The Hairy Women...

I found it very interesting how people who were different way back then was put on display to showcase it, but nowadays if you are different your either unique or something is wrong with you. For example, Nicki Minaji is very different in many ways but she is considered unique and original. She is so praise for being different that people goes through extremes to look like her. Most people who are disable, are view as being a handicap and not being able to do 'normal' things...... people tend to pity them than look up to them. I found the hairy woman story so unique because even though she was viewed as a freak, she kept her humanity by doing certain avtivities such a playing instruments. I like the fact that she did not allow her situation to take all of her joy out of her life away. I found her story extremely amazing and sad at the same time.

Let me start by saying that these few weeks I have been impressed by the insights my classmates have share.  Thursday we got off to a great start, but then we were beating a dead horse.  It seemed like opinions and perspectives were only rephrased.  The discussion became as repetitive as the readings, like the article on Sims which unnecessarily stated his contributions three times all on the first page (in the Abstract, the introductory paragraph, and the Key Points). 

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but I failed to see the relevance of how authorities exercise their power to induce normalization or compliance (as explained by Foucault) and how we can apply his that to issues today.  It seemed like J. Sims was reminiscently put on trial which is utterly pointless cause he and his contemporaries and his subjects are all dead and there's nothing we do to/for them.  If normalcy/deviancy is determined by culture, then the status of hero/villain is correspondingly determined by culture.   Instead of only judging him we need to understand that he is a predestined victim of culture.  We then need to ask how can we not end up like Sims?  How does the desire for a better socio-economic status go from wanting to live comfortably to believing that power and fame are as necessary as water, food, and shelter?  What's going on psychologically?   What are the environmental factors that led him to become that person, like his development in childhood?

Secondly, some students brought up how much better medicine is today as an excuse for Sims.  With standard treatments like arsenic and mercury, experimentation wasn't much of a distinction.   That distinction is even less clear today with standard medical practices.  We're all unknowingly part of the experiment!   Most medicine is focused on reacting to symptoms rather than trying to understand disease formation and preventing.   The primary treatments often mean man-made drugs.   These drugs often have nasty side effects, which you need more drugs to treat.  Many drugs have synergistic effects.  Most haven't been tested.   Even if they were tested and concluded poor results, the companies prohibit the publication of papers.  The FDA is undermanned and corrupted by a revolving door of Pharmacutical CEO's.

~ John

Is Sims more of a villian or a hero?

I personally thinks Sims is more of a villian than a hero. He reminds me of people like Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Colombus. People who all contributed great things in this country but yet society is so willing to look past their faults and praise them for their good instead of evaluating the individual as whole. I feel like by only highlighting a person achievements and good deeds one gives the illusion that the bad deeds that was done is exusable or ok. That topic by itself is controversial in so many ways. So many people look up to figures like Sims, Jefferson and Colombus....I think that it is only fair for everyone to know all of who these individuals were. In Sims' case, I have no problem saying that his work allow medicine and science to be what it is today. I also, have no problem saying that he was a selfish and horrible human being that expoliate and torture African American women in the process. For some, Sims is a hero...for others he's a villian. I personally think that he is a villian .........African American women shouldn't of had to suffer to accomplish what Sims' was supposely trying to accomplish. Aand what bother me even more was that Sims' used justifications that was use to justify slavery to justify his work, which in the process kept those negative stereotypes associated with African American women in existence.

Medical Techniques

I just have a lot of questions to ask about medical techniques. Everyone is so quick to criticize every form of research. No one wants to accept that sometimes people need to suffer to advance our research. I am one of those people, but I have been thinking a lot about this ever since our discussion on Thursday. Someone needs to find a humane form of testing that no one is going to complain about. The best we have done so far is getting volunteers to get tested on. Do you think that some day we will be so advanced that we can find new forms of testing that don't require using it on humans? Maybe there will be a breakthrough, and no one will ever have to suffer for medical testing again. Until then, should we keep doing what we're doing, or should we put out medical advancements on hold?

