Perle Mesta: The Hostess with the Mostes’ was more than a socialite

Time Magazine featured Perle Mesta on the cover on March 14, 1949.

—————

A self-described “feminist,” in a 1952 speech to the Democratic Convention, Mesta said, “Together, men and women are a tremendous force. And I feel certain that when our forefathers said that our society should be based on equal rights for all men, they did not mean it just that way. They meant equal rights for all men—and women.”

—————

Serving as the inspiration for Irving Berlin’s Broadway musical comedy “Call Me Madam” starring Ethel Merman, diplomat and political activist Perle Reid Skirvin Mesta became affectionately known as The Hostess with the Mostes’.

Born in 1889 in Sturgis, Michigan, Mesta was the oldest child of William (Bill) Balser Skirvin and Harriet Elizabeth Reid. While her childhood was spent in Galveston, Texas, the family moved to Oklahoma City in the early 1900s. Her father, Bill Skirvin, struck it rich in the oil business and also had found success in real estate. In 1910, he broke ground on Oklahoma City’s Skirvin Hotel, located at First and Broadway Streets. By the time it was finished, the hotel was the biggest in Oklahoma and the most luxurious in a multi-state area.

The Skirvin family moved into the hotel, residing on the ninth floor in a suite. Mesta and her older siblings were educated at private boarding schools. In 1915, after attending the Sherwood School of Music, Mesta moved to New York City where she lived with her great aunt on Park Avenue.

Vintage postcard featuring Skirvin Hotel
The Skirvin Hilton Hotel today courtesy The Skirvin

It was there that she met George Mesta, owner of the Mesta Machine Company, a manufacturer of steel machinery based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Although George Mesta was several years her senior, the two fell in love and married in 1917.

During the World War I years, the newlyweds spend much of their time in Washington, D.C., where George Mesta served on a labor management committee under the American Federation of Labor. He also turned over the use of his plant to help manufacture war machinery.

When they returned to Pittsburgh, Mesta became interested in the welfare of the workers at the plant. She began making contact with the employees, first by having them and their families to her home for Christmas. Next, she suggested an onsite cafeteria and a hospital for the workers. Then, she noticed that many of the young apprentices at the plant had not finished their high school degrees. Mesta’s observations resulted in the apprentices being granted two hours per day of studies with pay. Another employee benefit that Mesta fostered was the organization of a nursery to care for the children of the plant’s workers.

Mesta also began an active schedule as a volunteer, working for the welfare of children. She and her husband also traveled in Europe. But after eight years of marriage, her life took a dramatic turn. George Mesta died suddenly and unexpectedly of a heart attack in April of 1925.

Mesta found herself as the majority stockholder in the Mesta Machine Company. Her father encouraged her to become involved actively in the business, running it just as her husband had done. There were eight men on the board of directors—Mesta assumed the ninth slot. However, she named her husband’s brother as president, and although she remained on the board of directors, she opted not to run the company. Bereaved, she left Pittsburgh and moved to Washington, D.C.

For a few years, Mesta spent an uncertain period in which she described herself as spending too much money and gambling away even more. Finally, she settled down emotionally and in the late 1920s, began hosting the parties for which she would become so famous. These first parties were held both in Washington, D.C. and in New York City, with summer parties occurring in Newport, Rhode Island.

Mesta continued to make many visits back to Oklahoma. In 1930, she went in with her father on a joint oil venture in the Oklahoma City Field. The Skirvin-Mesta team struck oil, and with the profits the two decided to invest in an addition to the Skirvin Hotel called the Skirvin Tower. The ballroom in the Tower was the largest in Oklahoma, with a capacity of 2,500 people.

In the mid-1930s, Mesta again teamed up with her father on an oil venture east of Oklahoma City. One well turned out to be gas, and it was too far from a pipeline to harvest. However, the duo hit other oil wells and continued to prosper.

Mesta became concerned when she discovered her father was investing some of her oil profits without her approval. Disagreements began that terminated in litigation, a move she later regretted as it drug on for several years. But, the family remained on friendly terms, and ultimately a court-appointed hotel manager stepped in to oversee the two Skirvins.

Perle Mesta courtesy Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Around this same time, Mesta became interested in the National Woman’s Party, an organization dedicated to the equal rights for women campaign. It was at this point that Mesta became a self-described “feminist.” She began to direct her energy toward a constitutional amendment giving women equal rights. Mesta also joined the World Woman’s Party, taking her involvement to an international level.

