DOCSLIB.ORG

She Was a Doctrinaire Leftist at the Time (And Probably Stillis )

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
She Was a Doctrinaire Leftist at the Time (And Probably Stillis ) phase of one-dimensional "radical femin• phenomenon of maternal feminism (except ism." She was a doctrinaire leftist at in Deborah Gorham's piece) and does not the time (and probably still is). After delineate the class roots of this type warmly praising Women in the Canadian of feminism. Clearly maternal feminism Mosaic, this young woman referred back was dominant in Canada and the U.S. in to the period of our acquaintance around the late nineteenth and early twentieth 1970. "Those were the good old days.1" centuries. That is not the issue. The she exclaimed with an air of nostalgia. issue, in historical terms, is why did And then she added rather wistfully, such a large number of feminists adopt "But things have never been so simple this model in this period? How did s i nee." these women come to adopt a philosophy with strong evangelical and missionary overtones, and with all the negative aspects of fear of the foreigner, race- Linda Kealey A REPLY TO GWEN MATHESON suicide, etc., rather than a philos• It is unfortunate that Gwen Matheson ophy based on equal rights. Why (whom I have not met) takes my critical did they shy away from class strug• review of Women in the Canadian Mosaic gle and opt for "Christian stewardship?" as a personal attack. Her reply is in• The idea of the woman as redeemer of dicative of the low level of critical capitalism fell flat on its face in the thinking in feminist circles (academic period after World War I. Ballots in and non-academic). My review addressed the hands of women did not challenge the problems in the analysis and organi• the basic inequities. McClung and zation of the collection, not her per• other feminists failed to see problems sonal motives. The lead sentence of of working women, of women without the review, to which she objects, does children and thus provided no "model" not question her motives but rather for them. Maternal feminism, despite those of the present government. My Matheson's inadequate defense, provides point is that not every feminist publi• very little in the way of a rationale cation deserves a pat on the back and for modernfeminists precisely because a chorus of "well-done." it is based on late nineteenth century ideas of sex differences. The male is The review takes issue with a number of aggressive and active; the female, pas• critical areas: sive and nurturant. It is certainly significant that the discoveries of 1. The simple identification with, and endocrinology in the early twentieth distortion of, Nellie McClung and the century undermined the idea of a brand of feminism she represented, special social role for women while namely, maternal feminism. The book failing to challenge the idea that lacks a critical discussion of the biology is destiny. Various scientific theories have been put forward to ex• It is my contention that recognition of plain female temperament in the course class is central to any discussion of of history. Surely the lesson to be social movements, including feminism. learned is to distrust social theories This is not the same as insisting on a based on biological evidence and to "one-dimensional view" as Matheson as• place science within a social context. serts; nor does a recognition of class Men and women are biologically differ• lead to an analysis strictly focused on ent in some respects but women's repro• working class women in "overalls and ductive and hormonal differences pro• kerchiefs." The issue of class has to vide no proven basis for a superior (or be addressed generally. inferior) role. 3. The third and final point the review 2. The second point the review made makes is the need to recognize the im• was the need to be more precise about portant influence of radical politics the influence of class on female exper• (on both sides of the border) in the ience. It is not sufficient to say making of a Canadian feminist identity. that "all women are working women." I never implied that the Canadian This essentially mystifies the vast dif• women's movement was a simple offshoot ferences between women rather than of New Left activities; rather, I was shedding any light. The middle class attempting to point out the influence women's movement, past and present, of political ferment in the late 60's has not been able to bridge those dif• and early 70's on the directions taken ferences. This is not to deny, however, by the women's movement. Similarly, in the social welfare benefits brought a historical perspective, the early Can• about by the reform movement. Social adian feminist movement was not immune reformers