J. Marion Sims was a cruel villain, and it is insulting to consider him the “father of gynecology.” What Sims did was not medical practice; it was twisted experimentation with no regard for human life. “Father” in general is a word that carries positive connotation and to refer to Sims in this light is very misleading as to who this person really was. He even has a statue erected in his “honor,” but this doesn’t make sense. I man who would do such cruel things to another human life deserves no recognition for honor or accomplishment. I think that medical innovations and gynecological practices could have come about in a much more humane way. Sims being held in such high regards is disrespectful to the women he violated. Those women’s’ lives were sacrificed for the “sake of medicine” yet their identities are lost in history. I think it is important for the truth to be known about Sims, and although he may have helped kick start gynecology his actions should strip him of any recognition he received. The women who were experimented on are the true heroes, in that they endured so much and they are who we can learn from.

Allison Brady

In the Vagina Monologues, one of the monologues called Under the Burqa stood out to me. I feel it related well to the readings for the week because much like Julia Pastrana and the victims of Sims experiments, these women that are subjected to a male dominated patriarchal society in which their autonomy is taken away. Obviously racial issues weigh heavily on all of these examples but I feel gender issues are the main cause. The monologue talked about the demeaning male dominated society that Middle Eastern women live in and the gender struggles can be seen cross culturally and universally.

Allison Brady

Sims

Our biggest controversy in class was whether Sims should be respected or frowned upon. I think that we need to find a median between the two. I feel that his research techniques were absolutely horrendous, and many of the things he did are unforgivable. That being said, it would be foolish to not use his research, as he discovered many revolutionary things. Although he did a terrible thing, disposing of his findings would mean that none of it was for any good. We should at least show respect to the women that he violated by using the information discovered to help others.

Response to "Father of Gynecology": Defying Nature?

We often forget as humans that we are part of nature and not separate from it.  We are co-creators.  Unfortunately our methods in most disciplines, including medicine, work against laws or patterns nature put in place before we arrived.  This is perhaps the problem with an authoritarian mindset it that they think they're above a chaotic nature and somehow they think they can bring order to it, or at least contain it amongst themselves. 

This view originates from the dawn of the agricultural.  Originally humans were hunger-gatherers in small tribes.  These societies were egalitarian.  They had to respect each other and get along because they depended on each other to survive.  There was no ownership.  How could somebody claim the air they breathe and the water they drink.  They are only gifts that we borrow.  Water, air and even the molecules of your own body eventually return to the nature from which they came. 

At some point, people could not rely on nature to provide food for them due to changing climate and migrating herds.  Nature was seen as chaotic and so humans decided they needed to establish order and control it through farming.  Soon after, farmers became attached to their work and thought they owned the land.  They less often depended immediately on their community, just themselves.  They forgot how to share and care for others.  Their neighbors who may not have had a good growing season, don't deserve the harvest they worked hard for, and even if they did, their family was their priority.   And so grew the seeds of selfishness.  If their neighbors did encroach on their land, they'd wage war to protect what they needed to survive.  They no longer understood how tribes could trust nature and put their lives in its shaky hands. 

The fact that the white folk believed they held authority over blacks is fitting when you consider that Caucasians descended from agrarians and Africans descended from hunter-gatherers.  Not only were genes past down, but also a mindset, worldview, philosophy.   Surely, African Americans could not feed themselves if it weren't for the wisdom of their owner.

No one can defy nature.  As Foucault suggested, the body is a social entity as much as or more than a biological one.  We are psycho/social-biochemical machines which means our genes and neural constructs only allow for certain responses to certain outside stimuli.  By saying this, I am admitting to a predestined/deterministic view.  Because of this understanding, no matter how Sims intervened or current medicine intervenes, it is simply nature taking its course.   Although where this course leads is unknown, predestination does not mean that it is entirely tragic, as is associated with the term fatalism. 

