‘—

Assignment 02

During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, attempts were made from the scientific community to justify and promote chauvinistic sexism through the medium of anatomy. Linda Schiebinger’s essay, Skeletons in the Closet sheds light on this, as well as the motives and manipulations used by men in science in order to exclude women from respected professions, prevent female progression and define their role in society.

The anatomy of women and men was used in an attempt to validate and promote male supremacy, but failed to be impartial and ethically sound. At first, women’s larger skulls were thought to be a sign of their superior intelligence. This theory was later “disproved” when Barclay compared women’s large skulls to those of children, giving the impression that they were immature and childlike. This made it easy for men to deem women intellectually inferior, and therefore unequipped to participate in respected professions outside of the home such as science and politics. Women’s large pelvises were also said to be ideal for childbearing, while their smaller bodies made them much less valuable than men in manual labor outside of the home. All of this came together to create the image that women were much less valuable and intelligent than men, but naturally prone to nurture and motherhood. AKA: “The women’s place is in the home, be a good wife and mother.”

This attempted justification using what was considered to be “natural law” was extremely flawed in its supposed scientific truth. All of the scientists who gathered and interpreted this evidence were men, causing their findings to be partial to the male agenda. In addition, all of these men used male anatomy as the standard, placing its importance over female anatomy and skewing scientific conclusions. Unfortunately these “findings” became commonly thought of as truths and further delayed female advancement in society.