By 1944, Mesta, always a staunch Republican, became disillusioned with her party and changed her political affiliation. She registered as a Democrat, and became interested in some of the social welfare programs of the day. That same year, she was named an alternate delegate to the Democratic Convention. She worked tirelessly for the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment into her party’s platform. Sadly, also in 1944, Bill Skirvin was injured in an auto accident, and died shortly thereafter at the age of 84.

When Harry Truman became president, Perle Mesta dined at the White House for the second time in her life. (The first time was with her husband, who was a big financial supporter of Calvin Coolidge.) She leased a home in Washington, D.C., formerly occupied by Herbert Hoover, with the specific goal of using the home for lavish entertaining. By this point in her life, Mesta had come to realize the influence a party could have on politics when important groups of people were brought together in a social situation. Her guest lists were strategically planned to accommodate the topics of the day.

Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover and Lou lived in this house in Washington DC before he became president. Mesta then leased the home for political entertaining. Courtesy Hoover Library and Museum.

Mesta continued a very close association with Harry Truman and his family. In 1948, she was named assistant to the finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a fundraising position. She also became a delegate to the convention, representing Rhode Island. She was further honored by being asked to help with the Inaugural Ball when Truman was re-elected to office.

Her biggest honor, however, came in 1949 when Truman named her the Minister to Luxembourg. The appointment of Mesta to a diplomatic position was designed to raise the standing of women in politics, and it was not without controversy. Many criticized the appointment as being a political favor based solely on campaign contributions.

Mesta decided to shake off the criticism, although she was often ridiculed in the press. She moved to Luxembourg and assumed her position with all seriousness and with a profound sense of responsibility. One of her accomplishments was the establishment of monthly G.I. parties to entertain the U.S. troops stationed nearby. By 1953, Mesta had entertained a total of 25,000 men and women in the service, all paid for by her personally. She was also proud to have assisted in the organization of the European Coal and Steel Community, a joint economic venture involving Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In 1953, Mesta was fired from her position primarily because of a change in administration and party leadership in the United States. The people of Luxembourg gave her a warm and emotional send-off.

In the last twenty years of her life, Mesta never gave up the goal of a constitutional amendment granting equal rights to women. In a speech given at the Democratic Convention in 1952, Mesta said, “Together, men and women are a tremendous force. And I feel certain that when our forefathers said that our society should be based on equal rights for all men, they did not mean it just that way. They meant equal rights for all men—and women.”

Mesta returned to Oklahoma City in 1974. She died there a year later. She was laid to rest alongside her husband in the George Mesta Mausoleum in Homewood Cemetery in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

RBG: Highly Anticipated Documentary About Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be Released in May

The documentary is set for theater release on May 4, 2018. The film was recently screened at Sundance Film Festival, where it was picked up by Magnolia Pictures.

Synopsis

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg has created a breathtaking legal legacy for women’s rights while becoming an unexpected pop culture icon. The personal journey of this diminutive, quiet warrior’s rise to the nation’s highest court during a hostile time for women, is revealed in this inspiring and multidimensional portrait. Now 84, Ginsburg refuses to relinquish her passionate duty, continues to have vigorous dissenting opinions and her exercise workouts.

 

Credits

DIRECTORS: Betsy West and Julie Cohen

PRODUCERS: Julie Cohen and Betsy West

FEATURING: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jane Ginsburg, James Ginsburg, Clara Spera, Bill Clinton

 

http://www.magpictures.com/rbg/home

https://www.facebook.com/RBGmovie/

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the #MeToo Movement Balanced with Due Process

Lawrence Krauss: Dissecting the Buzzfeed Article on Sexual Misconduct

First off, do you know who Lawrence Krauss is? I’ve seen many comments with folks commenting that they’ve never even heard of him. His professional biography, published on Arizona State University’s website, may be found here:

http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/

Secondly, on February 22, 2018, Buzzfeed published an article by By Peter Aldhous (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Azeen Ghorayshi (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Virginia Hughes (BuzzFeed News Science Editor). The article is titled, “The Unbeliever” and subheaded with the following:

“He Became A Celebrity For Putting Science Before God. Now Lawrence Krauss Faces Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct.

Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem. With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his “skeptic” fanbase believe the evidence?”

Here is a link to the full article:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations?utm_term=.iwgqBEdxL#.imwGJEpQZ

Third, is Buzzfeed a reliable source? I like to use Media Bias Fact Check when I look at a publication. The website says Buzzfeed is classified as having a left-center bias with a Mixed rating on factual reporting but is “generally trustworthy.”

From the Media Bias website:
LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Buzzfeed is an internet media company that focuses on entertainment, but does have content for breaking news and politics. Buzzfeed occasionally uses loaded words with a left bias in headlines/articles and has failed a fact check. Buzzfeed has also been known to rush stories that are not verified and then have to retract them. For the most part, Buzzfeed is factual and very well sourced. If not for a few minor blemishes Buzzfeed would be listed as High for factual reporting. Overall, Buzzfeed is a left leaning source that is almost always accurate in reporting, however our criteria dictates that a source that fails a fact check must be rated factually mixed. Buzzfeed is generally trustworthy, but it is recommended to check other sources to verify their stories. (6/30/2016) Updated (12/22/17)

Fourth, I found it odd that Buzzfeed put “skeptic” in quotation marks.

Let’s clarify the terms skeptic and skepticism:

Merriam Webster:

Definition of skeptic

1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism

2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles

Definition of skepticism

1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain

b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)

Skepticism also has more than one branch.

Examples of major types:

Philosophical Skepticism—final truths are unknowable. I include Moral Skepticism under this heading, although others might view it as a separate area of study.

Religious Skepticism—questioning faith-based claims. A religious skeptic is not always an atheist. The two terms are commonly misused as interchangeable.

Scientific Skepticism-applying scientific inquiry and scientific method to prove knowledge. This would include debunkers such as Martin Gardner, the Amazing Randi, Penn & Teller or the popular “Mythbusters.” It also questions pseudoscience claims such as homeopathy.

So… that said, it appears that Buzzfeed uses the terms skeptic and atheist as the same thing, and that is simply incorrect.

So, back to dissecting the article:

Skeptics want evidence. Skeptics ask, “Is it true?”

Buzzfeed’s subhead quotes “whisper networks”:  “Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem.”

Are “whisper networks” reliable evidence? Nope.

The next line in the subhead reads, “With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his ‘skeptic’  fanbase believe the evidence?”

Huh? Why wouldn’t skeptics believe reliable evidence, whether part of Krauss’s fanbase or not? But it’s got to be more than the whisper network. There is no secret oath among skeptics to deny truth or cover it up if someone is accused of sexual misconduct.

Fortunately, the Buzzfeed authors go on to present the evidence beyond just whispers and innuendo.

First up is the account of Melody Hensley. The details are in the full story so I won’t rehash them here.

Hensley: “’It was definitely predatory,’ she said. ‘I didn’t want that to happen. It wasn’t consensual.’”

Krauss: “Krauss told BuzzFeed News that what happened with Hensley in the hotel room was consensual. In that room, ‘we mutually decided, in a polite discussion in fact, that taking it any further would not be appropriate,’ he told BuzzFeed News by email.”

Now what? In the classic sense of a “he said/she said” situation, the skeptic is going to look at this situation and say truth is unknowable. Dig deeper, please. (Hence, some skeptics, male and female, have been criticized for not fully embracing the #MeToo movement that asserts we must believe everyone, regardless of the evidence. The victim is always correct and truthful. No need to look under the hood.)

Ok, so that being said, things look a little more convincing when Buzzfeed claims the following: “In response to complaints, two institutions — Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario — have quietly restricted him from their campuses. Our reporting is based on official university documents, emails, and interviews with more than 50 people.”

That sounds like pretty damning evidence. The only documentation lacking would be independent verification by these institutions, which may happen, or a look at these documents and emails. But, clearly, this is moving in the direction of reliable evidence, which is all the skeptic wants to see. Buzzfeed fairly notes, “In lengthy emails to BuzzFeed News, Krauss denied all of the accusations against him, calling them ‘false and misleading defamatory allegations.’”

But then the article seems to take a weird turn, and it feels like an attack on the skeptic community in general:

First, it defines skeptics as rejecting all forms of faith:

“Although not a household name, Lawrence Krauss is a big shot among skeptics, a community that rejects all forms of faith — from religion and the supernatural, to unproven alternative medicines, to testimonials based on memory and anecdote — in favor of hard evidence, reason, and science.”

