What did Solomon know about motherhood anyways?

There is a famous story in the Hebrew Bible about how Solomon adjudicated a dispute between two women both claiming rights to a child. The story is intended to show how wise Solomon was.

1 Kings 3:16-28 (New International Version, ©2010)

A Wise Ruling

16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. 17 One of them said, “Pardon me, my lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. 18 The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.
19 “During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. 20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. 21 The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”

22 The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”

But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.

23 The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”

24 Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”

26 The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”

But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”

27 Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”

28 When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.

This story, and the interpretation of it, drives me nuts. It feels very unfair and imposes a very narrow view of how a mother should be have. It emphasized the self-sacrificing aspect of motherhood and makes this an expectation of all "good" mothers. Why is it not possible for a "real" mother to prefer that her child die than go to some one else? Someone who might not be a good mother, such as a child abuser or drug addict? At the same time, I would be very sympathetic to a mother who has been looking after a demanding, colicky baby and has become completely fed up with the situation. Long term sleep deprivation (I'm talking months here, not days or weeks) is a nasty thing. I could see King Solomon's offer to divide the child in half being the last straw-- "You want him? Fine. Take him."

It would be more productive for all concerned to think of "mother" as a verb, and not just a noun. Mother, the noun, is like a job title. It’s static. Once you give birth, adopt, foster, or marry into a child, you are given this label. It does not say anything about how, or even if, you fulfill any of the duties of the position.

Mother, the verb, is an action that needs to be performed over and over. It’s a process that needs to be sustained on a daily basis. You do this by caring for and nurturing someone, by paying close attention to their emotional, physical, spiritual, and intellectual needs.
Some of us have a mother (the noun), who isn’t very good at mothering (the verb). Maybe they were too young or immature when they had us. Perhaps they may were struggling with their own demons of mental illness or addiction. Or they were in need of a mother themselves. For people like us, Mother’s Day can be awkward and bittersweet.

Some of us have people in our lives who are good at mothering, but aren’t necessarily mothers (the noun). We may have had a relative, teacher, or neighbor who looked after us when we needed it. Men can mother too. The stay-at-home dad in my family is proof of that.

So, what did Solomon know about motherhood anyways? Did he give birth to a child? Was he responsible for the care and feeding of a child on a daily basis? How many nights has King Solomon stayed up walking the floors with a baby who won't stop crying? There is little historical evidence to answer these questions definitively. But it would be fair to answer in the negative. Raising children tended to be women's work and not in the job description for a royal prince. (To be fair, not necessarily work for a royal princess or queen, either.)

So did Solomon get it right? We don't know. But if Solomon were alive today and making judgments using the same categories, it's more than likely that he wouldn't have. It's not as easy to be wise, when you're not living in a narrative, people are not stereotypes, and categories are in flux.

Patriarchy is the enemy, not men or other women

There is a well-known phrase, "The personal is political." It is often used, but not well understood, and often not used correctly. It is often used to refer to the idea that personal issues become important in political campaigns. (Remember the "values voters" who helped to decided the 2004 presidential election?) The "political" in the phrase actually refers to power and the structures that perpetuate existing power relationships. The "personal" in the phrase refers to problems that women are encountering in their daily lives. Taken as a whole, the phrase is intended to say that women have problems that are personal, such as inequality in the workplace, finding good daycare, imbalances in household chores, and sexual violence, are actually caused by the political system. A blogger, Winter, from the Cardiff Feminist Network explains:

The theory that women are not to blame for their bad situations is crucial here because women have always been told that they are unhappy or faring badly in life because they are stupid, weak, mad, hysterical, having a period, pregnant, frigid, over-sexed, asking for it etc. The personal is political proposes that women are in bad situations because they experience gendered oppression and massive structural inequalities.

"The personal is political" came from an essay of the same name by Carol Hanisch, written in 1969. She was working (at subsistence wages) for the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) as a community organizer. She was using a technique called "consciousness raising," which involved a group of women discussing their personal problems, realizing that these were problems encountered by other women, and seeing the politics underlying their common problems. Consciousness raising was often perceived as "therapy" or worse, brainwashing women into militancy. Hanisch's essay was a memo back to SCEF defending the use of the technique. Later that year, the memo was published as part of an anthology of feminist writing and given the now-famous title.

