Hendrik Herzberg needs a History Lesson

This morning, I read Hendrik Herzberg’s article, “Exhilaration” in the comment section of the New Yorker, in which he describes the historic primary battle between Barack Obama and Hilary Rodham Clinton. In general, it’s a pretty fair treatment, but he sure needs a more nuanced history of gender and race in the United States. According to Herzberg:

“Competitions among grievances do not ennoble, and both Clinton and Obama strove to avoid one; but it does not belittle the oppressions of gender to suggest that in America the oppressions of race have cut deeper. Clinton’s supporters would sometimes note that the Constitution did not extend the vote to women until a half century after it extended it to men of color. But there is no gender equivalent of the nightmare of disenfranchisement, lynching, apartheid, and peonage that followed Reconstruction, to say nothing of “the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil” that preceded it. Nor has any feminist leader shared the fate of Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. Clinton spoke on Saturday of “women in their eighties and nineties, born before women could vote.” But Barack Obama is only in his forties, and he was born before the Voting Rights Act redeemed the broken promise of the Fifteenth Amendment.”

Now, there may be some truth to this, but I find there are two things wrong with this paragraph:

1. He assumes all women are white — what about the African-American women who faced the threat of rape by white men, who would go unpunished since all black women were considered “sluts” and “temptresses” who deserved what they got, even if they were five years old? Or the Native American women who were forced on a death march to “Indian territory” by Andrew Jackson, only to be thrown off that land half a century later?

2. I would consider the English common law practice of “femme covert” or legal death of women upon marriage to be equivalent to debt peonage at the very least. Women lost control of their property, their children, and even their bodies. Also, until women were denied access to many educational and professional opportunities, until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and Title IX. Women who fought for suffrage and equal rights were imprisoned, labeled “insane,” and trivialized, even by men on the left.

Anyone else care to contribute?

Knitting at the Berks

Eleanor knits

Some of you who attended the Berkshire conference noticed that there are a few of us, including yours truly, who like to knit during sessions.  I was overjoyed to see that the number of fiber freaks is steadily growing. I had intended to bring my digital camera so that I could capture some of us in action.  However, I’m a forgetful one so, I’ve substituted the one above — apparently the lady herself knitted during U.N. meetings, not just in the privacy of the White House.  So, the next time someone flips me sh*t for knitting in a meeting, I’ll show them this photo.

Berkshire Post-mortem

After I got transferred to a suite at the Holiday Inn, my conference experience got much better! I got to meet Historiann in person — very nice outfits, H! I would agree with her post that the sessions I attended emphasized a need to return to the archives to capture women’s lived experience, not just representations/discourse. Here are some summaries of the sessions I attended:

Session 23: Childhood as Useful Category of Historical Analysis

I led a session similar to this one at the 2002 Berks but this one was much better! Rebecca de Schweinitz argued that the movement for racial equality in the twentieth century was linked with changing ideals about childhood. She discussed the Children’s Charter passed in the 1930s, which extended the notion of a right to childhood beyond the white, middle-classes. This laid the groundwork for the legal arguments in the Brown V. Board of Education decision.

Leslie Paris discussed how the term “girl” became a pejorative term during Second Wave feminism, used by leftie men to trivialize women’s demands for equality. This in turn, she argues, led women historians who came of age during the Second Wave to ignore or underplay the role and place of girls — i.e. non-adult women — throughout history. For example, both Mary Beth Norton’s _Liberties Daughters_ and Kathy Peiss _Cheap Amusements_ prominently feature adolescent females (indeed, Peiss’ subjects are almost exclusively in their mid to late teens) yet their “girlness” and the ways in which their experience differs from that of adult women remains unanalyzed. She also mentioned that the role of girls in Second Wave feminism needs to be more fully explored. Finally, she gave a plug for an edited collection on girlhood that will be published by University of Illinois in Fall 2009.

Martha Saxton argued that the history of childhood has been a “silent partner” in historical scholarship, lurking beneath the surface but seldom analyzed as such. She also stated that historians could benefit from examining relationships between siblings, not just parent-child relationships.

Virginia Ott examined the lives of young women in the Confederate south, looking at the role they played in the construction of Confederate nationalism, as well as the impact of the war on their lives. Her key argument is that young women, like men, sought to preserve rather than challenge the Southern tradition of male chivalry and white ladyhood. At the same time, the war experiences did compel young women to expand the notion of what it meant to be female and Southern.

