The most famous female labor activist of the nineteenth century, Mary Harris Jones—aka “Mother Jones”—was a self-proclaimed “hell-raiser” in the cause of economic justice. She was so strident that a US attorney once labeled her “the most dangerous woman in America.”
Born circa August 1, 1837 in County Cork, Ireland, Jones immigrated to Toronto, Canada, with her family at age five—prior to the potato famine with its waves of Irish immigrants.
She first worked as a teacher in a Michigan Catholic school, then as a seamstress in Chicago. She moved to Memphis for another teaching job, and in 1861 married George Jones, a member of the Iron Molders Union. They had four children in six years. In 1867, tragedy struck when her entire family died in a yellow fever epidemic; she dressed in black for the rest of her life.
Returning to Chicago, Jones resumed sewing but lost everything she owned in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. She found solace at Knights of Labor meetings, and in 1877, took up the cause of working people. Jones focused on the rising number of working poor during industrialization, especially as wages shrunk, hours increased, and workers had no insurance for unemployment, healthcare or old age.
Jones first displayed her oratorical and organizing abilities in Pittsburgh during the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. She took part in and led hundreds of strikes, including those that led to the Haymarket riot in Chicago in 1886. She paused briefly to publish The New Right in 1899 and a two-volume Letter of Love and Labor in 1900 and 1901. A beloved leader, the workers she organized nicknamed her “Mother Jones.”
Beginning in 1900, Jones focused on miners, organizing in the coal fields of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. For a few years, she was employed by the United Mine Workers, but left when the national leadership disavowed a wildcat strike in Colorado. After a decade in the West, Jones returned to West Virginia, where, after a violent strike in 1912-1913, she was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Public appeals on her behalf convinced the governor to commute her twenty-year sentence. Afterward she returned to Colorado and made a national crusade out of the tragic events during the Ludlow Massacre, even lobbying President Woodrow Wilson. Later, she participated in several industrial strikes on the East Coast between 1915 and 1919 and continued to organize miners well into her nineties.
Despite her radicalism, Jones did not support women’s suffrage, arguing that “you don’t need a vote to raise hell.” She pointed out that the women of Colorado had the vote and failed to use it to prevent the appalling conditions that led to labor violence. She also considered suffragists unwitting dupes of class warfare. Jones argued that suffragists were naïve women who unwittingly acted as duplicitous agents of class warfare.
Although Jones organized working class women, she held them in auxiliaries, maintaining that—except when the union called—a woman’s place was in the home. A reflection of her Catholic heritage, she believed that men should be paid well enough so that women could devote themselves to motherhood.
In 1925, she published her Autobiography of Mother Jones. She is buried in the Union Miners Cemetery in Mount Olive, Illinois.
"I'm not a humanitarian, I'm a hell-raiser."
Mother Jones
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:

All I know about attachment styles in relationships is that fearful avoidance people tends to pair up with anxious attachment people. Dunno why cause they both activate the worst tendencies of the other.
If this person isn't ready, then they aren't ready so what's the concern? Do you feel like you're being strung along? Or that this person just doesn't have it in them to reject you outright? You can't really do anything here, I don't think anyway, because from how you're describing this it's not even a relationship or a friendship turning into something more. It's just two people who had a spark and one of them is, apparently, not ready to actually have a romantic relationship even though the other one is. So don't sweat it. They'll be ready or not, don't hold up your own life waiting for them to make a decision cause depending on how it goes it could be years.
spoiler
It's unusual to form an attachment as intense as your describing from just a handful of meetings - not impossible! But if I were you I'd look up "limmerance" and see if any of it vibes with you.Just going with the flow sounds like a really solid plan though! I mean, ultimately you can't convince them to take a chance on a romantic relationship with you if they really aren't ready to take a chance on anybody. No article or book or conversation is gonna flip the switch in their brain to suddenly being open to dating, that's the kinda change they have to be ready to make when they're ready to make it. There's nothing wrong with telling them how you feel and saying you think they should give it a try, but there's no actionable thing for you to do besides that. Sometimes people have been so wounded they can never really be vulnerable again, and you can't fix that.
Give things a try but don't waste months, or God forbid years, waiting for them to be okay with dating you. Move on and try relationships with someone more open to actually having a relationship - eventually! Just going with the flow for now is good. Especially don't give up on other romantic connections if you end up being just friends.
I haven't yet delved into the literature about relationships and attachment styles but I am planning to read up before I break my volcel oath again. I've listened to a lot of podcast episodes with Esther Perel and she is great. I'd like to read her books. I also always see books by John Gottman recommended but I haven't checked him out yet
You are physically and emotionally attracted to each other so there is no problem there. Do your materialist conditions align? Do you want the same life style? Do you have compatible dreams for the future? Consciously communicating that you are physically practically and ideologically compatible makes a foundational starting place that emotional disturbance can't destroy. Emotions are by their nature mercurial and thus nothing should be built on them. "Love" is not the happy feeling you have when you are together that's oxytocin. Love is the commitment to working on the relationship that you have agreed on together. The shape that love takes is individual to each relationship.
By outlining the concrete materialist foundations of your partnership you can build the emotional on top of that. You may need to tear the structure down because it is unstable but the foundation will still be there.