There are other ideas in the essay that are not as well remembered, because they are more difficult to embrace. Hanisch also argues that feminism needs to be more tolerant and inclusive of multiple models of how to be women. She wrote:

One more thing: I think we must listen to what so-called apolitical women have to say—not so we can do a better job of organizing them but because together we are a mass movement. I think we who work full-time in the movement tend to become very narrow. What is happening now is that when non-movement women disagree with us, we assume it’s because they are “apolitical,” not because there might be something wrong with our thinking. Women have left the movement in droves. The obvious reasons are that we are tired of being sex slaves and doing shitwork for men whose hypocrisy is so blatant in their political stance of liberation for everybody (else). But there is really a lot more to it than that. I can’t quite articulate it yet. I think “apolitical” women are not in the movement for very good reasons, and as long as we say “you have to think like us and live like us to join the charmed circle,” we will fail. What I am trying to say is that there are things in the consciousness of “apolitical” women (I find them very political) that are as valid as any political consciousness we think we have. We should figure out why many women don’t want to do action. Maybe there is something wrong with the action or something wrong with why we are doing the action or maybe the analysis of why the action is necessary is not clear enough in our minds.

In other words, feminism should be about making space for women to make meaningful choices. Work or not work, have children or not, live collectively or individually, to get breast implants or not, have polygamous marriages or none at all. Feminism is about ensuring that everyone has equal rights as human beings, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. It does not, or should not, impose a certain view of what women should be, e.g. politically active, not wearing make up, bra-burning, and angry. Hanisch takes this view because there are bigger fish to fry: patriarchy.

The groups that I have been in have also not gotten into “alternative life-styles” or what it means to be a “liberated” woman. We came early to the conclusion that all alternatives are bad under present conditions. Whether we live with or without a man, communally or in couples or alone, are married or unmarried, live with other women, go for free love, celibacy or lesbianism, or any combination, there are only good and bad things about each bad situation. There is no “more liberated” way; there are only bad alternatives.

This is part of one of the most important theories we are beginning to articulate. We call it “the pro-woman line.” What it says basically is that women are really neat people. The bad things that are said about us as women are either myths (women are stupid), tactics women use to struggle individually (women are bitches), or are actually things that we want to carry into the new society and want men to share too (women are sensitive, emotional). Women as oppressed people act out of necessity (act dumb in the presence of men), not out of choice. Women have developed great shuffling techniques for their own survival (look pretty and giggle to get or keep a job or man) which should be used when necessary until such time as the power of unity can take its place. Women are smart not to struggle alone (as are blacks and workers). It is no worse to be in the home than in the rat race of the job world. They are both bad. Women, like blacks, workers, must stop blaming ourselves for our “failures.”

As defined by Wikipedia, "Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination." Patriarchy is the system that keeps us in our pre-defined roles, because there is no space, no accommodation for difference. To be clear, patriarchy hurts men just as much as it hurts women. There is a poster by Crimethinc., an anarchist art collective, that I love that is based on a poem by Nancy R. Smith, written around the same time as Hanisch's essay.

For every woman who is tired of acting weak when she knows she is strong, there is a man who is tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.

For every woman who is tired of acting dumb, there is a man who is burdened with the constant expectation of "knowing everything."

For every woman who is tired of being called "an emotional female," there is a man who is denied the right to weep and to be gentle.

For every woman who is called unfeminine when she competes, there is a man for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity.

For every woman who is tired of being a sex object, there is a man who must worry about his potency.

For every woman who feels "tied down" by her children, there is a man who is denied the full pleasures of shared parenthood.

For every woman who is denied meaningful employment or equal pay, there is a man who must bear full financial responsibility for another human being.

For every woman who was not taught the intricacies of an automobile, there is a man who was not taught the satisfactions of cooking.

For every woman who takes a step toward her own liberation, there is a man who finds the way to freedom has been made a little easier.

