Paris, World War 2, and Women’s History

By David Michael Newstead.

Anne Sebba’s latest work Les Parisiennes is a look at the lives of ordinary women in Paris during the turbulent events of the 1940s. She writes, “Before 1939 women in French society were often politically invisible, without a vote and needing permission from husbands or fathers to work or own property. Yet women were actively using weapons in the resistance, hosting evaders on the run, delivering false identity papers, at the same time as they were performing all the old familiar tasks of cooking, shopping, and caring for their homes.” Beyond heroics though, Sebba also explores the moral ambiguity of these women’s lives under occupation and the struggles of day-to-day existence. Recently, Anne Sebba joined me to talk about her new book and this unique chapter in women’s history.

David Newstead: First, very interesting read. I think I’m kind of a history buff, but there were different things I had no clue about that I learned from your book. For example, I didn’t know that the guillotine was still in use in France in the 1940s and you discussed the abortion doctor who was guillotined.

Anne Sebba: It’s just part of the bigger picture of the situation of women in pre-war France and arguably much of it hasn’t changed. But I shall confine my remarks to the period I’m writing about.

David Newstead: To that point, another thing I guess I never realized was that French women didn’t get the right to vote until 1945. I don’t know how I missed that fact earlier in life, but that was pretty surprising to me.

Anne Sebba: Well, you’re not alone. It’s the single biggest thing that people say to me. How extraordinary! And yet women carried on a role that was far greater than that which society allowed them. In fact, you say 1945 – that was municipal elections. I would argue it wasn’t until 1946, because that’s when they had national elections. You know, we sort of ignore these things. If you like, one of the most ridiculous things was that women couldn’t wear trousers.

David Newstead: Like legally?

Anne Sebba: Yes, legally in Paris. There was a law against women wearing trousers, which was only formally rebuked about three or four years ago. That’s why you had Lucien Lelong having competitions like Day of Elegance on Bicycles. I mean partly, because he was trying to give the couture houses work. But it was partly, because how the hell do women ride these bicycle in a skirt? Well, of course, they ignored the law and they were divided skirts or culottes or whatever it was. But formally, that was the law.

And I interviewed women whose husbands were taken as prisoners of war and they had a real problem having access to money, because they couldn’t have a bank account in their own name. I mean that wasn’t only in France. I think that’s been the case in a lot of countries. But women just were restricted to what their fathers or husbands allowed them to do. It was a very patriarchal country and as I said some would say it still is.

David Newstead: You got to meet some of these women. And I’m curious what that experience was like? What were they like?

Anne Sebba: I met a variety. It’ll probably all tumble out. One of the women who actually has had the strongest effect on me is still alive in her mid-to-late 90s. She must be about 96 now. She forbade me from using her name, because she said “Oh, I haven’t done anything. I don’t want my friends to think I’m trying to make my contribution bigger than it was. So, I’ll be here for you as background, but you’re not to put my name in the book.” So, her name doesn’t appear. But in the course of visiting her, which I did quite a lot, she was moving house. And as she was moving house, her daughter came over to help her and they found three things that were of interest to me. One of them was a Red Cross uniform. And her daughter said to her, “I never knew you had been a nurse.” And she said, “Oh well… I trained with the Red Cross, but I really did nothing.” Well, it turned out that one of the things she did was go to the Vélodrome d’Hiver on July 16, 1942 and dole out soup to the 14,000 Jews who were taken there. And because all she could do was dole out soup and she couldn’t actually help them, she’d blocked this out of her memory and never wanted to talk about it because she felt she’d done so little.

Another thing we found was a box of political leaflets that she cycled around Paris delivering. They were resistance pamphlets that her Catholic Jesuit priests had encouraged her to deliver. And that was quite dangerous, because you had to know that you were delivering it to the right house. If you got the wrong house and they traced you, they would haul you in and torture you until you gave away the name of the printing press. So you know, she said “Oh, it was a little thing…” And it was a little thing, but one of the points of my book is that cumulatively these little things add up.