of both sexes in the period to currents from Great Britain and the 1880-1920 were genuinely distressed by U.S. These interrelations have yet to the havoc wreaked on society by the be investigated in a systematic fashion. coming of industrial capitalism. At the It is sufficient to say for now that same time, profound ambiguity is evident Matheson's assertion of Canadian nation• in the reformers' attitudes to the work• alism vis-a-vis the women's movement is ing class. Social control was an inte• a weak answer. gral part of social welfare. Similarly, in today's movement, feminists from the I»too, hope that Women in the Canadian professional and middle classes bring Mosaic inspires others to produce books benefits to women in the working on the questions raised here; but, I classes. This does not mean that the also hope that, in the process, future problems of working class women are authors and editors will seek out and understood and dealt with directly. accept critical commentary in the The gap has yet to be bridged. spirit that it is offered. "Sister- hood" must recognize the need for model building, Wilkins, unbeknownst to stiff standards of analysis and must Franklin, provided them with her data. reject the pervasive tendency to see Throughout Watson's account of this in• criticism as personal attack. If we triguing story, his personal contempt cannot be critical of each other's for Franklin is unabashed: he disdained ideas, how will we make any progress her intelligence and creativity and towards an understanding of women's found her deeply unattractive, criticiz• role, past and present, in Canadian ing everything from her appearance to society? her personality. A perfunctory epilogue, which Watson wrote after Franklin's early death in 1958, is coolly polite but does not change the overwhelming Ellane Silverman AND impression given throughout the book of an unimpressive, uninspired, yet aggres• Margaret J. Osier sive and hostile colleague. WOMEN IN SCIENCE: A DISCUSSION In response to Watson's book, Anne James Watson's The Double Hel?x (1968) Sayre, a novelist and a friend of and Anne Sayre's Rosalind Franklin and Franklin, attempted to redeem her DNA (1975) cast new light on the social friend's reputation. Sayre described roles of scientists at work. The Double Franklin's early inclination to science, Helix, describing the process of the her training at Cambridge in physical d iscovery of the molecular structure of chemistry, her large number of important DNA, a discovery which won the Nobel papers in that field and her well- Prize for James Watson, Francis Crick developed sense of self-respect. Por• and Maurice Wilkins in 1962, challenges traying a more attractive person than the popular conception of science as a Watson had seen, she ascribed Watson's rational and dispassionate search for perceptions of Franklin to his profound• the truth, instead, we find the pro• ly hostile and demeaning attitudes to• tagonists engaged in a competitive wards women. race, ruthless in their quest for a solution. One of the victims of their The juxtaposition of these two books single-mindedness was Rosalind Franklin, raises significant questions about the a member of the King's College, London, role of women in science and, more research group and a colleague of generally, the sociology of scientific Maurice Wilkins. The X-ray diffraction research. In a recent review in data she had gathered on the DNA mole• Atlantis, Thelma McCormack undertook to cule provided a key element in the ul• discuss some of these problems, particu• timate unravelling of the problem. At larly in the light cast by Franklin's a crucial juncture in Crick and Watson's career on discrimination against women .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The DNA Helix, Featured Scientist: Rosalind Franklin
    Cover Story Featu red Scientist: The Rosalind DNA Franklin: Helix "Bold John R. Jungck Experimentalist" Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/46/8/430/86225/4447893.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 On April 25th, 1953, three papers on the struc- Thus, it is disheartening to see a biographer cite ture of DNA appearing in Nature profoundly Rosalind Franklin's work as "not characterized by changed biology. Only the one by James Watson great originality of thought." This same biog- and Francis Crick still seems to receive much at- rapher, the distinguished biology historian, Robert tention. The primary authors of the other two pa- Olby, nonetheless raises the same contradictions as pers were Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. above. He describes Franklin as a "bold experi- While The Double Helix by "honest Jim" Watson mentalist" and "a deft experimentalist, keenly ob- (1968) changed