By Nancy R. Smith, copyright 1973

Patriarchy hurts us because it reduces our potential as human beings to live fulfilling lives. Feminism is about changing this social system. But it is of no use to anyone to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, that is, a social system where women are the primary authority figures and men don't have power. Really, patriarchy needs to be replaced with equality. So it's the system that needs to be defeated. (Recall the dialog from Scene 3 of Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Dennis the peasant seeks to reject Arthur as his king. Although farcical, Dennis' view is a feminist one.) To sum up, the only way to not be a good feminist is by maintaining status quo social roles or imposing new ones that limit self-determination. This is not done by defining what "real" feminism looks like and staking out territory, but by finding allies and making changes that benefit men and women equally.

Sharing the Joy

About a week ago, the media started cover a patent filed by Amazon. It's a system that allows recipients to exchange gifts before the item is shipped from Amazon. This is genius. It saves on shipping and returns, and fewer white elephants sitting in people's homes. The user can even set up rules for how to "convert" incoming gifts and restrictions on how recipients convert their gifts. (No more books on investment for Uncle Bob!)

Of course, there are the usual reactions of horror that this feature violates the norms of gift-giving. Etiquette expert Anna Post was quoted in The Washington Post, saying:

"This idea totally misses the spirit of gift giving," Post said. "The point of gift giving is to allow someone else to go through that action of buying something for us. Otherwise, giving a gift just becomes another one of the world's transactions."

It seems to me that both the existence of this feature and Post's reaction indicates a problem with gift giving in the current material age. We have become so affluent that gift giving is done much more freely. When times were leaner, such as during the Depression, a gift, no matter how small, meant that someone cared and gave a lot of thought to the act. Spending money on someone was a big deal. These days, people seem to feel like they have to give a gift. If you're going to give something to one aunt, you have to give something to all the aunts. In these kinds of situations, people are far more likely to give a gift that misses the mark. In my husband's orderly WASP family, people make lists and gifts often go back to the store. In my unruly Chinese family, gifts are usually items that were purchased on sale without any thought to the recipient and shameless re-gifting occurs.

I have an idea that might be a solution to Ms. Post's concerns and a good application of the Amazon conversion feature. What if you could give the gift to someone who really wanted or needed it? What if we could combine the conversion feature with a web site like Donors Choose or CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocates for children holiday gift program. With these programs, the recipient makes a wish list or selects a single item. If someone is given that gift and doesn't want it, they have the option for sending it to another person who has wished for it.

Something like this happened on thebloggess's blog this Christmas. She offered $30 gift cards to the first 20 people who were having difficulty coming up with presents for their children. When more than 20 people needed help, her readers came forward with donations for gift cards. Other bloggers gave her a shout out and things snowballed from there. The following was her second-last update to the project, which appeared on Christmas Day.

As of right now (noon Saturday) I have emailed hundreds of donors and over 500 gift cards are scheduled to go out to people who need help. If everything goes as planned (Please, God, let it go as planned) everyone who has asked for help as of this moment will get at least one gift card and many will get several. Some got cash for medicine. Some got money so they could keep the electricity on and buy food for Christmas dinner. Some only asked for help in buying presents for their brothers or sisters so their moms wouldn’t be so worried. Some received help and then got more help than they needed and decided to turn around and become a donor themselves. I wish I could tell you what this has meant to me, but there aren’t words for it. The emails and comments coming in from people who got a Christmas miracle are incredible, but the ones from people so thankful to be able to help are even more moving. Right now we still have a few more donors available and another 20 are standing by in case someone who asked for a donation hasn’t heard anything from their donor by Monday.

That’s one hell of a Christmas miracle, y’all.

(In her final update, she wrote that over 600 gift cards went out and her hands were about to fall off. I can imagine. Good cause, though.)

In the text that I bolded, the recipients kept up the spirit of giving. This is the kind of gift-giving that is hard to find fault with. The whole project has a spirit of gift giving that means something that goes beyond stodgy rules of etiquette. Giving a gift that is more than an fulfilling an obligation and makes a real difference to the recipient is much more satisfying.