And the third thing that we found when my friend moved was a letter from the 1960s from a downed Canadian pilot thanking her for taking him in for a couple of nights and then moving with him to another safe house until they could get him out of Paris and to an escape line. And he did get back to North America. So, I have proof that she did three very positive, practical things. But because she wasn’t part of a formal resistance network, she considers that she’d done nothing and I didn’t mention her name in the book. And she’s sort of emblematic of many of these women who did small things. I guess when I started this book, I would say the general attitude in England of what French women did was “Oh, they had an easy war. They all slept with the Germans. They collaborated. They weren’t bombed. Paris was an open city. They’ve got no idea.”

So, my starting point was actually thinking maybe being occupied does have its own dangers and what would I have done? What choice did they have? I met a woman who is still alive. She’s 95. Her name is Madeleine Riffaud. She was only 19 in 1944, but she actually shot a German. And she paid a heavy price for it, not just because she was arrested and freed. But she’s never really I would say gotten over that trauma of killing somebody deliberately in cold blood. But she felt that she had to do it to prove that women could wield weapons and that they were brave. That they didn’t lack courage. She began a war reporter afterwards and has worked in Southeast Asia.

You know, there is such a variety of women that I met. Obviously, most of them were teenagers or children during the war or they wouldn’t still be alive, but I’ve met the children of others. And there is just a huge range of how you decided to respond: whether you were going to join a resistance group and abandon your family and go live somewhere clandestinely. Or if you would just walk out of a restaurants where Germans were. Or if actually you would just keep your head down and try to do nothing. Or if you would collaborate and get black market food, because your kids needed to eat. I mean it’s just an umbrella spectrum of different responses.

David Newstead: You talk about this in the book, but a lot of these stories have been omitted or glossed over in history. Why do you think that is? And do you think that’s changing?

Anne Sebba: I certainly think it’s changing, the way that women are being respected. You only have to see that in 2015 that President Hollande decided it was time to rebury two female resistance fighters in the Pantheon. And then, President Macron has announced that Simone Veil will also be buried in the Pantheon. Up until 2015, there was only one woman buried there in her own right: Mary Curie. And there will be five now. So, you know, certainly changing. Why haven’t they talked about their roles? There are so many reasons. I think that’s really what my whole book is about: if women wanted after the war to get married, to have children, to have normalcy, to protect their children from all this ghastliness. So they often didn’t talk about it to their children, but they may have talked about it to their grandchildren. The belief that they survived in such horror that they wanted to forget about it.

I also think that the popular attitude has been “Oh, the women collaborated.” Now, why has that been the case? Well, Paris became a sort of feminized city, because nearly two million men were taken as prisoners of war and other young men of fighting age left to join De Gaulle. Paris was emptied of young men other than those they were fighting. So correct to say, it was the women who had to respond to the Germans. And by and large, many of them decided actually cooperation (which is a word I prefer to collaboration) was the best way. And many of the women cooperated by singing, acting, dancing. They were the performers. You could argue that by performing they had supported the German idea that Paris could be run by the Germans, that the German were benign occupiers, and that everything was fine. Unless you were somebody who refused to perform, most women who performed were supporting the occupation. You know, why is it worst to perform than it is to sell vegetables or be a hairdresser? Those people weren’t charged after the war. But I think the female performers were easy prey. So that’s another reason: many of these women were quite famous.

The other reason why this image has dominated that women collaborated is because when the men came back, many of them settled old scores or they had revenge attacks on the women and cut their hair: these famous pictures of shaven women parading through villages. But often, either the women had been engaging in genuine romantic attachments or perhaps they desperately needed bread for their children or perhaps they decided life is better when you’re friendly with a German and they’re quite attractive. And many of them did have affairs, but it should be remembered that some of the men in Germany also had affairs with German women. But after the war, that wasn’t talked about. The men came back to France and forgot about it. But that’s certainly been a dominating image, because these pictures were so shocking.

