User:JasDuran74/sandbox

Visitors Guide to My Sandbox
These have been my edits to different wikipedia pages, this page will only display the text and not inserted links and/or citations added to the wikipedia articles. To see the actual wikipedia article edit in all its glory click on the provided link. To my knowledge, all of my edits to Wikipedia articles have stayed up and have not been taken down.

Edit Number One to Wikipedia Article
This sentence was originally posted on November 20, 2013 out was taken down the very next day on November 21, 2013 because I did not include a "reliable source", but really I neglected to add any source at all so that was to be expected. I reposted the sentence the same day that it was taken down and learned how to insert a citation. The person who took down the sentence was Materialscientist and they sent me a message saying they were the ones who had removed it and the reason why. Once I reposted with a source the sentence remained on the Wikipedia article.

Added a short fact to the Laura Bassi page and included the following text:

Bassi became the second woman in Europe to receive a degree from a university, the first being Elena Cornaro Piscopia in 1678, fifty-four years prior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Bassi

Edit Number Two to Wikipedia Article
Added the section titled: Afterlife to the Sarah Baartman page on November 21, 2013 and included the following text:

Baartman’s skeleton and body cast were displayed in The Museum d’ Histoire Naturelle, where she entertained visitors until her skull was stolen in 1827 and subsequently returned a few months later. The restored skeleton and skull continued to arouse the interest of visitors until the remains were moved to the Musee de l’ Homme when it was founded in 1937 and continued up until the late 1970s. Her body cast and skeleton stood side by side and faced away from the viewer which emphasized her steatopygia (accumulation of fat on the buttocks) while reinforcing that aspect as the primary interest of her body. The Baartman exhibit proved popular until it elicited complaints from feminists who believed the exhibit was a degrading representation of women. The skeleton was removed in 1974 and the body cast in 1976.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Baartman

Edit Number Three to Wikipedia Article
Added the section titled Female Circulation and the Uterine Economy to the Sally Shuttleworth page on November 25, 2013 and included the following text:

In “Female Circulation”, Shuttleworth illustrates the 19th century medical and social world in regard to female menstruation. The picture she paints is riddled with seemingly incorrect assumptions about the female uterine system and ways in which to prevent obstructions so that a woman may ultimately prevent insanity. Despite the absurdity of the claims and prescriptions made by medical professionals and quacks alike, Shuttleworth explains that the misguided attempts to understand and cure women of these nonexistent ailments stems from the era’s relationship with industrial capitalism, economics, and doctors insatiable need to regulate them along with women. Shuttle worth claims, “The 19th century obsession with the pathology of the uterine economy can only be fully understood … if viewed in the light of the increasing social division of labor under industrial capitalism, and the inherent contradictions within the ideological projections of laissez faire economics.”That is to say that we cannot understand the so called “uterine economy” without acknowledging these topics first.

To understand Shuttleworth’s claim in reference to a historical context the concept of the uterine economy must be addressed. Shuttleworth highlights the fact that doctors connect the word uterus with female hysteria. In the historical period of the 19th century the uterus is seen as the hysterical organ in biological textbooks. The phrase “uterine economy” comes from a metaphor between women and their role within the socioeconomic world, but the wording used by medical professionals still highlights the inferiority of women during the 19th century (Shuttleworth 64). Shuttleworth writes, “blockage in the female economy would lead to hysteria and insanity, so in the wider social system it led to its equivalent economic form: uncontrolled speculation” meaning a woman’s place in the economy stemmed not necessarily from the work sphere but instead from her value in the domestic sphere, the value which her uterus could provide (Shuttleworth 58). There is also the more literal meaning between “the circulation of blood and that of money” in which women and the economy alike should flow without obstruction (Shuttleworth 58). Nevertheless, we see the obsession with the uterine economy begins to become clearer when viewed within this context, where a woman’s value and input was merely seen through her production capabilities.