I also think charitable part of our obligation as human beings. The Christian church advocates tithing, i.e. giving 10% of one's income to the church. Few people do this, but among the evangelicals there are debates over whether it's meant to be net or gross income. (Render unto God, before or after rendering unto Caesar.) Muslims are encouraged to donate 3% of their income to charity, any charity, not just the mosque. This is a rule of thumb that I have been following for some years and it's been a pleasure to share the joy as my income has grown. This year, I supported Irvine United Congregational Church, the Houston SPCA (Charles Jantzen is my hero), Story Corps, This American Life, NPR, Bonita Canyon School, World Vision, Plan Canada, and the Hamlin Fistula Foundation.

December 9, 1906 and December 6, 1989

This year, December 5-11 was declared Computer Science Education Week by the US House of Representatives, with leadership from Congressman Vernon Ehlers and Congressman Jared Polis. The goal of CSEdWeek was to raise awareness of the importance of computer science for every student at all levels. Some understanding of how computers work is absolutely essential for everyone as more and more of our lives move onto the screen and the web.

The week was chosen to coincide with the late Admiral Grace Hopper's birthday. She was born on December 9, 1906-- the first date in the title of this post. She received a PhD in mathematics from Yale University at the age of 28 and six years later she had reached the level of Associate Professor at Vassar College. She took a leave of absence from this position to enlist in the Navy to help with the war effort. Hopper served on the Mark I computer programming staff and was a pioneer in programming and the design of high level languages. She passed away on January 1, 1992. Hopper was a tiny woman-- she needed an exemption when she enlisted because she was only 105 lbs, 15 less than the minimum. But she was an inspiration to us all, through her colorful anecdotes, and lively and irreverent speaking style. The Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing is conference to bring together women in computing from undergraduates and onwards, from industry, academia, and government.

I have attended two of this and they were amazing experiences. The first time that I went, I brought my 4-year-old daughter with me. My intention was to be a role model and to mentor other women. Boy, was I wrong. I received far more mentoring and inspiration that I expected, and provided very little myself. I was reminded that despite the strength of my own beliefs, it is still important to go to the temple and be with other believers. It feels so different to be in a conference room with 1800 women and the occasional man. It feels like I belong, and I say this with no lack of confidence in my abilities or comfort level at other conferences. It makes me dream about what it would be like create other places in the world where I, and other women, felt this way.

CSEdWeek also coincides with the 11th anniversary of the passing of Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz. On December 6, 1989-- the second date in the title, a man armed with a hunting knife and a rifle went to École Polytechnique in Montreal, Quebec with the self-stated intention to fight feminism. CBC Radio 1 had a tradition for many years of not naming the perpetrator to emphasize the innocent victims, and I follow that here. The killer went into classrooms and offices, and specifically targeted women. In one classroom, he sent the men out, before lining up the women and turning his gun on them. All told, he killed fourteen women and injured ten other women and four men, before committing suicide.

This occurred during my last year of high school, so I came of age as woman in the shadow of the Montreal Massacre. I, like the rest of the country, struggled to make sense of it. Was it a symptom of general misogynist tendencies perpetuated by society? Or was the killer just a crazy person?

By the time I entered university, there were annual candlelight vigils commemorating the event and December 6 was designated National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. While there was no denying the tragedy of the event, I benefited from discourse surrounding it. There was much greater awareness, sympathy, and understanding of rape, date rape, and domestic violence afterward. Still, this took many years. In the early months and years, it was hard to find a narrative for the event that allowed us to live with ourselves and to look to the future with optimism.

One claim that I heard, liked, and repeated myself was that the gunman was a nut and that his act was the equivalent of someone going into a classroom, lining up, and shooting all the red heads. I wasn't very enlightened at the time, but this explanation felt right to me. The guy was a nut. Even if there were misogynist messages everywhere, you don't see everyone running around shooting women. (Well, they do, but I did say that I didn't yet have my consciousness raised.)

But over the years, I have come to realize that my choice of analogy was more apt than I realized. I chose "red hair" as the category, because it seemed silly to categorize people based solely on hair color. Yet, little did I know that there is a strong bias against redheads, or gingers as the British call them. Jokes are told about them, red-headed children are teased and bullied, and even surgeons fear doing operations on them.