After the war, De Gaulle decided quite sensibly that what France needed was not to indulge in a period of recrimination. What France needed was to recover, to build the economy, and therefore many of those who had collaborated in an economic sense were overlooked. And bureaucrats were needed and so they were overlooked, forgiven, pardoned, or not even charged. And that’s why it’s really taken a long time to talk about this very, very sensitive area. When I said to people sometimes, “Oh gosh, I wish I were French. This would be so much easier to write.” They said to me, “You’re wrong there. If you were French, you wouldn’t have been allowed to do it, because people you interviewed would have asked what your parent did during the war.” Whereas because I’m English, they weren’t questioning me in quite the same way.

David Newstead: Until reading your book, I kind of thought about it in polar extremes. I had two pictures in my mind: a woman who was a collaborator and then a woman who was a romanticized resistance heroine. And literally, I don’t think I had considered much of anything in-between. So, the idea that someone had to feed their kids during the war or things like that… I don’t know if I really thought about it like that.

Anne Sebba: I think you’re absolutely right. That’s what most people say to me. And I tried to get away from those extremes although they’re part of the book. And look at the great muddle and mess of humanity in the middle, because that’s really where most of us are. That’s why this word “collaborating” although of course some people did, most people just tried to survive.

David Newstead: So, writing a book is a very large undertaking. And I’m curious what first inspired this project and set you on this course to telling this story?

Anne Sebba: I started really at Reuters as a foreign correspondent. And I was the first woman that Reuters took on as a graduate trainee. Even then, I was the first woman that Reuters sacked when I got pregnant. In those days, you could do that. Forty years ago. And so, I’ve been writing books ever since, which I think I’ve been very blessed and very fortunate. I’m still a journalist, because I love being a journalist too. The long term project – the book – I studied French history at university. And when I was first introduced to a publisher at a party, I thought I’ve got to sign a book contract, I don’t want to be unemployed for the rest of my life. This was immediately after Reuters sacked me. And I said I’d love to write about Leon Blum, the French socialist Prime Minister, because he was a hero of mine and I’d studied him at university. And the publisher looked me and said, “I don’t think we’d sell more than two books. You better come up with another idea.” So, you know it’s taken me forty years to get back to writing about Leon Blum. Incidentally, he ties in to what you asked me right at the beginning. He was trying very hard to get women the right to vote, but his Popular Front half-Communist government didn’t survive and when he was thrown out the project was forgotten. But he was the first Prime Minister who really tried to organize the right of French women to vote.

So, I have very genuinely always been very interested in French history. My father fought in France during the war. He drove a tank on D-Day into Normandy and that’s where we took our holidays. It goes deep. But my immediate prod to writing this book was because the previous was a biography of Wallis Simpson and I discovered how much jewelry her husband bought her including ordering her jewels for her birthday on June 19, 1940 when the Germans were knocking at the door of Paris. So, what did her husband think was the most important thing? To go off to Cartier. And that was really something that stuck with me. How can jewelry flourish in wartime? You know in England and America, women during war feel if their men are at the front it’s only right that they should dress down and not look attractive. But French women were different. They thought we must wear lipstick, we must wear wonderful clothes because our men would expect of us. So throughout the war, Cartier and all these shops continued to operate. Although most of the sales were to German officers or German soldiers, there were also French people buying and selling. So, I wanted to understand how that could be. And then I realized that the whole German project was to show the world that the Aryan race was quite capable of looking after the gem that was Paris. Hitler understood perfectly well that he needed to show the world that the Aryans were a cultured, civilized race and that was all part of it: jewelry, cinema, theatre, couture dresses. I learned myself as I went along. Of course, that’s what writing a book is all about, you don’t know before you start. And much of it was surprising even to me.

David Newstead: And to your point about fashion, one that I particularly liked was the purse that turned into a gas mask.

Anne Sebba: And of course, there was no gas attack.

David Newstead: But they were ready… they were ready.