many people's perception of sci- servant and with immense capacity for taking ence and rankled many more because of the chau- pains. As a result she was able with difficult mate- vinistic treatment of "Rosy" Franklin, I shall focus rial to achieve a remarkable standard of resolution on what has been largely ignored in our apprecia- in her X-ray diagrams" (Olby 1972). tion of these scientists, especially Franklin. While Similarly, Anne Sayre (1975, p. 84) fleetingly de- one of Franklin's biographers, Anne Sayre, spends scribes Franklin's skill: "When Rosalind was con- much space defending Franklin's role in this major fronted with DNA-an amorphous substance, diffi- discovery of our century, she only briefly discusses cult to handle experimentally, tiresomely recalci- Franklin's tremendous skill as an experimentalist.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics Today - February 2003
    Physics Today - February 2003 Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix Although she made essential contributions toward elucidating the structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin is known to many only as seen through the distorting lens of James Watson's book, The Double Helix. by Lynne Osman Elkin - California State University, Hayward In 1962, James Watson, then at Harvard University, and Cambridge University's Francis Crick stood next to Maurice Wilkins from King's College, London, to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material." Watson and Crick could not have proposed their celebrated structure for DNA as early in 1953 as they did without access to experimental results obtained by King's College scientist Rosalind Franklin. Franklin had died of cancer in 1958 at age 37, and so was ineligible to share the honor. Her conspicuous absence from the awards ceremony--the dramatic culmination of the struggle to determine the structure of DNA--probably contributed to the neglect, for several decades, of Franklin's role in the DNA story. She most likely never knew how significantly her data influenced Watson and Crick's proposal. Franklin was born 25 July 1920 to Muriel Waley Franklin and merchant banker Ellis Franklin, both members of educated and socially conscious Jewish families. They were a close immediate family, prone to lively discussion and vigorous debates at which the politically liberal, logical, and determined Rosalind excelled: She would even argue with her assertive, conservative father. Early in life, Rosalind manifested the creativity and drive characteristic of the Franklin women, and some of the Waley women, who were expected to focus their education, talents, and skills on political, educational, and charitable forms of community service.
    [Show full text]
  • Femtosecond X-Ray Diffraction
    AMERICAN CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC ASSOCIATION Number 2 Summer 2012 Femtosecond X-Ray Diffraction American Crystallographic Association ACA HOME PAGE: www.amercrystalassn.org Table of Contents 2 President’s Column What’s on the Cover 3 News from Canada - page 40 4 ACA Balance Sheet 5 From the Editor’s Desk IUCr Partners with AIP UniPHY Errata 6 News from Argentina Contributors to this Issue / Bruker Awards 8 Puzzle Corner 9-10 Book Reviews 11-20 ACA History The Early Days of the ACA David Sayre (1924 - 2012) 21 AIP Inside Science 22 ACA Corporate Members 23-31 Candidates for ACA Officers and Committees for 2012 32 ACA Trueblood Award to Tom Terwilliger ACA Fankuchen Award to Richard Dickerson 34-35 Carl Branden Award to Helen Berman AIP Andrew Gemant Award to Lisa Randall Golden Mouse Award to Crystallographic iPhone app Awards Available / Travel and Fellowships 36 Scientific Controversies and Crystallography 37 Big Data Initiative 38 ACA 2012 Student Award Winners 39 ACA 2012 Exhibitors and Sponsors / ACA 2013 - Hawaii - Preview 40 Future Meetings / Index of Advertisers What’s on the Cover ACA RefleXions staff: Please address matters pertaining to ads, membeship, or use of Editor: Connie Rajnak [email protected] the ACA mailing list to: Editor: Judith L. Flippen-Anderson [email protected] Marcia J. Colquhoun, Director of Administrative Services Copy Editor: Jane Griffin [email protected] American Crystallographic Association Book Reviews: Joe Ferrara [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • David Sayre Between 1956 and 1990, David He Scored His Own Share of Winning Worked for IBM
