I was rather surprised to find this little ad in one of the old clippings in the Paperwall; I thought back before the turn of the century and even into the early 1900s “female problem” discussion was taboo and we simply knew that babies came from there, mysteriously somehow, and for a week a month the husband would have to spend his nights down at the saloon instead of crunching the old hay tick. That being said, I am terribly amused by the phrase, “Don’t confide in anybody…” as is the author was hoping that this advertisement wouldn’t result in (*gasp!*) women talking about their bodies. Gotta keep the mysteries of God under wraps, ya know. And are you females really worried about “scanty” periods? I think I’d be ecstatic if it happened to be light, myself.
Every Month many women suffer from Excessive or Scant Menstruation; they don’t know who to confide in to get proper advice. Don’t confide in anybody but try Bradfield’s Female Regulator a Specific for PAINFUL, PROFUSE, SCANTY, SUPPRESSED, and IRREGULAR MENSTRURATION. Book to ‘WOMAN’ mailed free. BRADFIELD REGULATOR CO., Atlanta, Ga. Sold by all Druggists.
A bit of research turns up that the Bradfield Regulator Co. was known for its “female” products, including ones to, “assist organs in childbirth” called, “Mother’s Friend”. Here’s commentary from “Digger” on BottleBooks.com about this company and its products:
The Bradfield Regulator Co, in Atlanta, GA began using the name Bradfield Female Regulator about 1897. The name “Mother’s Friend” had been used since 1887 according to patent office information but another sources indicates advertising going back to 1876. The company advertised the Mother’s Friend as a remedy for female use for female disorders and for the relief of the suffering incident to child-bearing. The company ran afoul of the Food and Drug Administration who filed a suit against the company. Here is the text of that case Bradfield Misbranding. The trademark has been renewed four times. The last being in 1988 and it is still active but the ownership of the name has changed.
I guess this proves that, at least in the late 19th century, one had to be pretty careful with the claims of advertisers about what will help your intimate bits.
From another paper written by Dr. Allen Vegotsky, M.D., on the subject of old remedies and bottles comes this little snippet about the Female Regulator:
As an example of one of the museum’s products for women, we can consider Dr. J. Bradfield’s Female Regulator. This medicine was, as the name implies, intended strictly for woman. It was manufactured by the Bradfield Regulator Company of 89 ½ Forsyth Street in Atlanta. The package indicated that the product was “entered according to the act of congress of 1869 by Joshua Bradfield…” so it is one of the older products in the museum. If you’re wondering what was being “regulated” by this medicine, it was the menstrual cycle.
In the 19th century, physicians worried a lot about any deviations from what they considered normal in menstruation and these deviations were interpreted as diseases. The trademark on the container is a woman in a lacy Victorian period dress with flowers in her hands and flowers in her hair. Typical of the time of manufacture, the container gives no clue to the medicinal contents of Dr. Bradfield’s Female Regulator other than the presence of 15% alcohol. Dr. Bradfield’s medicine was to be used “for the treatment of non-surgical cases of weaknesses and disorders of the female generative organs, such as depressed or delayed menses, and at the change of life.”
So, not only could you get your woman bits all fixed up, but you could get soused in a socially-acceptable way as well. “No, seriously, Jim Beam is the latest in cough medicine!”
Let’s all be grateful that medicine has progressed to be a bit less arcane, eh?
The Paperwall Feature: For the next few weeks, this blog will be running a regular feature called, “Paperwall”. You can view all postings in this category by clicking here. These are small excerpts from very old newspapers that were used as wallpaper backing in a house I used to live in. When I redid the bathroom and pulled down the walls, these were exposed. I kept a majority of the very large pieces and have scanned them and poured over them for interesting bits and pieces. The newspapers I can identify are The Des Moines Leader of Des Moines, IA; The Sheffield Press of Sheffield, IA; and The Weekly Constitution of Atlanta, GA. There were only two datelines I could find — November 16th, 1886, and October 30th, 1888. The sheer age of these papers and that they’ve been preserved this long is impressive. I found it terribly interesting to see what they had to say.







This was excellent. When did this company run afoul of the FDA, who really had no power until 1906? Were there any ingredients that you could find in this “regulator” other than alchohol? Enquiring minds want to know. I will be looking into this one myself, thanks for the excellent post.
Stacey
.-= Stacey Thomas´s last blog ..Family Ties: Peanut Butter Cookies =-.
Also Nathan, keep in mind that in the 19th century, women were considered to be creatures of very little brain and prone to “hysteria”, a “mental illness” that was directly related to the uterus. Neither women OR men knew better.
.-= Stacey Thomas´s last blog ..Family Ties: Peanut Butter Cookies =-.
Stacey: Following the link to the “Bradfield Misbranding” we see that the FDA a-foulment was filed in 1910. It didn’t take them long to crack down. I never did find any other ingredients list, but no doubt you might be able to.
And yeah, I realize women were considered “substandard” back then, but it always amazes me. Yay for living in more modern times.
I have to say I appreciate it didn’t take them a full decade to remove heroin et. al. from the Sears catalogues.
.-= Stacey Thomas´s last blog ..Family Ties: Peanut Butter Cookies =-.
Here we are Nathan–”The facts on which the above seizure was based were as follows: On or about June 7, 1909, an inspector of the United States Department of Agriculture found in the possession of Finlay, Dicks & at New Orleans, La., 27 cases of the drug labeled as heretofore Described and in the possession of the Parker-Blake Company, Ltd. cases of the same,, which had been shipped to said, firms by the Bradfield Regulator Company manufacturers, from, Atlanta, GA, taken from the above“‘ consignments were analyzed’. the bureau of Chemistry of the United States Department 6 of Agriculture and found to consist of an oil and a small quantity of soap. The product was deemed misbranded, and the Secretary of Agriculture on June 7, 1909, reported the facts to the United States Attorney for Eastern District of Louisiana, who filed the libel, with the result hereinbefore stated.
Emphasis mine. Interesting what passed for medicine. This quote was found in the link you provided, further down the page. Great read!
.-= Stacey Thomas´s last blog ..Family Ties: Peanut Butter Cookies =-.
http://www.manataka.org/page1765.html
Perhaps we could have learned something from *these* people if we only would have had the good sense to see they were people in the first place
.-= Stacey Thomas´s last blog ..Family Ties: Peanut Butter Cookies =-.
This product was still listed for sale in the Mountain advocate (Barbourville, Ky.) November 25, 1921