Part 15
In 1876 Miss Margaret F. Buchanan, now Mrs. Sullivan, entered upon the journalistic career, in which she speedily gained an enviable reputation, showing herself as thoroughly equipped as any brother of the press among them all to meet the serious questions and vexed problems of political and social science, and equally ready for brilliant descriptive work or discriminating criticism. Near the same time Miss Emily S. Bouton took the position upon the _Toledo Blade_ which, in its varied demands upon her, not only as the head of its literary and household departments, but as leader writer and special contributor, has served to show the wide range of her accomplishments and her ability in every line of journalistic labor. The editorial and dramatic columns of the _Blade_ have been indebted to her for some of their strongest work. It was to the _Blade_ also that “Shirley Dare” gave much of the best of her early versatile achievements in the journalistic field. Somewhat earlier Mrs. Kate Brownlee Sherwood had filled a responsible position upon another Toledo paper. The _Indianapolis Journal_ has for many years given a fair field to women journalists, and in its columns Miss Anna Nicholas, Mrs. Florence Adkinson, Mrs. May Wright Sewall, and others have achieved success. In 1878 Mrs. Belle Ball entered on a very different line of newspaper works as traveling correspondent of the _Albuquerque_ (New Mexico) _Journal_, and of two Kansas papers, her especial duty being to report the progress of the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, with all its incidental accompaniments—one of these being for months together the peril to life from Indian foes. After two years of this arduous experience she became an associate editor on a Kansas paper. For the last two years she has been the literary editor of the _Kansas City Times_.
After 1876 women journalists multiplied in the West as rapidly as in New England. The Illinois Woman’s Press Association, formed in 1886, at the close of 1888, numbered 66 members, of whom 45 are either business managers of important journals, editors, or editorial assistants. Investigation shows a large number of newspaper women in the State who have not enrolled themselves in this or any association. The Western Association of Writers, organized in July, 1885, has many women editors, correspondents, and reporters among its members. The Ohio Woman’s Press Association has in its Cincinnati branch over thirty members, nearly all of whom are journalists. The Cleveland branch numbers between forty and fifty, about one-half of whom are authors and one-half journalists.
Earlier than any of these was the Woman’s National Press Association, organized at Washington, D.C., in July, 1882. This has a large membership, and, like all of the others, is in a prosperous condition. Since 1887 a special press gallery for its members has been set apart in each of the houses of Congress. The New England Woman’s Press Association was organized in Boston in November, 1885. At present it numbers nearly 100 members, all journalists or magazine editors. When the _Woman’s Journal_ was established it found no woman journalist in Boston save Miss Sallie Joy, now Mrs. White, who was then doing more or less desultory work upon the _Boston Post_. In 1869 she was enrolled as one of the regular staff of that paper. After her marriage in 1874 she transferred her services to the _Advertiser_, and later to the _Herald_, and to-day she is duly honored by the numerous sisterhood of Boston newspaper women as their pioneer and leader.
Since New York saw the establishment of _Harper’s Bazar_ in the interests of women in one direction, and of the _Revolution_ in another, women’s publications in both of the lines thus indicated have multiplied until it is quite out of the question to give a list of them outside of the pages of a newspaper directory. The most widely known follower in the path of the _Bazar_ is the _Ladies’ Home Journal_ of Philadelphia, of which Mrs. Louisa Knapp was from the beginning until January, 1890, the editor, with a salary of ten thousand dollars a year, and with Mrs. Emma Hewitt and Mrs. Mary Lambert as assistants. There are probably not many more such pecuniary prizes as yet in the grasp of women journalists; but, on the whole, there are not many such open for any one. It may as well be said here that Philadelphia, which was the first city in the United States to set wide open many doors for woman’s work, as yet numbers fewer women journalists than any other large Northern city. Mrs. Hollowell, for many years past editor of the Household department of the _Ledger_, and more recently Mrs. Kate Upson Clark of the _Press_, have broadened their departmental work and made it of great value in educational and divers other lines.
Following the lead of the _Revolution_ and the _Woman’s Journal_ there are many others; some as out-and-out suffrage papers, and others covering more broadly the circle of woman’s industrial and social interests. In the East, the van among these is led by the _Woman’s Magazine_, published by Mrs. Esther T. Housh at Brattleboro, Vermont. Mrs. Housh began its publication originally at Lexington, Kentucky, under the title of _Woman at Work_. In the south is the _Woman’s Chronicle_ of Little Rock, Arkansas. In the far West are the _Queen Bee_ of Denver, Colorado, the _Woman’s Tribune_ of Beatrice, Nebraska, and the _New Northwest_ of Portland, Oregon,—all owned and edited by women. Those in the nearer West are too many to specify. With these, widely differing yet in one sense kindred to them, should be named _The Woman’s Exponent_, the official organ of the Woman’s Association of Utah. It is edited by Emmeline B. Wells, and carries the motto “The Rights of the Women of Zion, and the Rights of the Women of all Nations.” The association which publishes it claims a membership of 22,000 women, “thoroughly organized for the relief of the poor, and for medical, philosophical, historical, and religious study.”