Anne Sebba: Yes, they were ready with their very elegant cylindrical shaped gas mask holders in every color and fabric and all the rest of it. But you know, I didn’t want to write about fashion for the sake of writing a book about fashion. Fashion played a very real role in keeping 20,000 of these women in their workshops, many of whom were Eastern European refugees. And Lucien Lelong, by resisting the German demands to take the fashion industry to Berlin, kept them alive and kept their jobs, but he had to keep finding work for them. So, there was a very real reason for writing about fashion.

David Newstead: You’re right. It is Paris, after all.

Anne Sebba: Yeah, but it was also people’s lives. Exactly, it is Paris. And I do believe it’s different. I don’t think I know of any other city that gives its name as an adjective to the feminine part of its population.

David Newstead: How’s the book been received so far?

Anne Sebba: What can I say? It’s had lovely reviews. It’s sold well and I’ve won a little prize for it, which amazed me because it was given at the French embassy. I mean that is what amazed me. I didn’t think that the French would be remotely interested in what on Earth an English woman can have to say. It’s being translated as we speak. It’s appearing in a month in France. So, that’ll be the real test.

I think what I love doing is mixing oral history with archives and the written word. You have to have the archives and the documents, but I do think oral history plays a role. And one of these elderly women I’ve interviewed said to me a couple months after publication, “Oh Anne, we’re all calling you a declencheur.” Well, that’s a plumbing term for an unblocker. And I’m very happy if I’ve unblocked memories and people are now talking. It’s not too late. I just hope in France people will accept that even an English person can possibly have something to add.

David Newstead: Speaking of unblocking memories, tell me a little bit about your next project focused on Ethel Rosenberg and do you hope that will unblock some memories as well?

Anne Sebba: Well, it doesn’t come out of nowhere. I have always been interested in prison and women. My mother was a prison visitor actually and she used to go to the mother and baby weighing. And when I worked for PEN on the Writers in Prison Committee, I went to Turkey to visit a woman who was in prison. It’s something I’ve always struggled with: what would I have done? How would I have survived? The other thing that has prompted me to look at Ethel Rosenberg’s story is this question of being a mother and why does being a mother hold you to such a different standard? Part of that is what really intrigues me about Ethel Rosenberg’s story. Going and visiting one of Ethel’s friends in California recently, I said to her, “How do you explain that her children have survived and are such flourishing, fulfilled human beings?” And she said three things: one is that Ethel gave them such huge love in the early stages, two that they are super intelligent, and three as you’ll have guessed is the Meeropols. And those three things together is what explains the children’s survival as fulfilled adults and I just find that really, really interesting. But it was a fascinating and horrific period, this madness that overtook America. How can one not be interested in looking at that, especially now when a state becomes hysterical and kills human beings? It’s important to look at it and these people paid a heavy price. In 2021, it will be seventy years since Ethel faced trial. How did she find the strength to survive three years in prison? Where does it come from? I think it’s important that we look at it again.


Extras: Women, Technology, and Typewriters

Women, Technology, and Typewriters

David Michael Newstead.

It might sound too bizarre to put into words, but typewriters were once considered innovative. And interestingly, the story of typewriters ends up being a case study about women in technology. So to better understand issues we’re grappling with today like occupational segregation and the gender pay-gap, I thought I’d delve into this chapter of history.

Beginning in the 1880s, many women entered into the workforce for the first time through the newly created role of typist. Now as archaic as that sounds, this represented a big career opportunity compared to the limited jobs available to women at the time. Encouraged by the popular belief that women were better at typing because of their dexterity, more and more of them began working in offices of every variety where once upon a time there had been no women at all. Unfortunately, this is also where some of the worst aspects of office culture first appeared like sexual harassment and glass ceilings. And even the best opportunities for a woman sitting at a typewriter in those days only paid a third of what a man made.

Somethings didn’t change much in the ensuing years. Seven decades later, being a typist was still a remarkably common profession among women in the workforce. As one author in 1954 put it, “There are more women working at typing than at anything else; twice as many, for instance, as are selling in stores and shops and six times the number working on farms.” So for better or worse, women and typewriters share this strange historical connection.

