Scan barcode
nshemezis's review
I couldn't handle this book. It was way too much like a text book. It took forever to get through pages. Although I really liked what I was reading and really learned a lot from it... I'll just have to pick this up again when there's absolutely nothing else going on in my life.
wealhtheow's review
3.0
Ehrenreich and English look at what kind of advice we've been given for the last two hundred years. Although they provide a good deal of social, political, economic, and general background to the development and evolution of experts, the part I found most fascinating was on the creation of what we consider medical doctors. I hadn't realized how culturally specific, oft-changing, and purposefully created our modern conception of medicine is.
For instance, the cultural ancestors of modern doctors were just dudes who had enough money and class status to go to university and learn classical languages. They never learned anatomy or how to treat illnesses in any evidence-based manner. In fact, to maintain their status as "gentlemen," they didn't touch their patients (instead leaving the dispensing of medicines, bone-setting, childbirth, etc to others) or receive payment for their services (they were instead given "gifts"). But given that their medical knowledge was entirely based in classical literature, they were not particularly helpful. Instead, most people used what we now term folk-medicine (practiced by a healer in their area), which *was* mostly evidence-based and very much in line with modern conceptions of medicine (understandings of anatomy, palpating the lymph nodes, knowing what the patient ate, what their stools looked like, etc). But "regular" doctors had the rich on their side, so when science and the scientific method began to gain credence, they were able to lay claim to science first, while simultaneously suing to have all doctors who didn't go to their specific universities be considered criminals if they practiced medicine. It worked! Oh classism. And thus, for the next hundred years or so, the UK and US were left with doctors who had a very narrow understanding of what to look for to judge health. Mental state, nutrition, environment...all of this fell by the way-side.
Ehrenreich and English also talk a bit about how various credentials came to be and the double-binds created by psychologists for women. And don't think women were martyred saints, either--white, middle and upper class women were instrumental in all sorts of bs movements to "improve" the poor and minority groups. Overall, a good read, with nuggets of biting sarcasm to match the facts and anecdotes.
For instance, the cultural ancestors of modern doctors were just dudes who had enough money and class status to go to university and learn classical languages. They never learned anatomy or how to treat illnesses in any evidence-based manner. In fact, to maintain their status as "gentlemen," they didn't touch their patients (instead leaving the dispensing of medicines, bone-setting, childbirth, etc to others) or receive payment for their services (they were instead given "gifts"). But given that their medical knowledge was entirely based in classical literature, they were not particularly helpful. Instead, most people used what we now term folk-medicine (practiced by a healer in their area), which *was* mostly evidence-based and very much in line with modern conceptions of medicine (understandings of anatomy, palpating the lymph nodes, knowing what the patient ate, what their stools looked like, etc). But "regular" doctors had the rich on their side, so when science and the scientific method began to gain credence, they were able to lay claim to science first, while simultaneously suing to have all doctors who didn't go to their specific universities be considered criminals if they practiced medicine. It worked! Oh classism. And thus, for the next hundred years or so, the UK and US were left with doctors who had a very narrow understanding of what to look for to judge health. Mental state, nutrition, environment...all of this fell by the way-side.
Ehrenreich and English also talk a bit about how various credentials came to be and the double-binds created by psychologists for women. And don't think women were martyred saints, either--white, middle and upper class women were instrumental in all sorts of bs movements to "improve" the poor and minority groups. Overall, a good read, with nuggets of biting sarcasm to match the facts and anecdotes.
jennseeg's review
4.0
Why do I do this to myself? I know going into reading this kind of book will make me very angry and yet I still insist on reading them! I appreciate this author's views and writing style about difficult topics, however.
nekokat's review against another edition
4.0
Actually super interesting, if impossible to summarize to anyone who casually asks "so what are you reading?" without their eyes glazing over. A tour de force through the history of the medical establishment, capitalism, psychiatry, child-rearing, feminism and modern society in general that draws a lot of really interesting connections.
meganstilley's review against another edition
3.0
Some interesting information in here. The first third is very similar to “Witches, Nurses and Midwives” book. Also, this writing is not Barbara’s typical writing style, it is a bit more text book writing ( i.e. dull).
magalys's review against another edition
4.0
This book was well written given the amount of information it gives you. Obviously, a lot of research was done to create this book and it simultaneously gave the authors' own ideas.
My only complaint with this book that while reading this, I seem like it was very much a journey of a white woman's journey of feminism. The authors do recognize that women of color, specifically black women have and do suffer more but it was only brought up a handful of times, as a side note or parenthetical. So to me it was a one dimensional way of telling the history of society's manner of advising women in a way that supported that patriarchy.
My only complaint with this book that while reading this, I seem like it was very much a journey of a white woman's journey of feminism. The authors do recognize that women of color, specifically black women have and do suffer more but it was only brought up a handful of times, as a side note or parenthetical. So to me it was a one dimensional way of telling the history of society's manner of advising women in a way that supported that patriarchy.
azpidistra's review against another edition
3.0
Definitely a bit chunky, but overall a good insight into both women's and medical history.