Has the medicalization of females bodies been beneficial?  No.  It is not because we're trying to outrun the inevitable, but rather because the intentions of medical "authorities" to make a profit or be written in the history books rather than wanting to sincerely help patients.  Take a look at birth control and some of the comments at the bottom.

http://bodyecology.com/articles/dangers_birth_control_pill.php

~ John

Gynecology

Going to see the gynecologist is always a strange experience that no woman really looks forward to.  But now after reading about Sims I am extremely distrubed and I do not think it will ever be the same.  Sims was sick and twisted in my opinion.  I think the experimenting he did on women is absolutely disgusting and a social injustice.  It baffles me that people would not connect the dots back in those days, if you are experimenting on slaves and applying those treatments to white people then they are obviously humans and the same.  I agree with class discussion that bad doctors were extremely common back then, but the things Sims got away with is a tragedy.  These women he experimented on were not only put in danger but they were used and discarded like nothing.  I am thankful for the medical advances Sims is credited with but I think there were other ways to go about this.  He simply had disregard for the life of a slave. 

The sad truth of men

Julia Pastrana was taken advantage of by her husband.  She was paraded around like a perfoming monkey and it is very disheartening.  Unfortunately, this is not the first time a woman has let a man control her life.I can only imagine the things he said to her to get her to agree to being a side show act.  I do not think Julia's husband really loved her.  I think he loved money and would do anything to get it.  It is crazy to me that he was allowed to have a HUMAN BEING stuffed and shown to the world.  It baffles me.  This is a very extreme form of a controlling man in a relationship.  This is a sight we see very often today, when women are in abusive relationships.  He may have not hit her but he controlled her life and I am sure she did not think there was any other way anyone would love her.  It would be interesting to know the details of their relationship. I think there is a strange fascination with "freaks" in this world and even today we expose them to the world through reality shows. 

Bad Doctors

It is wrong that J Marion Sims is credited for being a pioneer in the field of women's medicine. The way he came about innovations in the field of obstetrics and gynecology should never have happened. When you go to the doctor you expect them to know exactly what they are doing, how to treat it, and be correct. The fact is they are just trying to do the best they can. My dad always told me to do my research on my illness well enough to have a conversation and question what the doctor is saying.

I'm glad I waited to write this post because this morning I was watching the news on a doctor who wasn't doing his job correctly. He would take a CT scan of his patients and show them a fake scan of someone who needed surgery. Then he would carry out that surgery and basically do nothing at all. He finally was caught because someone who actually had a problem went to another doctor saying that the prior surgery was unsuccessful. The new doctor came to realize that the fake doctor was lying to his patients.

I know doctors are supposed to sign an oath but who is there making sure they hold to it?


Here is another example of a man who claimed to have a medical background:

"He shared millions in grants, had university and hospital posts, and bragged of work for prestigious medical groups. An Associated Press story featured him leading a teamwork training session at an American College of Cardiology convention last spring."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40630166/ns/health-health_care/t/fake-doctor-duped-hospitals-universities-ama/#.T0BSaObxTcQ

Pastrana

Following Julia's death she was placed with her child in the museum of University of Moscow. I found this rather disappointing and negligent towards another human being. Just like the discussion we had this week, these events show you how things that were acceptable back then are viewed much more differently today. It made me think - would I have agreed with that action of preserving Pastrana reasonable back then? Of course I find that appalling today, but after a few weeks of this class it's getting easier to think outside the box.

In the 1880s, the only reason for preserving her was to exhibit her for money. I would like to think that there was more of a scientific rationale behind it but its doubtful. If she was classified as not human then the preservation seems fair, but the fact is she was human. Not only was she human, she was talented in singing, dance, and the guitar. She loved her husband and wanted a child. No matter the differences freaks should not be taken advantage of for fame and fortune.

http://thehumanmarvels.com/?p=33 < more on Julia Pastrana

Response to Shawna's "Disrecpectful use"