Typewriters started to be mass produced during the Industrial Revolution. From about 1840 to 1880, an assortment of wildly different machines were created by numerous companies. Nietzsche had one. Mark Twain had one. But few of these devices were very profitable for their manufacturers. This ultimately changed when the Sholes and Glidden typewriter was released by Remington in 1874 after years of development. Newer models and plenty of competitors would follow in their footsteps, but this typewriter set the standard. Even today, your laptop’s keyboard is based on this device! Another interesting note though is that Remington is a major weapons manufacturer that needed to diversify its business after the end of the American Civil War. One of their ideas was to build typewriters.

The circuitous route from typewriters to today’s technology starts there. All the largest typewriter manufacturers would again revert to making weapons during the First and Second World Wars, including Underwood, Remington, and IBM. And it’s these lucrative government contracts that helped to establish the business connections linking military spending, office equipment, and eventually research and development. By the 1950s, for instance, Remington began developing pioneering computers like UNIVAC with notable advancements led by Navy computer scientist Grace Hopper. Meanwhile, IBM would go on to become the dominant force in technology for a generation and, by the 1970s, it gained 75 percent of the typewriter market. It’s from this point onward that the typewriter began to fade away and the computer started its ascent in our society.

This time period is noteworthy for another reason though. Just as technology had been evolving over the years, women’s professional options were beginning to change as well. So when early computer programming was relegated to the status of typing, most computer programmers were women. For example, Margaret Hamilton is famous for writing the code behind the Apollo space missions. In that era, men were more interested in hardware, while women focused on software. Bolstered by their expertise in mathematics and computer science, these women contributed to milestones like ENIAC, UNIVAC, and manned space flight.

But while working on typewriters had been gendered in one direction, computers and the culture that grew up around them soon became gendered in a radically different direction. Ads, stereotypes, and more just seemed to reinforce the idea that mainly men worked in technology. In particular, our image of a good computer programmer changed from a woman in a support role to an anti-social male genius. The difference was when this guy typed on a computer it was viewed as somehow more magical than all the typing that came before him. And as a super genius, he also expected to be paid more. By the 1980s then, the number of women entering into computer science began to drastically decline and has never recovered.

Somethings haven’t changed much in the ensuing years. The gender pay-gap persists. Sexual harassment certainly persists. And the problems facing women in the tech industry are now infamous. Overall, this reflects a consistent devaluing of women’s qualifications and contributions in the workplace. Yet as technology has become more central to our lives, the scope of these issues isn’t limited to debates on who should work in a specific industry. The problem becomes what biases and blind spots are built into tools we all use every day. Simply replacing old technology with shiny new devices won’t fix that, but changing outdated mindsets is a good place to start.

Previous Installment

Next Installment

When Everything Changed

By David Michael Newstead. 

When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present chronicles fifty years of social progress for women in the United States, measured across economics, politics, and American culture and is reinforced with personal stories from our recent past. In fact, it’s the personal stories that help connect us to those events, which may seem like ancient history for some people but are within the lifetimes of our parents and grandparents. A few excerpts stood out to me in particular and I share those below to illustrate the stark differences between the world of 1960 and the world of today.

