å Monday, February 13th, 2017

For Londa Schiebinger, the importance of the comparison of anatomy between white women and men in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries stemmed from the social structure at that time. People turned to science and hard “evidence” to really evaluate if women were capable of important tasks outside of the realm of domestic life. Marie-Genevieve-Charlotte Thiroux d’Arconville depicted women having smaller skulls and larger pelvises than men. This and the works of many other scientists who supported the same notions, led many people to believe that women were less intelligent than men and were only useful for reproduction. Consequently, women were not being taken seriously in prominent positions in the areas of politics, science, and education. Schiebinger mentions that even with what little progress came with the support for gender equality, there were still some setbacks. For example, she references Andreas Vesalius who stated that everything about the anatomy of men and women were the same except for the reproductive organs. He believed that because women’s reproductive organs were on the inside, they automatically become the inferior gender. In the 18th century, research in the anatomy of the female body was prompted by population increase and a new interest in motherhood. With more information and clearer depictions of women, scientists still believed that women were still unmatched because of their sex organs. The effort put into this new research proved that men were satisfied with the way their gender roles were and would support any research that made them seem more superior than women. In the 19th century, the idea that women were below men and equal to children continued. In a gleam of light, it was found that women’s skulls were actually heavier than males but what became a flaw for women was that so were children’s skulls; further putting them in the same classification. Women and children were always placed in the same category; except women could birth children. Using religion and the Bible as reasoning, many believed males were superior because God put Adam before women and children. What is shocking is that many women at the time were not taken seriously and therefore, could not dispute these findings by these male scientists. Their social status and standard of worth was being determined by people that have never considered them valuable in the first place.

In the piece “Skeletons in the Closet,” Linda Schiebinger discusses the increased attention directed toward the anatomy of women and men in the scientific community of eighteenth and nineteenth Europe.  Although there were objective physical differences between women and men, these differences were then used to establish social and political inequalities for women.  In a period and climate where women began to challenge their subordinate roles in society, the medical community justified the inequalities women faced with their “scientific findings” that women were inferior in the “natural” hierarchy.

The arguments that women were inferior to men focused on the differences in organs between women and men.  Not only were women deemed to be weaker in strength, their smaller skulls were irrationally associated with them lacking the ability to think critically and analytically, as men were able to do.  The uterus was used by scientists and doctors as a sign that a woman’s role was strictly limited to birthing children and later taking care of them.

What it comes down to, which I believe the author does well in explaining, is that anatomy and science were being used to justify the oppression of minorities (women and non-white people).  Nature does have validity in some areas, some facts cannot be argued against.  However, the medical community, consisting of primarily white men, used their “findings” to maintain their higher ranking in the social and political hierarchy, while at the same time, suppressing women’s ability to gain political and social power.   Biological and natural differences stripped many women at the time of activities and interests that would challenge the notion of their inferiority, including obtaining an education and participating in politics.  Although science is known to be objective and fully factual, we must be aware of the bias, and the social factors at the time which directly affected the conclusions of anatomical differences between men and women.

In “Skeletons in the Closet,” the anatomy of white women and men became a critical project for the medical community during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as these differences were used as basis for social and political differences between the sexes. Science began to progress to be the standard of thinking, viewed as the answer to social issues. However, the majority of the scientific community consisted of white males, with barely any females in the group, so there was no dispositions regarding the “observations” about women. An example of these “observations” would be that females would have “smaller” skulls when compared the anatomy of males, which meant that they were less intelligent in the opinion of the scientific community. Even though this was proven to be false later on, that women have a larger skull in relation to their body size when compared to males, the scientific community had another explanation, which was that the female body was similar to that of a child, still promoting an androcentric point of view. These sex differences between males and females not only pointed out physical differences, but also gave way to various ideas such as differentiating masculinity/femininity and the concept of females being prematurely developed.  Other ideas developed, such as it was “nature” that created these differences between the sexes, that females were the complements to males, which would later be used as justification to exclude women from opportunities of higher levels of education/profession. The exclusion in the scientific community not only affected women, but also affected people of color as well. The status of being a white male was considered the “standard of excellence” as some would call it, while being a female or being of a different ethnicity to be of a lower ranking and with none of these individuals in the community to argue their opinions. Even though the scientific community aimed to move from philosophical thinking to a more factual way of thinking, it still retained its roots of being sexist and racist.

The interests of the science of the female anatomy were not random, but sought out to be focused for political reasons. One reason comparing the anatomy of women and men was an important project in the medical community was to provide evidence for the inferiority of women.  For example, the  French anatomist Marie- Genevieve-Charlotte Thiroux d’Arconville delineated the female skull to be smaller than a male skull. This was to “prove” the idea that a woman’s intellectual capabilities were less than a man’s.  Similarly the women pelvis were drawn larger than a man’s pelvis. This was done to normalize and prove the idea that women were destined for giving birth.  This gives me an understanding on why the study of both female and male bodies were important.  Scientists and Politicians needed to know the differences in the anatomy of males and females order to impose social norms and laws against women.  d, Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen all attempted to provide proper justification on why women were seen as inferior in their social status. They all used the female body as evidence, claiming it is the weaker body, resulting into them being more lazy, and less likely to want to do “manly” work.  The study of the female body in comparison to the male body, in my opinion, was an important project of study in order for the men to use “scientific” justification for oppression of women. Let’s not forget all these scientists were men. Also there probably were no female scientists because of the lack of education and jobs for women, which relates back to the idea that women were seen as destined as birth givers. Although it was found that women do have the capabilities as men, women were denied of the freedom and rights that were asked for.   