Shawna, your post really got me thinking. You're right, who knows what doctors are really doing when no one else is watching them? We all know that animals are used for various types of medical testing and whatnot, but what we don't know is the kinds of sick things that some doctors probably still do to people. When you go to the doctor, you assume that you can trust them. Doctors are seen as professional, polite, kind people who want nothing more than to take care of their patients. However, there are many instances of doctors harassing, abusing, lying to, and taking advantage of their patients, and even taking advantage of a person's dead body. I'm not saying that all doctors are like this; most probably aren't. But just because a sick, twisted person who has no respect for other human being happens to be a doctor, it doesn't give them the right to violate anyone, nor does it mean that we should ignore it when it does happen just because of their profession. Throughout history, some of the most hideous, morally corrupt people have had some of the most respected and well-known professions. This shouldn't excuse their behavior. I feel like Sims got away with a lot of what he did because he was a doctor. If he had never gone to medical school and still found a way to carry out the experiments that he did, and even if he still found ways to help women, we wouldn't be arguing over whether or not he was a hero or a villain. He would be a villain, hands down. So let's take a moment and strip away his title of "Dr. Sims" and consider his true motivations behind what he did to those women. He could have taken his time and found a moral, respectful way to carry out his business. But he didn't, and just because he was a doctor, people are still ok with it, and they shouldn't be.

Thoughts on the Sims debate

Our discussion on Sims in class seemed to have two sides to it; the girls and the guys. The girls were appalled at what Sims did to the slave women and the guys while also appalled seemed to understand the need for it. That is a generalization, I don' t mean to say that everyone in those categories thought that way. To me the reason that is that, there isn't any procedure as invasive as a gynecological exam, that a man would have to go through. As Josh said the most that a man has to go through with his "area" is turn your head and cough. For women it is way more intrusive to the body and to a certain extent your mind, as the location of the exam is an extremely private place.

I think that Sims did have some sort of sexual fascination with his profession as was suggested in class. When Sims said, "I saw everything, as no man had ever seen before" it seemed to me that he had a sexual view to what he was doing. To me if he had truly wanted to help women, he would have treated all women the same in his surgeries, regardless of their race. Sims noted in his notes of one of the slave girl's agony and blood-curdling screams during the procedures. If he recognized that enough to write it down and use it as a reason to use anesthesia on white women then he obviously knew that all the women could feel pain. To not use anesthesia on the slave girls was despicable to me, among the other things he did to them.


I do see the guys views that what Sims did was necessary for the field of gynecology. Brian brought up the question in class, of what else was Sims supposed to use for his experimental procedures. Yes what he did was horrible, but at the same time I agree with Brian. Who else was he supposed to do it on at that time? To do so on white women would be out of the question. At the time African American women were seen as nothing more that animals and property. A majority of the people then didn't care what happened to them.

I am disgusted with what Sims did to all the slave women. On the other hand I also see the need for what he did, so I think that we can't really judge his actions with today's medical standards.

Gynecology

While discussing J. Marion Sims in class, it was very obvious that people had different opinions towards his contributions to the medical world. We all decided that he was a bad doctor, but some thought that he was doing what he could in his time. I believe that his advancements were ground breaking and a huge contribution, but the approach that he took could have had some improvements. If he would have had the attitude that he was doing all of it to better women and their health, I might have been able to justify with his ways. I cannot because he was only doing it for the fame and money. The women that he experimented on had no say in what was happening and suffered more than he would ever know. The fact that cured maybe two women in his whole practice says a lot about him. 


Valerie Walden

Julia Pastrana

While reading the article about Julia Pastrana, I was very surprised to hear that her life was relatively normal. She was smart and talented and was able to show that in combination with her unique condition. I do not believe that she was displayed to be a sexual object as Sara Baartman was. Yes, she was different, but people were not curious about what was under her skirt but if she was the missing link.


I was more shocked hearing about the relationship that her and her husband had. He clearly did not marry her because he loved her but for power and control. I cannot believe that someone would use a person in the way that he did. It made it much worse when they had a child together and he was hoping that it had the same disability that Julia did. It was very sad that Julia died soon after the birth and so did her son, but her husband embalmed them and continued to tour them both around the world. The duo were displayed for over 100 years. It was very heart breaking to hear how she was treated after she was dead. Then he married someone very similar to Julia, which proved he never married for love in the first place.