  • In 1960 women accounted for 6 percent of American doctors, 3 percent of lawyers, and less than 1 percent of engineers. Although more than half a million women worked for the federal government, they made up 1.4 percent of the civil-service workers in the top four pay grades. Those who did break into the male-dominated professions were channeled into low-profile specialties related to their sex. Journalists were shuttled off to the women’s page, doctors to pediatric medicine, and lawyers to behind-the-scenes work such as real estate and insurance law.
  • Jo Freeman, who went to Berkeley in the early ‘60s, realized only later that while she had spent four years “in one of the largest institutions of higher education in the world – and one with a progressive reputation,” she had never once had a female professor. “I never even saw one. Worse yet, I didn’t notice.”
  • If all the working women were invisible, it was in part because of the jobs most of them were doing. They were office workers – receptionists or bookkeepers, often part-time. They stood behind cash registers in stores, cleaned offices or homes. If they were professionals, they held – with relatively few exceptions – low-paying positions that had long been defined as particularly suited to women, such as teacher, nurse, or librarian. The nation’s ability to direct most of its college-trained women into the single career of teaching was the foundation upon which the national public school system was built and a major reason American tax rates were kept low.
  • If a stewardess was still on the job after three years, one United executive said in 1963, “I’d know we were getting the wrong kind of girl. She’s not getting married.” Supervisors combed through wedding announcements looking for evidence of rule breaking. They discovered one stewardess was secretly married while the young woman was working with Georgia Panter on a cross-country flight. When the plane was making its stop in Denver, a supervisor met the flight. “He pulled that poor woman off,” Panter said, “and we never saw her again.”
  • Not long ago Linda McDaniel, a Kansas housewife, came across the deed to the house she and her husband had purchased when they were married in the 1960s. “It was made out to ‘John McDaniel and spouse.’ My name wasn’t even on it,” she said.
  • Men, in their capacity as breadwinners, were presumed to be the money managers on the home front as well as in business, and women were cut out of almost everything having to do with finances. Credit cards were issued in the husband’s name. Loans were granted based on the husband’s wage-earning ability, even if the wife had a job, under the theory that no matter what the woman said she planned to do, she would soon become pregnant and quit working. A rule of thumb that banks used when analyzing a couple’s ability to handle a mortgage or car loan was that the salary of the wife was irrelevant if she was 28 or under. Half of her income was taken into consideration if she was in her 30s. Her entire salary entered the calculations only if she had reached 40 or could prove she had been sterilized. Marjorie Wintjen, a 25-year-old Delaware woman, was told her husband’s vasectomy had no effect on the matter “because you can still get pregnant.” Even when a woman was living on her own and supporting herself, she had trouble convincing the financial establishment that she could be relied upon to pay her bills. The New York Times was still reporting horror stories in 1972, such as that of a suburban mother who was unable to rent an apartment until she got the lease cosigned by her husband – a patient in a mental hospital. A divorced woman, well-to-do and over forty, had to get her father to cosign her application for a new co-op. Divorced women had a particular problem getting credit, in part because of a widely held belief that a woman who could not keep her marriage together might not keep her money under control, either.
  • Many upscale bars refused to serve women, particularly if they were alone, under the theory that they must be prostitutes.

Other interesting topics covered in the book include the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, the Women’s Liberation movement, and the life of Jeannette Rankin. Likewise, the reader can observe changes overtime through the effects of Roe v. Wade, how divorce proceedings were conducted, and the growing education attainment as well as workforce participation by American women. Skip ahead to the present and women are 47 percent of the workforce, 55 percent of college students, and 15 percent of active-duty military personnel: all watershed developments from a historical standpoint. And while many of the excerpts above probably wouldn’t take place in 2017, it’s important not to downplay the challenges on the horizon. Today’s progress took decades. Confronting misogyny will take even longer. And the next fifty years of women’s history has yet to be written.

The March Reader

Rosie the Riveter: A History


By David Michael Newstead.

During the Second World War, the War Advertising Council wanted to mobilize American women and get them into the workplace. And while this ultimately contributed to social progress in the United States, the ad campaign was really motivated by necessity more than feelings of equality. At the time, millions of men were leaving to join the military and the jobs they once occupied had to be filled for the country to function and for America to meet the industrial demands of a major war. This meant groups that were normally excluded from and discriminated against in the workforce were now of vital importance. In 1941, for example, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802, which prohibited racial discrimination throughout the nation’s defense industries at a time when segregation was the norm in many parts of the U.S. And if racial bias was understood to be secondary to the war effort, it quickly became clear that entrenched sexism was an obstacle to victory as well. Because of that, the War Advertising Council launched the Women in War Jobs campaign in 1942 and the persona of Rosie the Riveter was born.

When I first sat down to do research on this, I discovered that there was no specific woman who was Rosie the Riveter. Instead, there were actually several women who were either the inspiration for or directly associated with the Rosie the Riveter campaign. Many of them have passed away, but below I attempt to provide an overview of their contributions to this unique chapter in history.