In her essay, “Skeletons in the Closet: The First Illustrations of the Female Skeleton in Eighteenth-Century Anatomy”, Londa Schiebinger analyzes the social and political circumstances surrounding the eighteenth-century search for sex differences. These sex differences were often physical, focusing on the physical differences in the anatomy of men and women.  However, these physical differences were also used to justify non-physical attributes such as mental capabilities, social/economic status, opportunities, duties, and even rights that women held at the time. For example, Things like the larger pelvis of females compared to the men’s were used to argue that women were naturally created to serve as mothers, while a bigger male skull indicated that men enjoyed more mental capacity than women. Such “scientific” claims were very effective and appealing to the medieval public because science was associated with empirical data that was often perceived as the raw truth and “nature” of how things were.  These physical differences were mainly referred to in order to portray women as inferior to men in almost every aspect of life and to push political/social agendas, rather than scientific discoveries, which hindered any potential development that women could have achieved towards equality. I think that Londa Schiebinger does a great job of setting a strong base to her argument by emphasizing the obscure history that has undermined the equality of women to begin with.

In a male-dominated scientific world during the 18^th century, the purpose of science has become more political rather than factual. While some scientists viewed the sex differences neutrally, many scientists used them as a way to prioritize the male gender over the female due to social, political, and economic surroundings that have favored the man more than the woman. Through her essay, I believe that it is within Londa Schiebinger’s objective to highlight the failed centuries of dichotomy between men and women based on physical differences that were used to justify political agendas that have empowered men over women, rather than embracing the differences and valuing each other as different genders that are made to complement each other.

In the essay “Skeletons in the closet” by Londa Schiebingers, she wonders why the female skeleton grasped the attention of anatomists to begin with, or was it relevant to scientific objectivity she questions. She realized these dissectors focused on the parts of the body that would be politically important. Reason being, the first skeleton would become visible when  the position of woman in the European society would come to surface. A published drawing of the female had shown the skull appearing to be smaller than a males, and their pelvis’s being larger. For no other reason then showing woman weren’t as smart as men, and their pelvis’s being larger related to the thought that women were “naturally destined for motherhood the confined sphere of hearth and home” (Schiebingers,3).

Nature and equality play an important role in this article, as it did with Davis’s chapter 3. When woman asked for equality it wasn’t granted to them, and the study of nature of women became a specific topic during the time. During the 18th century women and men had very different roles, and woman’s qualities were always associated with children and nonindustrial jobs.

She relates back to the ancient world, where Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen drew pictures of the nature of woman trying to justify a women’s inferior social status. One of these philosophers actually claimed that women were colder and weaker than men. Along with the accusations that women are lazy while men are active. Poullain a French feminist who stated a very needed appeal on behalf of the equality of women claims “their eyes see as clearly, their ears hear with the same degree of accuracy, their hands are as dexterose, and their heads are the same” (Schiebingers, 6). The sex differences in men and women shouldnt determine them politically or socially, their simply skin deep.

Londa Schiebinger’s essay, “Skeletons In The Closet”, asked an important question, why did the comparing of the anatomy of white women and men become such a critical project for the medical community in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth century? And Schiebinger was able to fully answer this question in her essay. In the beginning of the 1750s was when doctors in Europe began to look for the sex differences in the human body, and during this time was when the first drawings of female skeletons appeared (Schiebinger, page 42).  Londa Schiebinger believed that the first representations of the female skeletons came forth to help define the position of women in the European society. The fact that a woman’s skull was shown to be smaller than a man’s skull was evidence to the statement that a woman’s intellectual capabilities were inferior to a man’s. On top of that, a female’s large pelvis added more to the reason as to why she should be confined in the sphere of her home, it showed that she was naturally designed for motherhood and the role of a nurturer (Schiebinger, page 43). Anatomists used the research they did on the skeletons to make visible the separate roles of a man and woman in the social hierarchy, and in the eighteenth century, they began to believe that women held a low ranking in the natural hierarchy (Schiebinger, page 46). Londa Schiebinger explains in her essay that the reason why comparing the anatomy of white women and men became such a big issue was so it can be used to further show the inequality between the both sexes. Basically, it was more of a political reason than anything else. This conveniently happened during the time when women began to raise their voices against the denial of their civil rights, but it only made them fight harder for their freedom.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a focus on the anatomy of women in comparison to white men had risen to the surface. Early in the passage, Schiebinger makes it clear that it is not her intention to simply explain physical difference between men and women but to closely inspect the social and political concerns that were present in this time due to sex differences. The main focus of the piece is to bring to light the roles of men and women at the time in order to define and preserve the social hierarchy among the two. The method used for analyzing the two was a scientific, logical approach. Simply based on anatomy, philosophers and scientists determined the capability of a woman in comparison to a man, as well as their purpose in the world. An example of this is the most prominent observation in the text; that a woman’s purpose in life is motherhood, due to the fact that women have a wider pelvis than men, thus deeming them destined for childbirth. Although we can’t deny the fact that women can indeed bear children, it does not mean that it is their sole purpose in life. It is studies such as these that insinuate that women are inferior to men. Also, the fact that it is deemed as scientific evidence leads one to believe that it is something that cannot be argued with. However, for many others it was not the case. Some also claimed that there is no difference in men and women besides their exterior structure and their sex organs. This claimed that, essentially, every other aspect of a woman was equal to a man. Yet, as the years progressed, anatomists began to claim that the differences between the body of a man and a woman were so dramatic that a woman’s growth had been stifled at a much earlier stage. Due to the fact that a woman’s head was much larger than her body, similar to children, it signaled incomplete growth. Based on their studies, not only is a woman’s structure different, it is also underdeveloped. Observations such as these only further create a role for women that does not allow them to be equal, or even remotely close, to the power of a white man.