In a national context when viewing the uterine economy many different factors come into play such as the social division of labor and contradictory laissez faire economics which Shuttleworth acknowledges. This division of labor was not only between men and women but also between the private and public spheres, or the dichotomy between work and home. Shuttleworth writes, “man was figured both as a rational self-interested actor in full control of his own destiny, and also as a mere cog within the larger machinery of industrial labor …” stressing the laissez faire contradictions where men were seemingly in control yet still controlled and regulated by the public sphere. As women were not allowed into this sphere because “women […] were […] prey to the forces of the body” they were to be utilized in the remaining sphere (Shuttleworth 55). This is where industrial capitalism comes into play which emphasizes the idea that machinery was needed in order to maintain an economic balance. Women during this Victorian period were seen as the machines necessary for the rise of the private sphere. Consequently, industrial capitalism led to disciplines and doctors who (like engineers which managed the machines in the factory) managed and fixed women. Using this concept it is clear Shuttleworth explains that the doctor’s professional duty was to bring order to the social world by managing the uterine economy.

By attempting to explain Shuttleworth’s claim through a scientific concept we must first recognize that there is an important link between economics and biology, where the body of the individual is connected to the body of society. Yet the key link was made through women in the 19th century. Again we see that contradiction in laissez faire economics where male doctors transcended the line between the public and private sphere by becoming involved with the regulation of women’s menstruation. As Shuttleworth writes, “female thought and passion, like government intervention […] created blockages and interference throwing the whole organism into a state of disease” thus making a connection between the government and doctors alike, who had to interfere in order to maintain stability (Shuttleworth 59). In fact doctors needed to interfere within the uterine economy to prevent the women from becoming insane and subsequently throwing the entire social system into disarray, because on some level women were an important asset to the economy.

The “obsession with the pathology of the uterine economy” as is referred to by Shuttleworth, while not justifiable by any accounts, is understood when one takes into account the role which women played in the 19th century economy. Ultimately doctors believed it necessary to manage women’s menstruations in order to prevent the social system and subsequent economy from being, as Shuttleworth describes, “overthrown” (Shuttleworth 58).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Shuttleworth

Wikipedia Group Project
The group I am in has elected to start a new Wikipedia Article titled Hottentot Venus. The following is a section which I have contributed to the article titled The 'Hottentot Venus' Seen As A Commodity on November 26, 2013 and I have included the following text:

According to Sadiah Qureshi’s article, “Displaying Sarah Baartman The ‘Hottentot Venus’” many representations of the Khoikhoi people (such as Sarah Baartman) were used to illustrate them as wild and savage. These depictions effectively demoted them from human status and made them ape-like instead. This appropriation and forms of categorization is what lead to African flora, fauna, and people to be seen as commodities by the white colonist. Qureshi writes, “Sara Baartman arrived on England’s shores within this traffic of animals, plants and people destined for display as objects representing colonial expansion and as a means of economic gain; she served as both an imperial success and a prized specimen of the ‘Hottentot’”. Baartman was therefore seen as nothing more than an object put up for display; she was subsequently the physical representation of British activity in the cape and symbolized their conquests of African territory. Baartman was a, “rare live specimen of the exotic” she was of value to men like Hendrick Cezar who showed her in the London entertainment scene which further emphasized a “culture of display”.

Shortly after Baartman arrived in London in 1810 the public was invited to view the ‘Hottentot Venus’ for only two shillings. Baartman wore a garment which resembled her complexion and was extremely tight, giving the appearance that she was actually naked. The show took place upon “a stage two feet high, along which she was led by her keeper, and exhibited like a wild beast; being obliged to walk, stand, or sit as he ordered”. Bartman was put into the category of human curiosity and performed alongside other people who were physically abnormal according to Western standards. The association between ethnological exhibits and humans with an anatomical curiosity was not uncommon as they were often exhibited together. According to Qureshi, these exhibits blurred the boundaries between humans and animals. Like exhibits of animals, the ‘Hottentot Venus’ was shown as a supposed representation of her nation and race.

On December 2, 2013 I included the section titled Political Relevance of the Early 1800s and included the following text:

The exhibition of Sarah Baartman as the “Hottentot Venus” came at a time when slavery in the British Empire had not yet been abolished. This meant that Baartman had come at a time when as Qureshi states, “[the] abolitionist issue was gathering strength and pro-slavery campaigners were actively creating an image of the Black that erased ethnic differences between culturally diverse black peoples so as to lend force to their political agenda.” The combination of Baartman’s arrival with the turmoil of the abolitionist issue created an exhibit that was politically relevant to the people of London during that time. Not only were patrons interested in seeing the ethnological exhibit, but they were also curious to see an exhibit of political relevance; especially on the heels of Baartman’s court case which established her non-slave status.