The Pacific slope has had comparatively few women journalists, but the names of several appear upon the roll of membership of the lately formed Central and Northern California Press Association.
The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union has within the last four or five years multiplied greatly the number of women engaged in the practical work of journalism. Beginning with the _Union Signal_, founded by Mrs. Matilda B. Carse in Chicago, they have started up in almost every State of the Union, and many local papers have W. C. T. U. departments, all edited by women.
The vital interest of working women in the vexed problems of the relation between capital and labor has called into existence at least one paper, the _Working Woman_. This is the organ of the Woman’s National Industrial League. It is published in Washington, D. C., by Mrs. Charlotte Smith, who long ago proved her editorial ability in St. Louis. Miss Mary F. Seymour has, more recently, established in New York the _Business Woman’s Journal_, which from its initial number has carried the prestige of success in its chosen field. Miss Fanny M. Earl, of the _Hartford Insurance Journal_ has made her name widely known in business circles all over the country, and aided in conquering their respect for woman’s practical abilities.
Our Anglo-African sisters are awakening to a comprehension of the use of the press as an instrument of value to themselves and their race. The names of half a dozen who have been or are now in editorial charge of race papers are well known, and at least a score of others who are actively engaged in journalism. A few of them have been employed as reporters or as special contributors on some of the leading dailies in our great seaboard cities.
Having noted the rapid increase in the number of newspaper women who in other parts of the country are doing faithful and worthy work in this their chosen profession, it remains to say that New York City has not fallen behind in this respect. The evidence of their capacity and fitness for the work is before the public in almost every daily, weekly, and monthly publication issued in the metropolis. Besides these are many whose work goes, through the syndicate system, all over the country. Their work, usually signed, serves even more widely to attract ambitious and intelligent young women to the same profession than does the exceptional reputation of such editors as Miss Booth, Mrs. M. M. Dodge, Mrs. Martha J. Lamb, and Miss Jeanette Gilder. There are two Amateur Press Associations of these youthful intending journalists in New England. There may be others in other parts of the country. And the number of those who are being inducted into the practical work of journalism, on rural and county papers, owned by their relatives or friends, grows greater every year.
From the very first there have been for women in journalism an open door and a fair field. The earliest comers went into it because their services were sought for. Themselves and those whom their success led to embrace the same profession met with a warm welcome from the public; in not a few instances even an enthusiastic one.
In each and every department of journalism—whether in office work, i.e. as editors, editorial assistants, or reporters; or in outside work, as correspondents, special contributors, or syndicate writers—the wages paid to women are the same as those paid to men of similar capacity, doing the same work. The prices paid vary according to the financial status of the papers themselves. In the larger cities writers “on space” receive on some journals payment at the rate of five dollars per column; some other papers pay as much as ten dollars per column. With all these writers, except where special articles have been ordered by the chief, and the length thereof specified, it is a matter of uncertainty how much space will be given them. The exigencies of the case often cut down what, under other circumstances, would be a welcome column article to two or three paragraphs, sometimes to as many lines. Office salaries in large cities vary from ten or even only eight dollars per week to as much as fifty or sixty dollars per week. A fair average for syndicate correspondence is probably about ten dollars per column. On country and county papers wages are of course much lower, often running down to a figure which makes outside labor needful for even plain country living. But whether in city or country women who can do the needful work as well as men may be sure of as good pay as men, and of fair and just treatment at the hands of their journalistic brethren.
VII. WOMAN IN MEDICINE.
BY
MARY PUTNAM JACOBI, M.D.
“Fifty years hence, it will be difficult to gain credit for the assertion that American women acquiesced throughout the former half of the 19th century, in the complete monopoly of the medical profession by men, even including midwifery, and the diseases peculiar to women. The current usage in this respect is monstrous.”—_New York Tribune_, Editorial, 1853.
The history of the movement for introducing women into the full practice of the medical profession is one of the most interesting of modern times. This movement has already achieved much, and far more than is often supposed. Yet the interest lies even less in what has been so far achieved, than in the opposition which has been encountered: in the nature of this opposition; in the pretexts on which it has been sustained, and in the reasonings, more or less disingenuous, by which it has claimed its justification. The history, therefore, is a record not more of fact, than of opinion. And the opinions expressed have often been so grave and solid in appearance, yet proved so frivolous and empty in view of the subsequent event, that their history is not unworthy careful consideration among that of other solemn follies of mankind.