The earliest inspiration for Rosie the Riveter was Veronica Foster who was part of a 1941 Canadian campaign for Ronnie the Bren Gun Girl. Veronica worked at the John Inglis Plant where she helped manufacture machine guns and this idea would serve as a precursor to the more famous Rosie.

The American campaign was first popularized by a hit song in 1942 about a New York resident named Rosalind Walter, a riveter at the Corsair Plant where they built the classic Vought F4U Corsair fighter aircraft. Rosalind worked the night shift and went on to inspire Redd Evans and John Jacob Loeb to write the song Rosie the Riveter that year. Later, this song would be performed by various popular musicians of the time such as James Kern Kay Kyser as well as the Vagabond Boys. I include the lyrics below and personally I thought the version of it on YouTube was pretty catchy. Just to clarify, the Brrr throughout the song is a sound effect, mimicking what riveting sounds like.

All the day long whether rain or shine

She’s a part of the assembly line

She’s making history working for victory,

Rosie Brrr the riveter.

Keeps a sharp lookout for sabotage

Sitting up there on the fuselage

That little frail can do

More than a male can do,

Rosie Brrr the riveter

Rosie’s got a boyfriend Charlie,

Charlie, he’s a marine

Rosie, is protecting Charlie

Working overtime on the riveting machine.

When they gave her a production “E”

She was a proud as a girl could be,

There’s something true about

Red, white and blue about

Rosie, Brrr the riveter.

Then in 1942 and 1943, two American artists would produce the images that are the most familiar depictions of Rosie the Riveter to modern audiences. The key difference being that one of these pieces was immediately famous, while the other was not widely circulated at the time and only became well-known decades later.

The first was a drawing of Mary Doyle Keefe who lived in Vermont and was the original model for Norman Rockwell’s 1943 Saturday Evening Post cover of Rosie, itself based on Michelangelo’s Isaiah on the Sistine Chapel. Rockwell, who also lived in Vermont, was known for using random people as models for his iconic illustrations and like many other drawings, this is how his Rosie the Riveter came about. Mary posed for Rockwell on two occasions and was paid $10.

The second drawing was of Geraldine Hoff Doyle. This is the now famous We Can Do It poster created by J. Howard Miller, an artist contracted by the Westinghouse Electric Company in Michigan. Geraldine worked as a metal presser there and a photograph of her was used by the company to create an in-house poster to show its employees. At the time, very few copies of this were printed and it was only displayed for about two weeks. Almost no one saw this poster during the Second World War and it was forgotten about for years. But when it was rediscovered in the 1980s, We Can Do It became widely displayed in popular culture and in feminist marches originally due to copyright reasons. Those being, Norman Rockwell’s version is copyrighted and the We Can Do It version is not. Incidentally, this is the same reason that the ubiquitous Che Guevara image is mass produced on t-shirts and posters (It isn’t copyrighted). Because of that, the We Can Do It poster entered into our cultural consciousness almost on accident. Even Geraldine Hoff Doyle herself was completely unaware of her role in the poster’s creation until the early 1980s.

Other incarnations for Rosie the Riveter include Rosie Bonavitas of New York who was recognized in a commendation letter from President Roosevelt in 1943. She had set a productivity record as a riveter for a single six-hour shift, while helping to manufacture a Grumman TBF Avenger Torpedo Bomber. Then in 1944, Rose Will Monroe was working at the Willow Run Aircraft Factory in Michigan when she was recruited to play the part of Rosie the Riveter in several short films that encouraged people to buy war bonds.

These were the women who can most readily be called Rosie the Riveter. But in a sense, Rosie isn’t and never was just one person. In addition to those I’ve mentioned, there were twenty million other women, toiling away in factories and planting the seeds for social change. My grandmother was one of them. Your grandmother might have been one too. Their names and stories may have varied. And they might not have always fit into the narrative of a national advertising campaign, but their place in history is assured.