On December 3, 2013 I also added the following photo to the section The 'Hottentot Venus' Seen as a Commodity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hottentot_Venus

Peer Review
From my own group I am peer reviewing Anam Malik's page and have provided a link to her sandbox for my own easy access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malikaa1230/sandbox

The following is my exchange with Anam on her talk page for the peer review:

Hey, this is Jasmine (my sandbox is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasDuran74/sandbox) but I fixed your references so now your citations will show. Please go check out my sandbox and peer review my Wikipedia article additions, I provide links to the Wikipedia articles I have edited so my contributions are really easy to find.

Just as a note, it is unclear exactly what contributions you have made to the Manhattan Project section on the Maria Goeppert-Mayer article based on your sandbox, but if I am not mistaken I believe you made the following contribution to that article:

When the nearby Argonne National Laboratory was founded on July 1, 1946, Goeppert-Mayer was also offered a part-time job there as a senior physicist in the Theoretical Physics Division. She responded "I don't know anything about nuclear physics."

Which I have changed to the following to make the sentences flow a little bit better.

When the nearby Argonne National Laboratory was founded on July 1, 1946, Goeppert-Mayer was offered a part-time job as a senior physicist in the Theoretical Physics Division. She is quoted as responding to this job offer with, "I don't know anything about nuclear physics."--JasDuran74 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For your addition to the Career and Academic Contributions sections on the Margaret W. Rossiter wiki article, I corrected small punctuation errors and linked the phrase glass ceiling to an existing wiki page because I felt it was relevant. --JasDuran74 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lastly for the Social and Political Reform section on the Hottentot Venus page, I was able to link the Slave Trade Act 1807 to an existing wiki page. I also corrected some punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors. But the most significant change you will notice is that I changed Hottentot to Baartman. I believe it is better to refer to the Hottentot Venus as Hottentot Venus or by Sara's last name Baartman.--JasDuran74 (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Outside of my group I am peer reviewing Jasmin Navarete's page and have provided a link to her sandbox for my own easy acess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasminNavarrete/sandbox

The following are my edits to her Wikipedia article contributions which I shared with Jasmin on her talk page:

Hello Jasmin, the following are my edits to your Wikipedia pages: Words in bold are words I have added.

Phall-O-Meter: In her book Sexing the Body Anne Fausto-Sterling states how the "phall-o-meter" is used. Fausto-Sterling states, "If the clitoris is "too big" to belong to a girl, doctors will want to downsize it, but in contrast to the penis, doctors have rarely used precise clitoral measurements in deciding the gender of a newborn child. Such measurements, however, do exist. Since 1980, we have known that the average clitoral size of newborn girls is 0.34 centimeters. More recent studies show that clitoral length at birth ranges from 0.2 to 0.85 centimeters."

For a girl, a medically acceptable clitoris can be no bigger than one centimeter. For a boy, an acceptable penis size must be between 2.5 centimeters and 4.5 centimeters.

Targeting Teenagers: Black teenagers were also closely associated with having children out of wedlock and a child for said teens was seen as a kind of financial escape because almost of them did not aspired to get a higher education. --JasDuran74 (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The following are her sugggested edits to various sections which I have written:

"By Jasmin Navarrete: JasDuran74, Consider editing the following things in bold:

The restored skeleton and skull continued to arouse the interest of visitors until the remains were moved to the Musee de l’ Homme in 1937, when it was founded, and continued up until the late 1970s.

The Baartman exhibit proved to be popular until it elicited complaints from feminists who believed the exhibit was a degrading representation of women.

The statement says that we cannot understand the so called “uterine economy” without acknowledging these topics first.

 In the historical period of the 19th century, the uterus was seen as the hysterical organ in biological textbooks.

Baartman was put into the category of human curiosity and performed alongside other people who were physically abnormal according to Western standards.

Like exhibits that display animals, the ‘Hottentot Venus’ was shown as a supposed representation of her nation and race."