    AIP/ESVA, GALLERY OF MEMBER SOCIETY PRESIDENTS Athletic activity formed a major Dorothy Hodgkin. During that time counterpoint to Phil’s science. His var- David and his wife, Anne, got to know sity basketball at MIT continued into Rosalind Franklin, another young crys- pick-up games at Bell Labs, gradually to tallographer who was working at be replaced by tennis, which he played King’s College London. the rest of his active life. He loved the David wrote some of his seminal outdoors, from winter ski trips to papers during 1951–52. He had discov- mountain hikes to weeklong backpack- ered what is known today as Sayre’s ing trips in western wilderness areas. equation, which was the critical step An avid sports fan, Phil followed his needed in the development of direct favorite teams in baseball, basketball, methods in crystallography. His half- and football. Two days before his death, page 1952 paper in Acta Crystallograph- as he sat enthralled by the final tense ica, “Some implications of a theorem moments of the 2012 Super Bowl, he due to Shannon,” forms the foundation made an unprecedented statement: of diffraction microscopy, also known “This has been such a good game that I as coherent diffraction imaging and don’t even care if the Giants lose!” lensless imaging. Sixty years later it is Metaphorically, that summarized his still frequently cited in the literature. life in physics—he loved the game. And David Sayre Between 1956 and 1990, David he scored his own share of winning worked for IBM. He was part of the touchdowns.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Genes, Girls and Gamow, James D. Watson, Oxford
    Genes, Girls and Gamow, James D. Watson, Oxford University Press, 2001, 019164742X, 9780191647420, 304 pages. In 1953 Watson and Crick discovered the double helical structure of DNA and Watson's personal account of the discovery, The Double Helix, was published in 1968. Genes, Girls and Gamow is also autobiographical, covering the period from when The Double Helix ends, in 1953, to a few years later, and ending with a Postscript bringing the story up to date. Here is Watson adjusting to new-found fame, carrying out tantalizing experiments on the role of RNA in biology, and falling in love. The book is enlivened with copies of handwritten letters from the larger than life character George Gamow, who had made significant contributions to physics but became intrigued by genes, RNA and the elusive genetic code. This is a tale of heartbreak, scientific excitement and ambition, laced with travelogue and '50s atmosphere.. DOWNLOAD HERE A Passion for DNA Genes, Genomes, and Society, James D. Watson, 2001, Science, 250 pages. In 1953, two young, unknown scientists sparked a worldwide revolution. Studying DNA for clues to the nature of genes, James Watson and Francis Crick deduced its molecular .... Molecular Biology of the Gene, Page 2 , , 2004, Molecular biology, 732 pages. Double Helix , James D. Watson, Jan 1, 2009, , 151 pages. James Watson Solving the Mystery of DNA, Janet Hamilton, Jun 1, 2004, Biography & Autobiography, 104 pages. A biography of James Watson, one of the scientists who helped discover the structure of DNA, the carrier of heredity in higher organisms.. IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Volumes 1-6 , IEEE Circuits and Syatems Society, 1996, Technology & Engineering, 3000 pages.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 David Sayre (1924 - 2012) Summer 2012
    David Sayre (1924 - 2012) Summer 2012 DAVID SAYRE (1924 – 2012) problem” in crystallography so that good electron-density maps can be obtained from x-ray diffraction data from crystals, When I wrote David to (2) how to improve and simplify the communication between congratulate him on be- crystallographers and computers so that the calculations neces- ing selected for the IUCr sary to obtain electron-density maps will be made easier for the Ewald Prize he replied scientist, and (3) how to make it possible, using methods similar asking if I knew who was to those used currently by crystallographers, to “see” molecules on the selection commit- at atomic resolution in non-crystalline (rather than just crystal- tee: “Not that I would do line) materials. anything about it, but I would be very interested to know what might have motivated the selection of the single-particle concept, which to date has produced very little in the way of important science, when crystallography it- self is producing such fantastically important science.” As I did not know who was on the committee I sent him the text of the announcement of the prize: “The IUCr is pleased to announce that Dr. D. Sayre has been awarded the eighth Ewald Prize for the unique breadth of his contributions to crystallography, which range from seminal contributions to the solving of the phase problem to the complex physics of imaging generic objects by X-ray diffraction and microscopy, and for never losing touch with the physical reality of the processes involved.” To which David and Anne Sayre visit with Kay Onan (center) at he replied “thanks that helps a little”.