Valerie Walden

Wax Celebs are the Ideal

What is our obsession with preserving “freaks?” Yes, we may have wax celebs, but that certainly varies dramatically from the reason and the way in which we preserve “freaks” such as Elephant Man, Sarah Bartmann, and Julia Pastrana. We have preserved “freaks” by making castings of their bodies and having their bodies embalmed--all in the name of science.

Or was it?

Science and entertainment have become intertwined within the world of “freaks”. Scientists and showmen embalmed bodies of “freaks” and would continue to display them following their deaths for years. Wax celebrities are made in the name of entertainment as “freaks” were. However, the involvement of scientists with the displaying of “freaks” has implications for more than one person. For freaks were often examined, displayed, and embalmed in order to provide scientific information and perhaps “evidence” which could be applied to a whole population of individuals. Conversely, wax celebrities are a small demographic, and are a highly idealized population.

“Freaks” serve as the deviant population. Celebrities represent the ideal in which everyone is to strive, whereas freaks are the ones in which we are to distance ourselves from, even feel fortunate to not be considered one. Perhaps the reason for preserving freaks is scientific--to perhaps help others who suffer from the same disorder. However, maybe the reason we are searching for answers to prevent the disorder is because we want to attempt to reduce the probability of “freaks” and increase “normalcy.” Or have preserved “freaks” served as a sort of point of reference for which doctors and people to point at to label someone as deviant? Wax celebrities are a reminder of the ideal, of normalcy, of what we should strive to be, preserved “freaks” are symbols of deviancy.

Angela B.

"Father of Gynecology": Defying Nature?

Sims “reflected the heroic ideal” having “refused to let Nature merely take its course,” (503). What does this demonstrate about the priorities of science and medicine? Are we merely attempting to escape the inevitable? Consider the way in which we treat aging and death. We are constantly bombarded by ads marketing products to reduce wrinkles or cover grey hairs. We don’t want to be reminded of our age and ultimately death. With science has come the fear of Nature and the inevitable fate which we will all face. We attempt to control the inevitable, and employ scientific methods to do so. Due to women’s associations with nature, their reproductive functions may be seen as a source which requires scientific intervention. Therefore, Sims is exactly that--an “ideal” symbolizing the norm to control and distance ourselves from nature. This norm may also be reflect in today’s society through the need to distance ourselves from reminders of women’s natural reproductive functions such as breast feeding, menstruation and birthing. Has scientific intervention and the medicalization of women’s bodies and bodily functions truly been beneficial? Or, alternately, has it all been an attempt to out-run the inevitable, to control natural forces?

Angela B.

Sims

The class was really fired up about J. Sims during our discussion. As a women I can total understand the hot button issue. While I agree that what Sims did to his experimental subjects was Extremly horrible and totally unethical, I do not agree with judging him again the ethical standards of today.We cannot judge the past through the same glasses as we view today with.Yes Sims mameded,druged and took advantage of slaves to fulfill his own sexual fantasies and to show that he had power over women(especial deviant bodies). But without men like him or doctors in general like him the state do our medical pratitice might not be where they are now.With ever law or ethical standard people first have to find the normal. Sims was respected in the beginning of his practice,only until other doctors began seeing the experiments beginning done they did take a small stand(they didn't stop him they just stopped helping him).Maybe it my sinical view of the world but, I think that for change to happen we need to see the worst possible before real powerful change can happen. -Sarah Fiorella

