‘—

Assignment Two

In “Skeletons in the Closet,” Schiebinger describes the history of the comparative study of the male and female anatomy through the late 17^th and 18^th century. Schiebinger explains that the initial understanding of male and female anatomies was not necessarily sexualized – although women were underrepresented when compared to men. The female anatomy was neither depicted nor studied to the extent of the male anatomy. It wasn’t until the late 1700s that social and political pressure to equalize men and women pushed anatomists to further analyze the female anatomy in an attempt to subjugate women to men. Many representations of women (incorrectly) depicted the female form with a smaller skull and a larger pelvis when compared to men. Schienbinger discusses the difference in Soemmerring and d’Arconville’s depiction of women – ironically, Soemmerring’s accurate illustration of the female anatomy were attacked as incorrect and wrongly idealized while d’Arconville’s incorrectly manipulated depiction were accepted. D’Arconville’s images of women were accepted because they were in line with the cultural understanding of women at the time. The smaller brain and larger pelvis was in accordance with society’s conception that women were inferior to men intellectually and were best confined to the home. Their large pelvis validated the notion that a woman’s purpose was for child bearing and maintaining the home.

Schienbinger’s essay acts to analyze the motivation behind the critical approach to the way women’s body was examined (or lacking proper examination) throughout the late 17^th and 18^th century. Was there a real desire to properly understand women on a scientific level, or were the dominant members of society looking for a “scientific” excuse to keep women out of power? Developing a scientific reasoning for a woman’s lack of intellectual capabilities could act as a viable justification to keep women confined to the home and removed from political conversations and government.

The desire to justify the male bias of female inferiority existed before the strive to further examine the female anatomy. Schienbinger notes that, even the earliest philosophers such as Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen depicted the nature of women in a way that justified their inferior social status. The smaller skull size gave further justification to the notion that women were somehow incapable of the intellectual aptitude of men – which enabled men’s sense of moral authority over women.  Although these observations were inaccurate, they were so widely accepted (based on a gendered, non-scientific bias) that the presumed differences between men and women enabled thinking that women evolved at a lower stage then men (even though there is no scientific evidence for this). The discrepancy in the cranium and pelvis were enough to suggest women did not mature or develop the way the white male did, granting women the classification as “primitive” beings.

The bias to divide human beings by race and sex extended through the 19^th century to black individuals as well. The white male was used as the standard for excellence, and blacks were largely ignored and lacked the necessary voice to contest their lack of recognition in science and medicine. Because of this, men were given the social and scientific justification to dominate society while blacks and women were left inferior and lower social standing. Unfortunately, this bias has had a negative impact of the social standing of women and minorities that has effected them well into the 20^th century.

Schiebinger, L. (1986). Skeletons in the Closet. 42-82.