    [Show full text]
  • <Article-Title>Rosalind Franklin: the Dark Lady of DNA</Article-Title
    digestion. Gas and diarrhea will her personality and talents devel- return to England, she was diag- alwaysbe interestingto kids, I sup- op. By the end of "PartOne," she nosed with ovarian cancer. She pose. had become a world authorityon died in 1958 at the age of 37. coal and had spent fourhappy and Franklincontinued to work nearly The graphics deserve special productiveyears as a respectedand to the end. mention. The computer-generated admired member of the lab in illustrations are among the best The Epilogue, "Life After Paris, where she learned X-ray I've seen for children's science Death,"presents reactions to James techniques.Yet there was a side of books. Even the illustrationof the Watson's The Double Helix, her that loved adventure,fashion, lower jaw and saliva glands which was finally published in and the children of her many rela- seemed colorful and interesting. 1968 after being rejected by tives and friends. The photographs taken with a Harvard University Press. It high-powered microscope are "Part Two" describes became a best seller and prompted show-stopping. Adults and kids Rosalind's two years at King's Rosalind's friend Anne Sayre to kept asking, "What is that?" College, London. The six chapters write her 1975 biography, Learningbecause you'reinterested of "PartTwo" show how many sci- Rosalind Franklin and DNA. This is the most painless, efficient way entists played important roles in book was a rebuttalof what Sayre Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/67/6/380/52505/4451869.pdf by guest on 25 September 2021 to learn.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Biological Boundaries: Rosalind Franklin and the Experimental Foundation of the Double Helix Theory
    Breaking Biological Boundaries: Rosalind Franklin and the Experimental Foundation of the Double Helix Theory Michaila Peters Senior Division Individual Exhibit Student-Composed Words: 498 words Process Paper Word Count: 499 words Process Paper Two things drew my interest to Rosalind Franklin; First, I have always been fascinated by women’s history and the history of science. Second, Rosalind’s personality and interests were things I could relate to in my own life, and the mystery surrounding her story, as well as its complexity, made me want to understand her, both in terms of the theme, and personally. My preliminary research proved challenging when secondary historical accounts I viewed at Edinboro Universtiy all had contradictory accounts of Rosalind, debating her relationship with feminism. To understand why, I had to focus on objective primary sources; lab notebooks, journals, photos, published papers, and most importantly, collections of Oral Histories of those who worked with Rosalind. I then applied historical context by looking at statistics on women in science/education/workforce at that time (from Dr. Pat Thane, professor of Kings College, London), oral histories on gender prejudice, and effects from major events like WWII. Conclusively, I determined that the contradictory accounts were so because some were pieces of writing written by the 1960s British Women’s Liberation Movement, which, though she was not, had made Rosalind into a feminist icon and subsequently wrote feminist-biased biographies on her to use as a platform to preach women’s equality, while others were more objective historical accounts written by more modern historians. From here, I could build the rest of Rosalind’s story, while maintaining historical accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lab's Labour's Lost
    COMMENT BOOKS & ARTS THEATRE Lab’s labour’s lost Philip Ball appraises Nicole Kidman’s stage turn as crystallographer Rosalind Franklin. he 1953 discovery of DNA’s structure Photograph 51 tale ever since the by James Watson and Francis Crick is ANNA ZIEGLER feminist reading a triumphant narrative with an uneasy Until 21 November 2015. of Anne Sayre’s Tsubtext. Rosalind Franklin’s crystallographic Noël Coward Theatre, Rosalind Franklin London. JOHAN PERSSON work was a vital part of the evidence. Yet, and DNA (Nor- although her results (and those of Maurice ton, 1975) — an Wilkins) were published in the same issue interpretation that Franklin would have of Nature as theirs, Franklin was denied disavowed, her sister has said. Had Franklin adequate credit for years (see Nature 496, 270; been less excluded and patronized by her 2013). Watson and Crick never fully acknowl- male peers, might she have had the feedback edged the debt while she lived, and when she and confidence to solve the structure first? died at 37 of ovarian cancer, she effectively In her authoritative The Dark Lady of DNA spared the Nobel committee the impossible (Harper­Collins, 2002), Brenda Maddox chal- decision of which trio to reward with the 1962 lenges that idea, suggesting that Franklin’s prize in medicine or physiology. class and religion (she came from a wealthy The question you need to ask yourself Jewish family) had an equal role in her isola- before seeing Photograph 51, Anna Ziegler’s tion at King’s. Ziegler finds a good accom- play about Franklin and the race to pin down modation: without any of the male characters the double helix, is how you like your science- becoming chauvinistic caricatures, we are left in-theatre.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2003 Twenty-Eighth Issue Volume 15, No