Gynecology

     Yesterday it was plain to see that the class was divided on Sims. I wanted to add my opinion, but I figured I could convey my thoughts better in writing. I agree with the last post of Erin Pattridge to an extent. Yes we as males can never know what it is like to be a woman. We as men will never comprehend what it is like to give birth, just like we will not experience the associated feelings/fears/anxiety of going to see a gynecologist. When a male gets his privates checked, it is usually a male doctor who asks you to “cough” a couple times, and that’s about it—well at least till it is time to get screened for prostate cancer/issues. However, it does not mean that men cannot sympathize with women.
       Josh—the other Josh—mentioned or at least suggested that gynecologists must receive some sort of sexual satisfaction while being in the profession they are in. I completely agree or suggest they do. My good friend’s father is married to a woman whose ex-husband is in jail for defiling several women at his gynecologist practice. Yes of course not all male gynecologists rape their patients; however, no matter how professional a gynecologist is, it does not extinguish his sexual instincts. For whatever reason a guy would want to go to med school to be a gynecologist is beyond me. I take that back, more than likely he is not psychologically secure and wants to view the female anatomy to fill a void—whatever that may be. In addition, consider this scenario: You as a male are a gynecologist, and have five patients for the day. One of your patient’s is young and absolutely gorgeous. Honestly, most males would look forward to examining this patient…how could it be any different than watching the same girl in a porn flic, the anticipation, the adrenaline rush of wanting to see her naked and knowing that you are going to?
      So this is how I sympathize. I do not trust male gynecologists, and if I was a female, I would seek a woman in this profession. I have had three close girlfriends in the past. They all have been to a male gynecologist, and I expressed my concern with that. At times it would lead to an argument that I was jealous, insecure and over concerned. However, I have relayed to all them what I have written above, and it has at least made them re-think going to a male to view, touch and manipulate their reproductive organs. In other words I try to offer a male perspective on the situation, more specifically that you cannot erase that primal sexual instinct from a male.
     I understand that not all females will see things from my perspective, and that they will have different reasons for having a male over a female gynecologist. For example some may feel more self-conscious with a female. I guess what the clincher for me is whenever my significant other of the time goes to the gynecologists who is a male, I struggle to get the images and thoughts out of my mind of  my buddy’s dads wife’s ex-husband; It bothers the hell out of me. Sympathetic or insecure, I think it is more that I actually cared about the well-being of my ex’s, and wanted to help protect what was and still is sacred of theirs. So will I understand what it is like to be a female? Of course not! However, I am a male, and I know the dark side of men—more so because I am in the military—that means I can somewhat understand the sexual prowess of men that females are often exposed to, and a victim of.

Domalski, Josh

J. Marion Sims

I noticed that our class was rather divided on opinions of Sims, and I think the division is due to sex. The female students were horrified for the most part at what Sims did to the women of his experiments, whereas the male students of the class seemed to be more accepting of what happened, explaining that it was for the good of medical advances. This post is not to attack the male students of the class, but to try to make sense of the difference of opinion between the women and men, and especially to try to make sense of it for myself.

I think women will always be sympathetic and empathetic towards the harms that are done to fellow women, whether it was a couple centuries ago or happening today. Women know that they have always been viewed as the inferior sex, and for that, society and our gender brings us together, especially when being attacked or ridiculed by our male counterparts. I believe, from what I saw in class yesterday, all of the women could feel the pain and suffering of the women Sims operated on. I think with this particular part of history, it was not only a matter of race, but also sex. I think that for women more so, coming together and defending our sex will almost always outweigh any other discrimination that we will face in our lifetimes- because it affects literally half of the world's population. This is more true for today than in Sims time, however.

I think another part of this story that bothered a lot of the female students, myself included, was that Sims was a white male, operating on the very intimate parts of women. While we all understand that there were no female doctors of the time, it still doesn't seem right that men should have been operating on the reproductive organs and parts of women, first and foremost because they will never understand what women will go through. Men cannot estimate the amount the amount of pain that women go through in childbirth, and yet the do anyway. It is the same concept, men should not study what they will never understand and be able to empathize with, especially when women were believed to be so drastically inferior to men of the time. Today, we know that male practitioners working in the areas of strictly women's health is better. And today, Sims would never be able to operate over 40 times on the same body part, despite sex or race. I think that because these "patients" were African American and female, he had little regard for their well being and relieving their suffering, but it is more likely he put fame and fortune before this.

I think that this topic is more directed toward gender, and that is why the women of the class thought less of Sims than the men did. I know in my opinion, what Sims did was an attack on race and gender. If he had truly wanted to help women, he could have done a few things drastically different. And I do not mean any offense when I say that the men in the class probably did not empathize with these slaves as the women in the class did. The women looked at it as an attack on our sex, while the men looked at it as a necessary evil for the good of science. Both of their points, but I think in the end, at least for me, I judged with not only my mind, but also my heart because I believed it to be morally wrong.