As illustrated above, this is not true. Case in point: Martin Gardner, considered by many to be the founder of the modern scientific skeptic movement, was a believer who wrote the essay, “Why I Am Not An Atheist.” Similarly, Carl Sagan disavowed atheism.

Next, Buzzfeed claims: “The skeptics draw heavily from traditionally male groups: scientists, philosophers, and libertarians, as well as geeky subcultures like gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts.” Traditionally male groups? Skepticism, questioning, inquiry, doubt—these are not the domains of males only. The suggestion that women can’t think critically with the best of them is insulting. Gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts? I don’t even know where that idea comes from. Skepticism has nothing to do with hobbies.

Then the article proceeds to pronounce the skeptic movement to be fracturing:

“But today the movement is fracturing, with some of its most prominent members now attacking identity politics and ‘social justice warriors’ in the name of free speech.”

Doesn’t fracturing mean falling apart? As a good skeptic, I return to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of fracture

1 : the result of fracturing : break

2 a : the act or process of breaking or the state of being broken; especially : the breaking of hard tissue (such as bone)

b : the rupture (as by tearing) of soft tissue kidney fracture

3 : the general appearance of a freshly broken surface of a mineral

Huh? So the skeptic movement is being broken apart by valuing and protecting free speech? The skeptic movement is broken for believing in discourse, debate and open-mindedness?

I’ll just leave you with this 20 minute talk on the value of free speech and free exchange of ideas by Christopher Hitchens. If you have time, it is wonderful.

Next, Buzzfeed goes with the anti-Muslim allegations so often leveled against religious skeptics. Oh brother. How many times does it have to be said. I’ll just quote Richard Dawkins here: “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?”

Next, we get to a paragraph that levels so many accusations, I don’t know if I can handle them all in one sitting:

“Famous freethinkers have been criticized for anti-Muslim sentiment (addressed that with Dawkins), for cheering the alt-right media personality Milo Yiannopoulos (Milo does not identify as alt-right and yeah, free speech), and for lampooning feminism and gender theory (that’s the area of the evolutionary biologists and not all skeptics speak on this topic. It is extremely complex and academic in nature).”

Next: “Several women, after sharing personal accounts of misogyny and harassment by men in the skeptic community, have been subjected to Gamergate-style online attacks, including rape and death threats.” If that is true, it is not coming from decent human beings. Prominent faces in the skeptic community, male and female, black, brown and white, do not participate in name calling and certainly don’t threaten rape or death. Ridiculous. Look at Jordan Peterson’s Twitter. A British journalist recently claimed she was harassed after interviewing Peterson, and he absolutely denounced it.

And for the kicker: “As a result, some commentators have accused parts of the movement of sliding into the alt-right.” Bleh. This was recently addressed by Sam Harris, when folks who openly identified as alt-right co-opted Steven Pinker by clipping out some YouTube comment and making it seem like he was a Nazi or some other nonsense. The New York Times even ran an opinion piece called “Social Media is Making Us Dumber” about this silliness.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/social-media-dumber-steven-pinker.html

Clearly, sexual misconduct is everywhere, and coming from many sides. Smearing an entire community, though, is just plain—what’s the scientific word—goofy.

——

UPDATE: ASU has received no complaints from ASU students, faculty or staff related to Lawrence Krauss. The university has initiated a review in an attempt to discern the facts. We encourage anyone who has concerns about faculty, staff or students to report those concerns.

11:18 AM – 23 Feb 2018

Official statement from Lawrence Krauss published 3.7.18

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

UPDATE JULY 31, 2018

Arizona State University has investigated a complaint regarding allegations that Krauss touched the breast of a woman attending a conference in Australia in 2016. ASU ruled the incident is a violation of the university’s sexual harrassment policy. On page 2 of the review, there is a note that the woman involved in the incident had not wanted to make a report and did not feel the incident merited losing one’s job. However, witnesses felt the incident was reportable. The full letter and review is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Melanie%20Thomson%207.31.18.pdf

Update October 21, 2018

Full results of ASU’s findings may be found here courtesy of Buzzfeed:

Krauss responds to these allegations here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10lHwatvaGfmWNc3NdoioncYi7daK1a-M/view

 

 

White Wednesdays: A Movement Protesting Compulsory Hijab in Iran is Growing

In mid-summer of 2017, a social media campaign called White Wednesdays began sharing through Facebook a coordinated effort among Iranians to protest the compulsory hijab by wearing a white hijab on Wednesdays. In this way, women and men who were like-minded could recognize one another by the symbolic color. From there, it has progressed to women sharing photos without their hijabs and now even walking down the street hijab-free and sharing videos of their experiences.

