Women at the Front: Hospital Workers in Civil War America
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
Jane Schultz has written a well-researched book that tells a compelling story. First-person accounts interspersed throughout the book lend immediacy to the war that took place nearly 150 years ago. The author transports the reader through time so effectively that the sights and smells of Civil War hospitals become real.
On the basis of this book's depiction of women's fight to serve patients despite the hostility of Civil War–era surgeons, it seems clear that the problems of contemporary nurses have a long history. Throughout history, female nurses have dealt with being invisible, discounted, and devalued. During the Civil War, when nursing was viewed as domestic work, nurses did not seem threatening, which eased their entrance into the "military medical arena." Paradoxically, this move hampered their autonomy and virtually eliminated any claim to authority they might have desired.
Whether black or white, Southern or Northern, nurse or laundress, the women who toiled in hospitals — there were 20,000 of them — had to deal with the hubris and not-uncommon state of intoxication of surgeons, the contempt of generals, and the challenge of working with others from different backgrounds. This was on top of dealing with the filth, lack of supplies (including food), mosquitoes, bad weather, floods, driving accidents, and, for most, lack of any formal nursing education.
Social norms during the Civil War era were not kind to women who exposed themselves to the horrors of war by working in hospitals. Southern women, especially, were criticized for jeopardizing their reputations. However, women did the challenging work for many reasons. Some were left with no means of support when their husbands went to war, so they worked for undependable wages. Women of higher social classes felt that it was demeaning to accept pay for their work, so many worked as volunteers.
After the war, soldiers and the widows, fathers, and brothers of fallen soldiers were included in pension legislation. The Army Nurses Pension Act of 1892 broke with tradition in that it supported the independence of women by authorizing pensions to women who earned them. Even so, it was difficult for many nurses to prove their service during the war. Many did not have the means to hire a lawyer to plead their cases, whereas others were illiterate or ignorant of the law. Widows of dead soldiers had a much easier time collecting pensions than did nurses who served. Black women had the hardest time proving their service. White nurses often used their supervision of black workers to buttress their claims, but the white nurses were much less likely to assist black nurses in claiming their pensions.
Much has been written about the Civil War, but this book is unique in that it scrutinizes the war through the "lens of gender." Schultz's treatment of the subject of women who worked in the hospitals of the Civil War is neither sentimental nor lacking in appreciation of their heroism.
Loretta P. Higgins, R.N., Ed.D.
William F. Connell School of Nursing at Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467((Civil War America.) By J)
On the basis of this book's depiction of women's fight to serve patients despite the hostility of Civil War–era surgeons, it seems clear that the problems of contemporary nurses have a long history. Throughout history, female nurses have dealt with being invisible, discounted, and devalued. During the Civil War, when nursing was viewed as domestic work, nurses did not seem threatening, which eased their entrance into the "military medical arena." Paradoxically, this move hampered their autonomy and virtually eliminated any claim to authority they might have desired.
Whether black or white, Southern or Northern, nurse or laundress, the women who toiled in hospitals — there were 20,000 of them — had to deal with the hubris and not-uncommon state of intoxication of surgeons, the contempt of generals, and the challenge of working with others from different backgrounds. This was on top of dealing with the filth, lack of supplies (including food), mosquitoes, bad weather, floods, driving accidents, and, for most, lack of any formal nursing education.
Social norms during the Civil War era were not kind to women who exposed themselves to the horrors of war by working in hospitals. Southern women, especially, were criticized for jeopardizing their reputations. However, women did the challenging work for many reasons. Some were left with no means of support when their husbands went to war, so they worked for undependable wages. Women of higher social classes felt that it was demeaning to accept pay for their work, so many worked as volunteers.
After the war, soldiers and the widows, fathers, and brothers of fallen soldiers were included in pension legislation. The Army Nurses Pension Act of 1892 broke with tradition in that it supported the independence of women by authorizing pensions to women who earned them. Even so, it was difficult for many nurses to prove their service during the war. Many did not have the means to hire a lawyer to plead their cases, whereas others were illiterate or ignorant of the law. Widows of dead soldiers had a much easier time collecting pensions than did nurses who served. Black women had the hardest time proving their service. White nurses often used their supervision of black workers to buttress their claims, but the white nurses were much less likely to assist black nurses in claiming their pensions.
Much has been written about the Civil War, but this book is unique in that it scrutinizes the war through the "lens of gender." Schultz's treatment of the subject of women who worked in the hospitals of the Civil War is neither sentimental nor lacking in appreciation of their heroism.
Loretta P. Higgins, R.N., Ed.D.
William F. Connell School of Nursing at Boston College
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467((Civil War America.) By J)