I found Tamara Myers’ paper on “Space, Place, and Bodies” to be the most useful for my work on the history of the body and sexuality. She looked at the ways in which the evolution of juvenile justice was embodied. What was surprising to me was that in the case of males, the focus was on preadolescent “waifs and strays,” young boys who were “stunted” by poverty and disease — images that inspired sympathy and compassion from the courts and the general public. During the discussion, I pointed out the connections between these images and disability history.

Session 63: Sexual Science Revisited: A Roundtable discussion with Cynthia Eagle Russett

This was the session I was most enthusiastic about attending, since my own work (like others who attended grad school in STS in the late 1980s and early 1990s) was strongly shaped by Russett’s book, which won the Berkshire book prize in 1989. All of the papers examined the ways in which feminists used evolutionary theory for their own purposes, to create what Carla Bittel called a “science” of women’s rights. They also acknowledged the dangers and pitfalls of this tactic — by and large, this was largely a white, middle-class phenomenon (with a few exceptions among the black middle-class), one that reinforced notions of white supremacy and fears of race suicide. Also, by rooting feminist principles in nature and the body, these ideas perpetuated an essentialist view of women with which we are still grappling in the 21st century.

Session 82: Transforming Health Care from Below

This was another fabulous session but by this point I was spending more time listening (and knitting) than taking notes! Jennifer Nelson had the awkward job of talking about leading feminist reproductive rights activist Loretta Ross while Ross herself was in the audience. All of the papers reminded us that theory and activism were connected, especially for women of color — i.e. that feminist perspectives emerged from lived organizing experiences.

Session 131 — Teaching about Health and Contraception outside the classroom

This was the only public history session I attended and I’m glad I did because it was extremely useful. Mary Melcher’s paper on using the Arizona women’s heritage trail to teach about birth control gave me some ideas about how to interpret and present birth control in the state — in fact, should tell the folks at Connecticut Women’s Hall of Fame that birth control and reproductive rights needs to be included in the CT Women’s Heritage Trail. I found Sarah Payne’s paper on “contraceptives on display” most helpful for my (possible) online exhibit on emergency contraception which I hope to get going once I master Omeka.

Finally, there was my Sunday seminar on “What is the History of the Body.” I was pleased to see so many people in the audience — over a dozen, or twice the number on the panel. It was also great to reconnect with Patty Stokes, a former classmate from Cornell — who blogs as Kitty Wampus. The main theme of the session, which is really a microcosm of the conference, is the need to move beyond the “linguistic turn,” to look at the physical experience of living in the body, not just discourse and representations of women’s bodies.

That’s it for now — got to get unpacked, start doing laundry and get back on track with various projects.

Off to the Berks, with an advance contract

I’m all packed and ready to go to Minneapolis for the Berkshire Conference on the History of Women. Too bad my flight isn’t for another 3 1/2 hours! Historiann has a nice post that gives a brief history of the organization. Tenured Radical wrote some interesting recollections of the recent history of the Berks while waiting for her flight at Bradley, delayed three hours (hope that doesn’t happen to me!) She not only wrote about the “Big Berks” i.e. the major international conference held every three years, but also the “Little Berks” held every year.

Despite living near the Berkshire area, I have never made it to one of these, partly due to schedule, but also partly due to the fact that information about the Little Berks is hard to come by. It’s nice to see that the website is now up to date and gives information about the upcoming one, but I seldom get mailings about this, snail or electronic — shouldn’t this be a benefit of membership? I have a retired colleague, with whom I had dinner last week, who said she received no information about this year’s Big Berks until it was too late to make plans to attend. Anyway, looks like my schedule is free that weekend, I just hope it doesn’t cost a fortune since it’s at the Lakeville Inn in expensive Litchfield County — oh well, at least it’s reasonable driving distance.

I just received great news that Rutgers University Press will be giving me an advance contract for the history of emergency contraception book. Something to celebrate when I get to Minneapolis!

Sticking up for OBOS

Fellow women’s history blogger, Historiann, has had a couple of recent posts on C-sections on her blog. Since those who read Knitting Clio may or may not read this one as well, I’m bringing the discussion over here. Also, I know some of you are members of the Women in the History of Medicine group within AAHM so are well-positioned to offer comments. Historiann’s first brief post on the subject was in response to a report regarding women who had C-sections being denied insurance coverage. I pointed out that the enormous rise in C-sections over the past half-century has really not improved maternal/child health and is really more a product of malpractice litigation and physician convenience than it is medical science. I also pointed to an entry on Our Bodies, Our Blog about the controversy over whether to allow women to deliver vaginally if they had a C-section during a previous delivery. I felt that Historiann was being unfair to OBOS by suggesting that they, as well as other feminist health activists, have “fetishized” natural childbirth while condemning C-sections. I pointed out that OBOS was among the first were among the first to argue that the benefits of C-sections and other birth interventions were overstated at best, and the risks underreported. Sure, not every woman can deliver vaginally, but the risks of infection during C-section (as with any surgery) are not insignificant.