In Europe, the admission of women to the profession of medicine has been widely opposed because of disbelief in their intellectual capacity.[32] In America it is less often permitted to doubt—out loud—the intellectual capacity of women. The controversy has therefore been shifted to the entirely different ground of decorum.
At the very outset, however, two rival decorums confronted each other. The same centuries of tradition which had, officially, reserved the practice of medicine for men, had assigned to women the exclusive control of the practice of midwifery. It was assumed that midwifery did not require the assistance of medical art,—that the woman in labor traversed a purely physiological crisis, and required only the attendance of kindness, patience, and native sagacity,—all obtainable without scientific knowledge, from her own sex. This being taken for granted, the propriety of limiting such attendance to women appeared so self-evident, that, from the beginning of the world till the eighteenth century A.D., the custom was not seriously questioned. There is an exact parallelism between the relations of men to midwifery and of women to medicine. The limitation of sex in each case was decided by a tradition so immense, as to be mistaken for a divinely implanted instinct, intended by Providence as one of the fundamental safeguards of society and of morals. In each case the invasion by one sex of a “sphere” hitherto monopolized by the other, aroused the coarsest antagonism of offended delicacy. In each case finally, a real basis existed for the traditional etiquette: there _was_ some reason for protesting against the introduction of the male accoucheur into the lying-in room, or of the ardent young girl into the medical school. But in each case, whatever reasons for protest existed, were outnumbered and outweighed by others, to whose greater importance they were finally compelled to give way. Other things being equal, it _was_ unpleasant for a woman to be attended in the crisis of her confinement by a man. But when the necessity for knowledge was recognized, when men became skilled while midwives remained ignorant,—the choice was no longer possible; the greater decorum of female midwifery was obliged to yield to the greater safety of enlightened masculine practice. Similarly, it _was_ occasionally unpleasant for young women students to find themselves engaged in certain subjects of medical study together with classes of young men. But in proportion as midwifery became enlarged by the new province of gynæcology, did occasions multiply on which it was extremely unpleasant for non-medical women to be medically treated by men. The difficulties of educating a relatively few women in medicine were compelled to be accepted, in order to avert the far greater difficulties of medical treatment for a very large number of women.
The history of medical women in the United States, to which these pages exclusively apply, may be divided into seven periods, as follows:
First, the colonial period of exclusively female midwifery,[33] many of whose practitioners, according to their epitaphs, are reported to have brought into the world one, two, or even three thousand babies apiece. The Mrs. Thomas Whitmore of Marlboro, mentioned in the note, is especially described as being “possessed of a vigorous constitution, and frequently traveling through the woods on snow-shoes from one part of the town to another by night and by day, to relieve the distressed.”[34]
During this period of female midwifery, the medical profession proper of the colonies remained entirely unorganized and inarticulate.[35] Without making especial inquiry, a superficial observer could have almost overlooked the existence of doctors, as a special class, in the community.
There followed, however, a second period, that, namely, of the Revolution, and the years immediately preceding and following it. During the former, physicians began to travel to Europe for instruction. During the Revolutionary war their public services in the military hospitals, though apparently not very useful to the sick,[36] yet served to bring the profession, for the first time, out of obscurity; and the opportunities afforded for the collective observation of disease on a large scale, first breathed the spirit of medical science into the American profession. The first achievement of the new-born interest in medical art and education was the expulsion of “females,” from even the outlying provinces of the profession, and from their world-old traditional privileges as accoucheurs.[37] It was a harsh return to make for the services rendered to the infant settlements by these valiant midwives, who had been tramping through the snow by night and by day to bring into a very cold world the citizens of the future republic![38]
Third. After this, however, came a period of reaction. In 1848, a Boston gentleman, Mr. Samuel Gregory, began to vehemently protest against the innovation of “male midwives,” and, opened a crusade on behalf of the women, with something of the pathetic ardor of the Emperor Julian for a lost cause.[39] To judge by the comments of the public press, Mr. Gregory’s protest against “man-midwifery” awoke sympathetic echoes in many quarters. At the present day the interest in the movement thus roused, at once progressive and reactionary, lies chiefly in the remarkable similarity between the arguments which were then advanced against the intrusion of men into midwifery, and those which were subsequently urged against the admission of women to medicine. Thus:
“The employment of men in midwifery practice is always grossly indelicate, often immoral, and always constitutes a serious temptation to immorality.”—_Summary of Mr. Gregory’s argument in “Man-Midwifery Exposed,”_ 1848.
