Witches, Midwives, and Nurses

Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers (1973) is a feminist polemical pamphlet by American writers Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English. It argues that medical practice was the preserve of women healers until the Enlightenment era saw a hostile takeover by male professionals whose methods were—at least initially—less successful than those of the women they displaced. Witches, Midwives, and Nurses, regarded as a seminal text of second wave feminism, established the public profiles of Ehrenreich and English. It was republished in 2010 with a new introduction by the authors.

The 2010 introduction outlines the context in which the pamphlet was written, pointing out that in the 1970s, feminist history had yet to become a legitimate academic field. Good scholarship about women’s healing practices was hard to find, and as a result, some of the information given in the 1973 edition now needs updating in the light of subsequent research. However, Ehrenreich and English argue that these updates are cosmetic. Sadly, the bulk of their polemical argument remains relevant. The American healthcare system is still male-dominated and driven by an exploitative capitalist rationale.

The 1973 introduction outlines the argument to come. It asserts that women have always been healers and asks how it is that women have come to be marginalized in the modern healthcare industry. The authors argue that the answer lies in a deliberate and aggressive takeover, in which working-class female healers were displaced by bourgeois male doctors.



The first section of the pamphlet examines the role of women healers in the early modern era. Ehrenreich and English argue that in early-modern Europe, every community had a few women who knew traditional remedies, most of them passed down orally, and specific to the region. Many of these remedies were herbal and psychological, and Ehrenreich and English argue that in many cases the remedies of “wise women” would have been more effective than those of early doctors, whose reliance on erroneous Ancient Greek science lead them to prescribe treatments which were often damaging and even fatal.

Nevertheless, authorities across Europe began to suppress women healers. Ehrenreich and English argue that the witch hunts of the early modern era were, in part, a deliberate attempt to target the women healers who embodied a localized form of female authority. At the same time, a male-dominated medical profession came into being, and the Church used misogynist arguments to distinguish these two types of caregiver. Women healers were portrayed as defying God by attempting to heal those whom God had chosen to sicken. Doctors, however, were the Church-approved hand of God, who would only act through a male intermediary. Women were excluded from the universities where doctors were trained so that no women healer had the means to legitimize her activities. Ehrenreich and English point out the remarkable fact that this sustained campaign did not eradicate the tradition of female healers, although it certainly drove it deep underground.

The second section of the pamphlet switches its focus to the United States. Here, Ehrenreich and English argue, men did not take over the primary role in healthcare until the 19th century. Prior to the 19th century, there was no formal training in medicine available, and any competent person might serve as the caregiver for a frontier community. However, at the beginning of the century public universities were founded and began to train men—and only men—in medicine, who then used their educational status to discredit other medical practitioners. Ehrenreich and English examine the Popular Health Movement of the 1830s and 40s, which attempted to resist the advance of male-only professionalized healthcare. They argue that this Movement failed for two reasons. First, the professional practitioners were supported financially by emergent philanthropic foundations like those of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Second, as scientific knowledge improved, university-trained practitioners (that is, white male practitioners) began to enjoy a genuine advantage over untrained medics.



Once male professionals had taken over healthcare, women were sidelined. Ehrenreich and English trace the development of the “female” profession of nursing. They argue that the strictly gendered division of doctors and nurses has served as a powerful reinforcement to sexist stereotypes about the natural roles and abilities of men and women. They note that the gendered division between the two professions remains in force to this day. Furthermore, the professionalization of medicine created a disconnect between healers and patients, which has enabled the rise of an exploitative, for-profit healthcare system.

The pamphlet concludes by restating its finding that historically, medical care has been the preserve of women. It is only a deliberate campaign, waged along sexist and classist lines, which has demoted women from the status of healer to the status of nurse. The ongoing gender-segregation of healthcare is “inextricably linked” to the oppression of women in general.