OBOS’ policy statements are consistent with those in Reproductive Health Reality Check and the World Health Organization. Both point out that the United States has the highest percentage of C-sections (nearly 1/3 of all births), yet the worst maternal and infant mortality and morbidity rates in the developed world.

After going back and re-reading OBOS at my suggestion, Historiann wrote another post yesterday, stating that OBOS was more balanced on the issue than she previously thought, but she still thinks their position on anesthesia and pain medication during childbirth is too “ideological.”

I continued to stick up for OBOS, stating that historically and today, the Boston Women’s Health Collective has sought to empower women by providing them with comprehensive information about the pros and cons of various medical procedures and technologies. This was pretty important in an era when doctors — nearly all (93%) of whom were male, even in ob/gyn — were extremely paternalistic and told women (and men) to follow orders for their own good.

Scientific consensus on particular procedures changes over time as well, and OBOS reflects that as well in it periodic updates. I’m not a historian of anesthesiology but I think that warning women of the possible complications of anesthesia for a fetus, however rare, is in keeping with sound medical practice and informed consent. The position of OBOS on anesthesia during delivery has changed with new evidence. Now, the editors of OBOS favor use of nitrous oxide during delivery.

Also, just want to remind you all of Wendy Kline’s article, “Please Put this in Your Book: Readers Respond to Our Bodies Ourselves,” in Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 2005, 79: 81–110. Kline reminds us that the motto of the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective was “knowledge is power,” and by responding to the editors of OBOS, these ordinary women helped shape the feminist health movement — something women continue to do through the blog.

Michelle Obama Racism/Sexism Watch Part Bloody Two

Thanks, Historiann, (I think) for posting the latest mash-up of racism and sexism from What About Our Daughters. This was originally posted on the so-called liberal blog Daily Kos as satire, then taken down after many complaints across the blogosphere.

Oh, just FYI Kos, not all white southerners are Klansmen, and the epicenter of the modern KKK was Indiana, well north of the Mason-Dixon line. Get a life.

HPV Vaccine Conference

Now that my grades are done (woo-hoo!) I can blog about the conference on “Cancer Vaccine for Girls” that I presented at last week. My paper went really well — I was the resident expert on history of adolescent girls and gynecology. My paper pointed out that pap smears and routine gynecological exams for girls and young women were at one time controversial because of worries that this would rupture the hymen and cause psychological trauma. Other papers looked at the history and current issues regarding vaccination in the United States (apparently Colorado has the lowest vaccination rates in the country, which has led to epidemics of pertussis and measles, especially among home-schooled kids. ) The picture was dramatically different in Africa, where the confluence of HPV and HIV has led to astronomically levels of cervical cancer. The one clinician, a gynecologist from Botswana, said they would welcome the vaccine as it would alleviate a major public health crisis. In Niger, however, the predominantly Muslim population distrusts vaccination, seeing it as part of a longer pattern of abuse and genocidal behavior by colonial powers.

There were also very interesting presentations on gay men’s health, and implications for straight men’s health as well. Apparently HPV causes anal cancer, as well as oral cancers which until now have been attributed to “male” behaviors like smoking and beer drinking. There also appears to be a link between HPV and prostate cancer. So, vaccines and smears for men too?

The conference had presenters from a variety of disciplines, including filmmaker Giovanna Chesler, who showed this very interesting satire on the notorious Gardasil commercials:

This video is from her website Tune in HPV which grew out of her experience with HPV related disease (she spent six weeks bedridden after surgery for cervical displasia). So, ladies, remember to get your annual pap smear (this means you too Historiann!)

P.S.  speaking of vaccines, just noticed a piece over at Disability Studies, Temple University about Katherine Seidel, who blogs about autism, and who has been subpoenaed by the plaintif’s attorney in an anti-vaccine lawsuit.  Be careful what you say out there, the lawyers will be after you next!

At last, a blog for other redneck feminists like myself. . .

My friend Kathy just sent me a link to a blog called The Confluence which is doing an excellent job of dissecting the class bias within the Democratic primary, more specially, digs that call the working poor who support Clinton nothing more than rednecks and illiterate hillbillies. It reminds me that the War on Poverty was directed as much toward the “white trash” in Appalachia as it was at African-Americans and other racial minorities. My favorite part of the post is the Loretta Lynn classic, “The Pill,” that I had never heard before.