Erin Pattridge  

Cuvier & Sims: My Mind Is In The Gutter...

During our discussion about J. Marion Sims today, Jeff mentioned something about how Sims reminds him of Cuvier. Consider this from the Fausto-Sterling reading, regarding Cuvier: "the compliant cadaver laid out before him, now unable at last to resist his deepest probings." It sounds to me like he wanted to do more than just examine Baartman. Now consider this quote from the reading about Sims: "I saw everything, as no man had ever seen before." I cannot help but get these "sexual subliminal messages" from Sims and Cuvier after our discussion - that these men got off on examining these women, and it turned them on. What does the class think?

- Josh Steffen

Disrespectful use of African Americans

In Chapters 4 and 5 of Medical Apartheid, it went into detail stories of how doctors and students becoming doctors treated deceased African Americans. I was completely blown away by some of the things that were discussed in this section. Some African American's bodies were not even used for medical reasons. Some doctors used individuals skeletons as pranks against their co-workers. To me, this is completely unacceptable. I know there was debate in class about weather Dr. Sims was a hero or a villain. However, in my eyes the doctors that misused these African American's bodies for purposes other than medical reasons are definitely villains. This makes me wonder how doctors treat deceased individuals today. I don't think that doctors are under constant surveillance to make sure they are treating these bodies appropriately. Who knows what doctors might be doing? It also makes me wonder how doctors treat animals today? Are animals who are undergoing tests treated under horrible conditions, and used for pranks? In my opinion, doctors should be watched a little more carefully, to make sure they are respecting the people/animals that they are testing. It is sad to think that doctors- who are viewed as heros and highly intelligent people- could stoop so low and do such horrible things. It makes you realize that anyone is capable of anything.

J. Marion Sims

Today the article that we read about was about J. Marion Sims who is considered the father of gynecology. The main focus of class today was wether or not he was a hero or a villian. While I dont beleive that what he did was very ethical at all I do beleive that what he did helped shape the way that gynecology is viwed today. I dont think that if he was such a terrible person that his views wouldnt still be looked at today. I also beleive that you have to look at the time period that this was going on. During that time slavery was going on and black females werent looked at as white women. I also beleive that you have to take into consideration that he was not wealthy and the upper class women could pay for the anesthia. Again I do not beleive that anything he did was ethical but i think that it has alot to do with the time period and im sure there were other doctors doing the same thing. This relates to today's world because like him people will still use other people to benefit themselves and to get ahead in the world. Also we still do experimentation today just not on humans. Like in the past we experiment on people or things that we feel are below us. Today instead of experimenting on human beings that we consider below us we experiment on animals and then use our results to help the human race. So J. Sims isnt really that different from scientist today except we dont use humans anymore instead we use another species.

Valentine’s Day Love Story

 

The discussion today on Julia Pastrana brought up a lot of different opinions and topics about the way Julia was viewed in contrast to the way Sarah Baartman was view. I don’t believe that Julia was viewed as humanistic as Sarah was. Just on the way that she was described in the writing by Bondeson. I know that Julia was probably not happy being a side show “freak” however, compared to the writings on Sarah Baartman; Julia was viewed more as a person. The article talked about how Julia was talented, she would sing and dance. Julia was more humanized by the way the author talked about her talents instead of concentrate more on her body and her sexualized nature.

  To contradict myself I was looking at the different titles the two women had. Sarah’s title or “freak” name was Hottentots Venus vs. Julia’s: “Miss Julia Pastrana, the Nondescript.

In this context “nondescript” means “strange animals and monsters from beyond the seas.” In looking at the two women that way; Julia seems like she is more dehumanized and animalistic. Most associate Venus with a beautiful woman from the paintings and the term Nondescript sends messages of a person that has no real gender or identity that can be identified.

So I guess I am still a little confused and conflicted about who was less of an animal and who was more used for their bodies….Jury’s still out. 

-Sarah Fiorella