Red hair is just a physical trait, but it's also one that significantly influences life course and has some associated genetic characteristics. It seems to me that sex is similar. As a woman, my physical equipment is different from a man's, and this affects my life course and makes me more susceptible to some disorders. But at the same time, these are just physical characteristics and not determinants of my humanity, ability to feel emotional hurt, or entitlement to equal rights as others who have different hair color or personal plumbing.

Grace Hopper's birthday and the Montréal Massacre anniversary are not just chronological coincidences; I think they are both part of a larger narrative about women in technology. Women still have to seize their own space and demand that there be a place for them in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But at the same time, the status quo needs to make room for them. This goes deeper than numbers and percentages, but also looking at curriculum (why programming first and not design or user studies?), decorum in meetings (unruly), a de facto dress code (jeans and t-shirts), obligatory passage points, and the kinds of skills and contributions that get counted.

The ground was broken for me by other women, including Grace Hopper, Ada Lovelace, Jean Bartik, Marlyn Meltzer, Kay Mauchly Antonelli, Betty Holberton, and Fran Allen. I feel very lucky to have them as my fore-mothers. But I am looking forward to the day when unexceptional women feel that it's OK for them to go into computers too and when I can feel a strong sense of belonging not just at a Grace Hopper conference. Until then, I too will continue to break ground (not without cost!) as a woman in technology, a researcher, an author, a professor, and a mom.

Finding Yourself

I just finished watching "The Brave One", a film starring Jodie Foster. It was about a radio host in New York, living an idyllic life and loving fiance. The two of them are attacked by a group of three thugs; she is brutally beaten and he is killed. The movie is about her emotional recovery/metamorphosis. I shed a tear at the end.

There were things that I just loved. For example, the use of "The Answer" by Sarah McLaughlin to bookend the emotional transformation in the movie. I adore this song; I had it on a repeating playlist while I was writing my thesis. Consequently, the use of it had a lot of emotional resonance for me. Terrence Howard was also terrific. I recently started seeing him on "Law and Order: Los Angeles", so it was nice to see him in other work. There are so few roles for black men, where they are believably intelligent and sensitive. Finally, Jodie Foster likes to do films on topics that are liminal, that explore the gray area between two categories, such as guilt and innocence.

The central theme of "The Brave One" is the question of how one recovers from a violent traumatic event. The answer that the film gives is: You don't. But you do go. You become a different person. A stranger. You find a way to live as that stranger.

This was especially poignant to me right now, because I'm trying to figure out what to do next in my career. I'm reading books like "What Color is Your Parachute?" and "Soul Mapping". The process is simultaneously awkward and exciting. It's awkward to be doing this at this age and stage of my life. But it's also exciting to discover myself and think about the possibilities.

The movie reminded me that finding yourself is not something that you do just once and then you're done with it. You do it multiple times over the life span. People change. Traumatic events or dramatic turning points can result in big changes. The passing of time can bring about small changes. The changes accumulate until it's a new person.

When my grandmother was in her 90s, she broke her hip. We subsequently moved her to a seniors' home. Visiting her was always startling, because the way that the residents spent their days was so different from how my peers spent their days. Rather than hustling and bustling, the seniors were mostly sitting. I had a hard time reconciling the grandmother that I knew as a dynamic entrepreneur with the woman in the wheelchair who ate too many wafer cookies. After some hard looking and soul searching, I concluded that these people were in a different phase of their lives, a phase that was a valid part of the lifecycle. To assume that they were unhappy would be projecting myself in their place, rather than understanding the place that they were in. My grandmother didn't do much, but she was probably go with that, after a lifetime of doing. Whereas I was at the other end of the life span and all full of burning desire to do. Although we didn't talk about it, I think she liked the nursing home. She liked the regularity and routine. My parents would bring her to their house on the weekends and she was always eager to return to the seniors' residence. She was in a different place in her life and she had a new self.

We are always changing. After a certain amount of change, one is a new person. The new person can be more or less strange. With more strangeness comes a greater disconnect and a need to find yourself. Of course, one can always not find oneself and be in blissful ignorance, but I prefer the life considered.