“I view the present practice of calling on men in ordinary births, ... as a means of sacrificing delicacy and consequently virtue.”—_Thomas Ewell, M.D., of Virginia._
“The practice (of male midwifery) is unnecessary, unnatural, and wrong,—it has an immoral tendency.”—_W. Beach, M.D., New York._
“There are many cases of practice among women ... in which the sense of propriety would decide that the presence of a female practitioner is more desirable than that of a man.”—_New York Observer_, 1850.
“There are a few self-evident propositions which it would be questioning the common sense of mankind to doubt. One is that women are by nature better fitted than men to take care of the sick and the suffering.”—_Godey’s Lady’s Book_, 1850.
“The especial propriety of qualifying women to practice among children and their own sex, will be admitted I hope by all.”—_Rt. Rev. Bishop Potter_, 1850.
“We have long been persuaded that both morality and decency require female practitioners of medicine. Nature suggests it; reason approves it; religion demands it.”—_Northern Christian Advocate_, 1850.
“This is one of the most important projects of the day for the improvement of the condition of women.”—_Zion’s Herald_, 1850.
“The employment of men as ‘midwives’ is a modern custom, and one not to be commended.”—_Phil. Saturday Post_, 1850.
“To attend medical clinics in company with men, women must lay aside their modesty. There are still enough _gentlemen_ who would blush to expose their mothers or sisters or wives to what, before women, would be improper and indecent.”—_Letter to editor N. Y. Med. Record, 1884, by M. K. Blackwood._
“History, physiology, and the general judgment of society unite in the negative of woman’s fitness for the medical office.”—“_Woman and her Physician._” _Lecture, Theoph. Parvin, Prof. Dis. Women_, 1870.
“If I were to plan with malicious hate the greatest curse I could conceive for women, if I would estrange them from the protection of women, and make them as far as possible loathsome and disgusting to man, I would favor the so-called reform which proposed to make doctors of them.”—_Editorial Buffalo Med. Journal_, 1869, p. 191.
“There are free-thinkers in the medical profession as there are free-lovers in social life.... The opposition of medical men arises because this movement outrages all their enlightened estimate of what a woman should be. It shocks their refined appreciation of woman to see her assume to follow a profession with repulsive details at every step, after the disgusting preliminaries have been passed.”—_Sherry, Med. and Surg. Reporter, July 6, 1867._
“It is obvious that we cannot instruct women as we do men in the science of medicine; we cannot carry them into the dissecting room and hospital; many of _our_ more delicate feelings, much of _our_ refined sensibility must be subdued before we can study medicine; in females they must be destroyed.”—_Remarks on Employment of Females as Practitioners, Boston_, 1820.
“The ceremonies of graduating Miss Blackwell at Geneva may well be called a farce. I am sorry that Geneva should be the first to commence the nefarious process of amalgamation. The profession was quite too full before.”—_Letter by D. K. to Boston Journal, Feb. 1849._
“The bare thought of married females engaging in the medical profession is palpably absurd. It carries with it a sense of shame, vulgarity, and disgust. Nature is responsible for my unqualified opposition to educating females for the medical profession.”—_Dissert. on Female Phys. by N. Williams, M.D., read before a N. Y. Med. Soc._, June 6, 1850.
“Females are ambitious to dabble in medicine as in other matters, with a view to reorganizing society.”—_Edit. Boston Med. and Surg. Jour._, 1852, p. 106.
“The serious inroads made by female physicians in obstetrical business, _one of the essential branches of income to a majority of well established practitioners_, make it natural enough to inquire what course to pursue.”—_Ibid._, Feb. 1853.
These parallel columns might be extended much further, did our space permit. We cannot, however, pass by the following gem of eloquence from an English source, but quoted in the Cincinnati _Lancet and Clinic_ for 1881. It is from the address at the British Medical Association by the President of that year:
“I am not over-squeamish, nor am I over-sensitive, but I almost shudder when I hear of things that ladies now do or attempt to do. One can but blush, and feel that modesty, once inherent in the fairest of God’s creation, is fast fading away. You gentlemen, who know the delicacy of women’s organization,—you must know that constitutionally they are unfit for many of the duties of either doctor or nurse.
“May not habit so change that fine organization, that sensitive nature of women, as to render her dead to those higher feelings of love and sympathy which now make our homes so happy, so blessed?
“Will not England’s glory fade without its modest sympathizing women, and its race of stalwart youths and blooming maidens?
“You now, gentlemen, know my views as to the propriety of ladies _becoming doctors or nurses_.”[40]
The Fourth period of woman’s medical history was initiated when Mr. Gregory, supported by the popular enthusiasm he had aroused, succeeded in opening a School of Medicine (so called) for women, in Nov. 1848.[41] The first term lasted three months: a second term began the following April, 1849;—and with the announcement for the second year it was declared that the twenty pioneer pupils had not only followed the lectures, but “had attended above 300 midwifery cases with the most satisfactory success.”