>> Grover Cleveland, the only American President who served two non-consecutive terms, would probably frown upon Senator Hillary Clinton’s current bid for the Presidency. For an article in The Ladies Home Journal in 1905, he opined that “sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by men and women in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence.”
>> Isaac Baker Brown was a gynecological surgeon in England. In 1866, he published a book entitled, “On the curability of certain forms of insanity, epilepsy, catalepsy, and hysteria in females”, in which he argued that surgical removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) could potentially cure the ailments listed in the title of his monograph. He commented:
Long and frequent observation convinced me that a large number of affections peculiar to females, depended upon loss of nerve power, and that this was produced by peripheral irritation, arising originally in some branches of the pudic nerve, more particularly the incident nerve supplying the clitoris, and sometimes the small branches which supply the vagina, perineum, and anus.
Two abstracts on Pubmed suggest that the medical establishment in Victorian England did not warmly welcome this publication, though the practice apparently continued in other parts of Europe (presumably for the same indications). You can read Brown’s book here (and the above quote, along with the other conditions that clitoridectomy could allegedly prevent, are on page 7.)
>> Sue and his colleagues wrote a paper last year entitled “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice“, which is geared towards psychotherapy relationships (though it is certainly applicable in other contexts). It discusses “microassault” (explicit racial derogation characterized primarily by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions), “microinsult” (communication that conveys rudeness and insensitivity and demeans a person’s racial heritage or identity), and “microinvalidation” (communication that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color).
The authors touch upon the idea that Caucasians may read the paper and think that the authors are too sensitive. What’s that line from To Kill a Mockingbird? “You never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them.”
No, I’m actually not feeling particularly angry. After all, how can one feel angry when one lives in a city that looks as gorgeous as this?
25 Feb 2008 |
I remember reading one argument against allowing women to vote was that women would have too much influence because they could influence their husbands to vote the way they wanted.
I’m not sure why, but I am consistently amazed at how ignorance persists as well as it does.
Comment by Jesse | 25 Feb 2008 @ 9:47pm
I like the concept of microinvalidation. I’ve been enduring a lot of it (of the anti-female sort) in my surgery rotation. Nothing like being told every day by someone in authority what specific fields you should go into because they’re good for ladies. Direct quote: “Radiology is a good field for a woman, because you can work from home and have babies.” Derm and anesthesia are also frequently mentioned. Having praise (for excellent retracting?) come in the form of “Good girl!” is another microassault.
As for whether people are merely being “too sensitive” — it makes me think of the two-hit hypothesis for cancer. That is, most cancers doesn’t come from one physical insult but from the accumulated weight of them. Tanning bed plus cigarettes plus bad genes you inherited plus viral infection plus… and so on. Sexism and racism are kinda like that.
Comment by LadyGrey | 27 Feb 2008 @ 1:08pm