Another trend that was widely discussed at the time was the opposition of nurture vs nature. The ‘nurture’ standpoint believed that social and educational change could lead to a path of equality between sexes. Whereas the nature standpoint claimed that whatever it is, is right. An example of the ‘nature’ standpoint is the idea that a boy will always have power of a girl in the sense that he is stronger, based on his physique; that no matter what type of nourishment a girl receives it will never make her equivalent to a boy, simply because she is not built that way. The reading then proceeds to discuss the many reasons that a woman is incapable of working scientifically due to the fact that their physical weakness leads to intellectual weakness. I believe that Schiebinger sheds light on all these various studies and observations from various philosophers and anatomists in order to prove that the main focus is simply to make women feel inferior to men. Each individual carried their own study that, ultimately, fed into the same main idea. At the time, there was no better individual than the white man and in order to keep this belief intact there had to be a comparison to the leading competition, the white woman. It is all a process of keeping those specific roles intact and carrying out social hierarchy in society.

In her essay “Skeletons in the closet” Londa Schiebinger tells the reader the history of how human anatomy was perceived. Throughout her text it can be gathered that she views the reason as to why the comparison of the anatomy of the white woman and man during the eighteenth and nineteenth century was such a critical project at the time was the constant attempts to prove which gender’s anatomy was more superior. In this time it was widely accepted that the male body shape was indeed the more superior of the two sexes.
In her text Schibinger gives many examples of how scientists made attempts at and drew conclusions from false sources that in turn made women seem inferior. Scientists at the time commonly used artist renditions and Greek philosophy biases to depict women with smaller heads suggesting less intelligence as well as depicting them in a childlike manner. Schibinger also recounts during European times the skeletons of women examined had been altered by the restrictive clothing that females wore, especially the corset which narrowed the rib cage and widened the hips. One of the most important examples of bias critical to the misrepresentations of female anatomy is that the scientists conducting the research were all male. They could not imagine a more realistic position if they did not have any experiences of being a woman.
Towards the end of her text Schibinger brings up the point that the comparisons of men and women’s anatomy could be attributed to finding the place of women in European society. She recounts that at the time physical evidence were the leading factors in determining how something could be seen as true. With the examples of smaller heads leading to less intelligence and a crushed ribcage due to corsets I find these examples give merit to her claim.

I think Schiebinger’s response to why the anatomy of white women and men became critical for the medical community in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries because it was to determine what the position of women’s role in society would be by comparing the female skeleton to the male skeleton as well as the child skeleton and figuring out how to draw the accurate depiction of a skeleton diagram for female since they already had one for male. These skeleton parts included the skull where female’s had a smaller skull compared to the male (I think this made the anatomist at that time who were mostly male think that males were smarter than females because males had a bigger skull and usually when you are referring to something bigger it could mean how smart you are which we know today isn’t always the case as whales have bigger brain than human beings, but there aren’t really that intelligent as human in terms of innovating and creating things), the pelvis where the female’s had a larger pelvis compared to the male (I think this made the anatomist think that females were meant to be a mother by giving birth to a child and taking care of it), and other bones and organs.

I think the depiction of skeleton drawing/diagram that the anatomist were trying to draw eventually represented what they were suppose to represent, but there was a lot of disagreement on whether the drawing was correct and whether or not the bone depiction was correct, where males were represented as masculine (having masculine features such as muscles, but I guess bones can have that as well) and females were represented as feminine. These representation were drawn by mostly male anatomist and whether they are correct or not led to another argument of what the correct version should be because not everyone would agree with one another and this is how science was able to become correct, without the gender issues.