Don’t Slam the Mural Slam, or Why this Feminist Doesn’t Like Censorship

Last week our campus hosted the first ever “mural slam” featuring work by our students as well as artists from the local community. Much of the work is politically oriented and critiques war, conformity in higher education, surveillance by government, and so forth. Much to my surprise, some of my women colleagues think some of these images are misogynist and offensive to women and should be condemned.

Now, over the past couple of years we have several blatantly offensive articles and cartoons printed by our campus newspaper. However, I’m very uncomfortable with censoring student artwork that is ambiguous and open to interpretation and in several cases is being used to satisfy coursework requirements.

I pointed out that a recent exhibit at our university gallery, “Female Forms and Facets,” which featured artwork by such noted feminist artists as Judy Chicago and Carolee Schneemann, also caught some flack from a few student gallery workers who refused to help install the exhibit (I guess they didn’t like Schneemann’s vulvas and Chicago’s penises). I’m sure there are folks on campus who don’t like the “Vagina Monologues,” either.

So, I warned my colleagues to be careful about heading down the path of censorship, because it could backfire. I even pointed out that some of the murals are by female students and local artists and that it would be more constructive to engage them in a conversation about their work rather than condemn it outright.

For more on the subject, see Feminists for Free Expression.

P.S. Some readers have asked which ones were considered offensive. This one seems to have raised the most concern. The student who painted it said she was making a commentary on children as soldiers and the cycle of birth/death in wartime.

Historical note:  This year is the tenth anniversary of National Endowment for the Arts v. Karen Finley, in which the Supreme Court decided it was NOT unconstitutional for the NEA to vet grant proposals for “decency.”

Angela Davis at CCSU

This has been an exciting and busy week for Knitting Clio — including a trip to Philadelphia to present a paper at the Third Annual History of Women’s Health Conference at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. This gave me the opportunity to stay with my buddy Janet, and also engage in some friendly political sparring regarding the primary (she’s an Obama supporter but also a realistic one — i.e. she doesn’t think he’s a savior). I was polite enough to do my victory dance during Hillary’s Today Show interview while she and her husband were still asleep!

The highpoint of course was Angela Davis’ visit — and because she gave two lectures, both during my class meeting times, I didn’t have to prepare anything! 😉 Her first talk was based on her book, Are Prisons Obsolete. Her key point is that the prison, aka the penitentiary, was the product of a particular historical moment — i.e. the Enlightenment — and was created as a humane alternative to nasty and gruesome forms of punishment such as whipping, flaying alive, drawing and quartering, and so forth. [at this point I think she could have made a nod to Michel Foucault’s work, Discipline and Punish, but I guess she figured her audience would not get the reference.] She did, however, say that the prison was a “democratic” form of punishment in that in deprives a person of key features of democracy — i.e. liberty, civil rights, etc. She also said that the prison is a sign that the 13th amendment did not fully abolish slavery, i.e. the enslavement of the incarcerated population is allowed under this amendment. She was clear that she does not mean that there are not individuals who commit crimes, but she also wanted to focus on changing larger social and economic conditions — e.g. poverty, inequality, homelessness, lack of health care, etc. — that make certain individuals the target of the criminal justice system. [here she did briefly mention the problem of mentally ill persons in prison, although she also made what I considered an overly flippant comment about using drugs to control criminal behavior, but perhaps I misunderstood].

Her second talk of the day, which I found more useful for my teaching, was on gender, race, and class. This fit perfectly with my U.S. women’s history course, since we had just viewed Standing on My Sisters Shoulders, an outstanding documentary about key women involved the Civil Rights movement in Mississippi. Davis made some excellent points about historical memory, asking why is it that we remember the male leaders, but don’t remember the women who created the communities of resistance and did all the organizing to make the movement a success? One of my favorite lines from her talk was, “without Fanny Lou Hamer, there would have been no Barack Obama.” Right on, sister! She traced this selective historical memory to the American habit of hyper-individualism, which focuses on inspirational leaders and ignores the communities who prepare the ground.

During and question and answer period, an African-American gentleman asked her what she thought about the fact that Obama was poised to fulfill the American dream for African-Americans. Davis’ answer was that we’re still assuming that one white woman can stand for all women, and that one black male can stand for all African-Americans, and alluded to a classic anthology on black feminism. She pointed out that Obama is a politician within the existing two-party system, that he really isn’t all that progressive, and like my buddy Janet, said we have to get beyond our Messiah complex and focus on communities pushing for social change.

All in all, I was rather impressed with her modesty — especially her tribute to her mother, whom she described as a “model activist” and a symbol of how anyone can be an agent of social change. Awesome!