Some women face having their cars confiscated or being detained or facing court fines, but the movement continues to gain traction.

White Wednesdays is an offshoot of the “My Steathy Freedom” Campaign formed three years ago to protest compulsory hijabs. A separate page on Facebook gives more information about this campaign:

We launched a campaign called “My Stealthy Freedom” to say NO to forced hijab.. Today we need to keep reminding all politicians and all female tourists who visit Iran of the compulsory hijab. We need a #hijabdeal because the hijab is a global issue when all women who visit Iran are forced to wear it.
While millions of women wear the veil as part of the World Hijab Day in solidarity with veiled women, it is not fair to ignore thoese women on this special day. Millions of women have been forced to wear the hijab from the age of seven—if they refused to wear the hijab, they would be deprived of an education. It is also about the time that we shouted “No Wall, No Ban” for women who are forced to wear the veil.
We are for freedom of choice and we find compulsion to be deplorable whether it is done to veil or unveil a woman.
#WorldHijabDay

/

Iconic Photo of Woman Freeing Herself of Hijab Becomes Symbol of Iran Protests

Women’s March Organizers Publish Together We Rise Available January 16, 2018

WITH ESSAYS BY: ROWAN BLANCHARD • SENATOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH • AMERICA FERRERA • ROXANE GAY • ILANA GLAZER • ASHLEY JUDD • VALARIE KAUR • CINDI LEIVE • DAVID REMNICK • JILL SOLOWAY • YARA SHAHIDI • JIA TOLENTINO • CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS • ELAINE WELTEROTH • JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS • AND MORE

In celebration of the one-year anniversary of Women’s March, this gorgeously designed full-color book offers an unprecedented, front-row seat to one of the most galvanizing movements in American history, with exclusive interviews with Women’s March organizers, never-before-seen photographs, and essays by feminist activists.

On January 21, 2017, the day after Donald J. Trump’s inauguration, more than three million marchers of all ages and walks of life took to the streets as part of the largest protest in American history. In red states and blue states, in small towns and major urban centers, from Boise to Boston, Bangkok to Buenos Aires, people from eighty-two countries—on all seven continents—rose up in solidarity to voice a common message: Hear our voice.

It became the largest global protest in modern history.

Compiled by Women’s March organizers, in partnership with Condé Nast and Glamour magazine Editor in Chief Cindi Leive, Together We Rise—published for the one-year anniversary of the event—is the complete chronicle of this remarkable uprising. For the first time, Women’s March organizers—including Bob Bland, Cassady Fendlay, Sarah Sophie Flicker, Janaye Ingram, Tamika Mallory, Paola Mendoza, Carmen Perez, and Linda Sarsour —tell their personal stories and reflect on their collective journey in an oral history written by Jamia Wilson, writer, activist and director of The Feminist Press. They provide an inside look at how the idea for the event originated, how it was organized, how it became a global movement that surpassed their wildest expectations, and how they are sustaining and building on the widespread outrage, passion, and determination that sparked it.

Together We Rise interweaves their stories with “Voices from the March”—recollections from real women who were there, across the world—plus exclusive images by top photographers, and 22 short, thought-provoking essays by esteemed writers, celebrities and artists including Rowan Blanchard, Senator Tammy Duckworth, America Ferrera, Roxane Gay, Ilana Glazer, Ashley Judd, Valarie Kaur, David Remnick, Yara Shahidi, Jill Soloway, Jia Tolentino, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, and Elaine Welteroth. An inspirational call to action that reminds us that together, ordinary people can make a difference, Together We Rise is an unprecedented look at a day that made history—and the beginning of a resistance movement to reclaim our future.

Women’s March will share proceeds from Together We Rise with three grassroots, women-led organizations: The Gathering for Justice, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, and Indigenous Women Rise.