…and you thought that sexism was a thing of the past…

…lest we think that history is in the past…or that it doesn’t affect the present…

From Gloria Steinem’s book, Revolution from Within, a Book on Self-Esteem:

“Freud, for instance, was actually very clear about his adversarial stance to women’s equality.  “We must not allow ourselves to be deflected…by…the feminist,”  he wrote to his colleagues, “who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth.’ Yet his theories have been cited for most of the last century as objective.”

This is significant because the psychiatric profession is based on Freud’s misogyny.  Now, they’ll tell you that he has been discredited, but from what I read of the Diagnostic Manual (DSM), the misogyny is very much a part of diagnosis and treatment.  There was one “disease” that was particularly disturbing–it described the patient as “being emotional, moody” and other symptoms I can’t remember, that pretty much described women.  If only women could just be more like men!

I remember picking up one of my children’s high school textbooks and saw where they devoted nine pages to discussing Freud.  Of course, they said that he had been discredited, but then they devote nine pages to him?  Then I looked at the number of pages devoted to the women’s rights movement…not even two complete pages.  They pretty much condensed it all.  It was something like “women fought for the right to vote…”  And not much more, if I recall correctly.

There’s more from the book  that I thought was significant:

“It is a modern compendium of the scholarly, scientific, and popular evidence–ranging from comparative measurements of skull sizes and arm lengths to anthropological surveys and popular caricatures–that had been originated by 19th century scientists and popularized by journalists to “prove” a respectable and popular thesis:  the Irish had descended from apes only a few generations before, while the English were descendants of man created in God’s image and thus “angels.”

Gees o pete, talk about self-serving “science”…This “theory” was also used against blacks, too, and pretty much any member of a group that was deemed “less than”.  And being Irish, I’m more than a little offended at this characterization, as anyone should be.

…there’s more…

“…neuroanatomists believed that higher mental activities were located in the frontal lobes of the brain.  Not surprisingly, craniologists confirmed that those areas were larger in male skulls than in female ones, and that the less important, parietal regions at the top and sides of the skull were smaller in females.  Toward the turn of the century, however, neuroanatomists revised their opinion:  higher intellectual abilities were located in the parietal regions after all.  Soon, craniologists had discovered that their earlier measurements had been inaccurate:  males actually had larger parietal lobes than females, and the newly important frontal regions were smaller.”

Um-hmmm…as if you could prove anything by brain size.  It’s so ridiculous that this was taken as “science” and not discounted for the biased and subjective work that it is.

How does one measure intelligence?  Is it the ability to do complicated math?  Or is it the ability to recognize plants and their healing abilities? What about the ability to communicate effectively?  What about “street smarts” aren’t they a sign of intelligence?   See my point—who gets to decide what intelligence means? And doesn’t the meaning of intelligence change with changing situations?

Lastly, here’s this humdinger:

By 1879, G LeBon, a French craniologist, had no doubt:  “In the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains.  This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment, only its degree is worth discussion.  (From research work by scholar Elizabeth Fee).

See…anytime someone says that you can’t contest their findings, it’s a good guess that they’re full of it.  Take into account that at this time, the “scientists” were saying that learning “shrunk”  a woman’s uterus.  They drew this conclusion after observing that women who went to college were less likely to have children.    So, naturally, it must be the dreaded education of women that caused their uteruses to shrivel.  Geesh.

As recently as the eighties, when I learned that doctors drew the conclusion that Endometriosis was a “career woman’s disease” because they only diagnosed it in women in their thirties who had put off childbirth while they pursued careers.  When they were ready and tried to conceive, they were unable to and sought help.   Thus, doctors drew the conclusion that it was because these women had pursued careers…not that the condition was caused by medical reasons. (I wonder now if Endometriosis is caused by environmental toxins?)

And don’t forget the video I had linked to in earlier blogs of the psychiatric “profesisonals” who blamed the mother for her child having autism.  Pure prejudice.