If you make a jest that you have to follow with "just kidding," you probably shouldn't make it

A couple of weeks ago I attended WCRE at Endicott College in Beverly, MA. It was a great location for a conference. There was a hotel adjacent to the meeting rooms, which was connected to the dining hall. There was a beach a short walk behind the dining hall.

Although women were still a minority of attendees, they had a strong showing. The first six presenters at the conference were women. The first man to present was a keynote speaker. Then, he was followed by another woman speaker. The best paper award was presented to a woman first author. The award for most influential paper from ten years ago also went to a woman first author.

Consequently, the issue of gender came up more often than usual in social conversations. One male colleague thought there were an equal number of women and men in the field. (A simple count of the people in the room proved this to be false.) Another joked that we should change the "W" in WCRE to Women. (I'd love to, but if we did, would men still submit papers?)

I have great affection for my male colleagues. They are great researchers and they have never made me feel incompetent or question my ability to participate in the community. But sometimes they have the social sensitivity of a coconut. More than once, one of them would say something in jest, that they knew to be "politically incorrect." I could tell that they knew this because the comment was stage whispered, or they said "just kidding" or equivalent, or put on a mock innocent expression on their face, or some combination of these three.

Here are three examples of conversations that I had.

1. I was in a conversation with two other women and a man. We were comparing the organizational skills of male and female students. In my experience, women students were more organized than men. One of the other women mentioned that her supervisor was impressed because she knew when were all the conference deadlines. I said that the only students who have shown up to a weekly meeting with me without a pen or paper to take notes were men. Our male colleague tried to joke that this was because men have better memories, and put on a mock innocent face. None of the women in the conversation found this funny.

2. At dinner one night, I used a purse hanger to keep my handbag out of the way and off the floor. The women in the group got into a conversation about the purse hanger and handbags. One woman said that she never got in the habit of carrying a handbag because it felt awkward. One of the men in our group asked, what kind of woman doesn't carry a purse? I told him that I didn't think this was an appropriate comment, to make generalizations about real women carrying purses. He responded strongly with a typical computer science reaction. He accused me of making a generalization when one didn't exist. He re-stated the question: what kind of woman doesn't carry a purse? a woman who doesn't carry a purse. Although logically correct, this way of speaking violates many social norms. It is much like a child saying outrageous, like asking for candy for dinner, and then saying that he is kidding when he gets in trouble.

3. I have a number of dietary restrictions- no gluten, dairy, caffeine. I also try to stay away from beef and I have not had alcohol in years. This topic always comes up at meal times with acquaintances, which happens frequently at conferences. I got into a conversation with a male colleague, who was a real food connoisseur and he was flabbergasted by the list. He lived for food and couldn't imagine living without cheese or wine. He asked if these sensitivities were psychosomatic. Despite my irritation at the suggestion that my problems were in my head, I assured him that they were not. He then leaned in and whispered, if still enjoyed sex. I answered that I didn't and the conversation ended.

Guys, if you have to tell me that a joke is funny, then it isn't. In general, don't tell these jokes. These actions are condescending and manipulative. You're saying something that is on the edge of acceptable and then telling me that I shouldn't be offended. I can either go along with it being funny (when it's not) or I can have a confrontation with you. If I choose the latter, I isolate myself socially and I develop a reputation for being too sensitive, a bitch, or -heavens for fend- a feminist.

Don't make jokes of this kind, it's not good for you. I have been part of the program comprehension community for over ten years. Like all women in a male-majority field, I have a thick skin. When I tell you that you have stepped over a line, I don't do it because I am mad at you or my feelings are hurt. I do it for the women who follow me in the field. If I didn't care about you and the field of research, I wouldn't bother telling you and let you continue to look like an idiot and drive away women.

Finally, here is an example of a story that was on the edge of good taste and mentioned sex, but I did find it funny. I include this to illustrate my complaint is not so much about the topic of a jest, but rather at whom the jest is directed and how.

