I know exactly what you mean about missionaries - they often accomplish important work that quite possibly no-one else would do. But they do it at a price, even if they don't explicitly evangelise, which most of them do in any case. But then what about the Salvation Army and their work for the homeless? If a person has needs and someone else is willing to provide for them, is it right to disapprove simply because the price tag is spiritual rather than financial. It's not as if most of the zenana women had an option in choosing their religion anyway.
In her time your Great Great Aunt Fanny was undoubtedly respected, even revered within the family. She died young, having undoubtedly had to fight hard to gain the qualifications she had and which made her of use to the women of Kashmir. Of course she was ambivalent about her role - the level of propaganda used at that period to stop young middle-class women taking up real professions was still pretty extreme. It would have felt as if she was given up everything she was conditioned to believe in about a woman's role and function - purity and innocence (an unmarried woman understanding midwifery?), the chance of marriage and motherhood, which was seen as the most sacred of callings for a woman, not to mention the life of middle-class respectability she could otherwise have claimed as her right.
Women who pioneered often had doubts, and fears that what they gave up was worth more than what they gained. To this day the anti-feminist backlash publishes scare stories (or at least articles) on a regular basis. It's not surprising that "lady-doctoring" seemed "unwomanly", but she did it. Her spiritual great-grand-daughters now outnumber young men in training I believe.
no subject
I know exactly what you mean about missionaries - they often accomplish important work that quite possibly no-one else would do. But they do it at a price, even if they don't explicitly evangelise, which most of them do in any case. But then what about the Salvation Army and their work for the homeless? If a person has needs and someone else is willing to provide for them, is it right to disapprove simply because the price tag is spiritual rather than financial. It's not as if most of the zenana women had an option in choosing their religion anyway.
In her time your Great Great Aunt Fanny was undoubtedly respected, even revered within the family. She died young, having undoubtedly had to fight hard to gain the qualifications she had and which made her of use to the women of Kashmir. Of course she was ambivalent about her role - the level of propaganda used at that period to stop young middle-class women taking up real professions was still pretty extreme. It would have felt as if she was given up everything she was conditioned to believe in about a woman's role and function - purity and innocence (an unmarried woman understanding midwifery?), the chance of marriage and motherhood, which was seen as the most sacred of callings for a woman, not to mention the life of middle-class respectability she could otherwise have claimed as her right.
Women who pioneered often had doubts, and fears that what they gave up was worth more than what they gained. To this day the anti-feminist backlash publishes scare stories (or at least articles) on a regular basis. It's not surprising that "lady-doctoring" seemed "unwomanly", but she did it. Her spiritual great-grand-daughters now outnumber young men in training I believe.