is due to tungstate ions.

Meionite (Ca4Al6Si6O24(CO3)) from Grenville, Quebec. It fluoresces yellow in short-wave ultraviolet (UV) light, and red in long-wave UV light.

One of several unusual malachite (Cu2(CO3)(OH)2) samples. This piece originated from Lubumbashi in the Haut-Katanga Province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The area is known for its copper, in which malachite typically forms.

Fluorite (CaF2) embedded in calcite (CaCO3) from the Nikolaeskiy mine in Dal'negorsk, Primorskiy Kray, Russia.

This calcite specimen comes from the Romanian mining town of Cavnic.

The Deadliest Chemical

It's in your home, in the air, and in virtually every aquifer on the planet. It contributes to the spread of diseases and the destruction of weather disasters. It directly kills thousands of people each year.

Several municipalities have tried and failed to ban dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) over the last twenty years. Yet neither the FDA nor the EPA are likely to curtail its omnipresence any time soon.

That's because DHMO is just a rarely used chemical name for water. The effort to ban it was part of a popular hoax perpetrated in the 1990’s meant to demonstrate the public’s lack of scientific knowledge.

In 1994, University of California, Santa Cruz student Craig Jackson advanced the hoax and created what would become dhmo.org, a parody website that approaches water as if it were a dangerous chemical. Among other hazards, the website lists the following reasons to be wary:

- Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
- Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
- Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
- DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
- Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
- Contributes to soil erosion.
- Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
- Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
- Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
- Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
- Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
- Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

Photograph by Brandon T. Bisceglia

What is most interesting about this pseudoscientific approach is that, despite two decades of fame, the joke continues to cause alarm among those who fail to do the most basic background research. According to a 2004 article by the Associated Press, city council officials in the town of Aliso Viejo, California became so concerned about it when a misinformed paralegal brought the matter to their attention, “that they considered banning foam cups after they learned the chemical was used in their production.”

As recently as 2007, the New Zealand Herald reported that Otago Prime Minister Jacqui Dean tried to ban DMHO in her province. She was the second MP in the country to get behind such a campaign without knowing what was really being supported.

Although it was meant to be lighthearted, the DHMO phenomenon bears the typical hallmarks of other serious campaigns that have pseudoscientific foundations. It's a revealing – if frightening - insight into how some politicians and activists operate. Understanding why anti-DHMO arguments make no sense can help us to see how skewing the facts can lead to faulty conclsions.

First, we must break the argument down into its component parts, since it is actually two separate claims. The first is that DMHO is a dangerous chemical, and the second, that it ought to be banned.

While all of the points that Jackson makes on his website are technically correct, they misdirect the reader by needlessly stoking fears that would be uncalled for if one knew the actual nature of the substance. In truth, common sense keeps us safe from many of water’s hazardous effects, while allowing us to enjoy its vast range of benefits.

Take, for instance, the claim that DHMO is found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. This fact means nothing on its own, but many who read it are liable to conflate correlation with causation, assuming that because it was found in tumors, it must be contributing to disease. Upon closer scrutiny, even the correlation is weak – otherwise one would expect to find that consuming less water would decrease the incidence of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions, which it does not.

This is the same kind of mistake that anti-vaccination proponents make about thimerosal and autism. Removal of the preservative did not cause autism rates to fall, but the assumption of causation remains prevalent among groups opposed to vaccines. Such diversions can have a far higher cost than the risk posed by the products being railed against, as evidenced by the needless resurgence of measles and other preventable diseases in wealthy countries like the U.S. and the U.K.

DMHO does become dangerous in certain situations. Boiling water can burn you; floods, hurricanes, and blizzards (all of which contain a lot of water) have killed thousands throughout history.

Under normal conditions, however, our interactions with water are quite safe. We drink it, bathe in it, and swim in it. If we consider the ratio between our safe encounters with water and the encounters that do us harm, the relative risk is extremely small.

This does not mean, however, that risks ought to be ignored. We are taught from a young age not to stick our hands in boiling water, not to keep electrical appliances near our bathtubs, and to stay indoors during hurricanes. These precautionary measures are important, though they only account for a small piece of the overall picture.

Once we understand the relative safety of water, it appears evident that it should not be banned. Moreover, because the benefits of interacting with water (it is largely responsible for our continued survival) far outweigh the potential risks, such legislative mandates could only cause more harm to citizens than good.

In the case of DHMO, it should also be mentioned that the sheer infeasibility of a ban ought to stop any legislation before it gets off the ground. How does one make rain illegal? It is in exploring this aspect of the process, in fact, where many of the government officials who get duped into campaigning against water find out that they’ve erred.

Pseudoscience is a two-way street; the interpretation of the facts often matters as much as their presentation. If fallacious logic and cleverly cherry-picked facts can lead to unfounded fears about something as obviously benign as water, it should be no surprise that people fall prey to misrepresentations of more complex issues, such as vaccination, evolution and climate change.