A male colleague was talking about getting on in years and the aches and pains in his body. He was reluctant to bring up this story at first, so he warned that it was politically incorrect-- he liked to go skeet shooting. On one occasion an older man joined him for a few rounds. Afterward, they were having refreshments. The older man asked my colleague to guess how old he was. My colleague guessed 70-something. The man was actually over 90 and astonishingly well preserved. The man had two complaints about old age. One, he needed to take more breaks between rounds of skeet shooting, and two, he was less interested in women than he used to be. (My colleague apologized again for the political incorrectness of the story.) My colleague said that if that was all he had to complain about at 90, he would take it.

Gluten-free pizza in Boston area

I was in the Boston area last week and as always when I travel, I look for gluten-free pizza. The Chowhound board suggested a number of places. I ended up going to Nebo and Zing Pizza.

The two are similar in that they both offer creative pizza combinations and gluten-free pies. Beyond this, there are few other similarities. Nebo is fine dining. Zing's is a neighborhood pizza joint. IMHO, both have a place in the world.

Nebo is a "white tablecloth" restaurant in the North End, within a short walk of Faneuil Hall/Quincy Market. The had an entire GF menu and were attentive to dietary restrictions. They had a small, but quality wine list. They had a bar and maybe 30 tables. It was hard to tell, because we were seated at the front. My companions and I had a variety of pizzas. (They were probably persuaded by me repeatedly talking about pizza on the way over.) I had the "venenzia," which had chopped clams, bacon, corn, parsley, garlic, evoo, mozzarella. (Evoo, by the way, is first-press extra virgin olive oil.) Since I can't have dairy, I asked them to leave off the cheese. It cost $17 + $4 for the GF crust. It was a personal size pizza (about 8" diameter, I think), thin crust style.

Without the cheese, my pizza was pretty dry. I pilfered some tomato sauce from a friend who was having the cioppino and that improved things significantly. The combination of toppings was tasty, but without cheese to hold them on, they kept falling off. Another companion found her (gluten-full) crust to be dry as well. One person couldn't finish her pizza, because it was too sweet. She had the one with parma ham and figs. She felt that the flavors needed to be better balanced. Finally, we had some trouble flagging down the wait staff. But when they did show up, they were very nice.

Zing Pizza in Porter Square is more of a take out restaurant with a few tables and counter seating for eat-in customers. (If you need a restroom, you have to go across the street to another plaza.) They are a block away from the Porter Square metro stop and easy to find. I had the "Dracula's Dilemma," which had garlic, mozzarella, cherry tomatoes, pomegranate molasses, and cilantro. They only sell gluten-free by the pie in one size. I asked them to hold the cheese and was told that this pizza wouldn't taste good without cheese because it only had a garlic sauce. The man behind the counter who did everything recommended a "Blue October" or to add tomato sauce. I opted for the latter. I got this large pizza in their signature oblong shape and it cost $17.50 + $3 for the GF crust. They make the GF pizza in the back on a different counter than their regular pizza.

I had to wait 30 minutes, but I brought reading material. There were lots of people coming to pick up their pizzas in that time, many of them GF. It was definitely worth the wait. The crust was moist and tasty, and the flavors were great. This was among the best GF pizza that I have had anywhere. I gorged myself on four slices and brought the remaining four back to my hotel room for breakfast the next day.

The man behind the counter frequently asked if everything was OK. He made a point of telling me that they were trying to source some vegan cheese and that Wednesday nights were GF slice nights.

Zing by far and away was the better experience. For a high end restaurant, I would have expected someone at Nebo to say that maybe the "venezia" might not be good without cheese, as they did at Zing. Also, I got twice as much pizza for about the same price at Zing. Also, there was no mandatory gratuity for a group of 6 or more and they didn't sell us bottles of still water as a default.

If Nebo were the only GF pizza in town, I would go again. The place is nice enough that I could work with them to get things right. It's also a nice place to go "out" with friends, who are not gluten sensitive.

But given a choice of Zing or Nebo, I would take the red line up to Porter Square. If you are in downtown Boston, I suggest that you check their web site for the latest choices and place an order over the phone. Then, take the red line into Cambridge and the pie will be ready when you get there.