    12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901International2 Society for the1234567890123456789012345678901212345 History, 6 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 12345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012312345678901234567890123456789012123456 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 1234567890123456789012345678901212345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123453 6 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012123456789012345678901234567890121234563 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123 12345678901234567890123456789012123456789012 123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123
    [Show full text]
  • Rosalind Franklin: the Woman Scientist of DNA
    Rosalind Franklin: The Woman Scientist of DNA It is fifty years since Watson and Crick first work, which she did with Desmond Bernal on proposed the structure of DNA in their paper in RNA viruses like tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), Nature in 1953. The same issue also carried the which was a subject more challenging than DNA, papers by Wilkins, Stokes and Wilson and by was acknowledged by Aaron Klug in his 1982 Franklin and Gosling. The Nobel Prize in Physi- Nobel Lecture. Klug was her closest collaborator ology or Medicine was awarded to Watson, Crick and friend. Bernal wrote in the concluding part of and Wilkins. Rosalind Franklin had died at the Franklin’s obituary note that as a scientist Franklin young age of 37 in 1958 of cancer. She was never was distinguished by extreme clarity and perfec- awarded the Nobel Prize as it is not given posthu- tion in everything she undertook to do. Her X-ray mously. But it was Franklin’s unpublished mea- photographs are among the most beautiful of any surements of the crucial distances in the DNA substance ever taken. It was the famous X-ray molecule, provided by her colleague Wilkins, diffraction photograph of B-DNA and the crys- without her knowledge, to Watson and Crick, talline parameters she had laboriously calculated, that enabled them to build a model of DNA. This given to Watson and Crick by Wilkins, that formed fact came to light nearly ten years after the award the significant basis for solution of the DNA of the Nobel Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rosalind Franklin Story Riley Whitecotton and Francisco
    6/21/2019 Rosalind Franklin Process Paper - Google Docs X Marks the Spot: The Rosalind Franklin Story Riley Whitecotton and Francisco “A.J.” Camacho Senior Division Group Documentary Word Count: 494 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SPNLO0M63TOZ0_xinqNfNGGYPtuZ-YB0NxbNZ2ub-4o/edit 1/23 6/21/2019 Rosalind Franklin Process Paper - Google Docs Before this project, all we knew of Rosalind Franklin was a vague grasp of her contributions to understanding DNA and status as a feminist icon. By the end, we discovered a revolutionary chemist whose impacts on humanity ranged from life­saving gas masks in World War II to precision medicine to more efficient vaccinations, all of which save lives. Our research began with the two biographies of Franklin: Anne Sayre’s Rosalind Franklin and DNA and Brenda Maddox’s The Dark Lady of DNA . Then, we looked online for more specific information regarding her work on DNA and viruses. We found several comprehensive databases. As Riley tackled published information on Franklin, A.J. scheduled interviews. Brief correspondence with Jenifer Glynn, Rosalind’s younger sister, revealed Franklin’s personal life. A reason we chose this topic was the opportunity A.J. had to visit the UK, where he examined primary sources, including Franklin’s original lab notes. Dr. Patricia Fara aided in examining primary sources at Churchill College, Cambridge and invited A.J. for tea at the Fellows’ Room. She introduced an opinion on Franklin gaining popularity among historians––that Rosalind would not have endorsed her modern mythologization as a casualty of prejudice. We ultimately chose this position in our film.
    [Show full text]