å Monday, February 13th, 2017

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.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there were many social debates happening throughout Europe. People were trying to figure out where women fit in the world – both socially and politically – as the issues of women’s rights became a prevalent topic of conversation. In her article “Skeletons in the Closet”, Londa Schienbinger argues that the medical community stepped in to try and solve the question of where women fit into society. Scientists at the time believed they could answer these debates with anatomical and biological findings. By exploring the physical anatomy of the female body, and then comparing it to that of men, anatomists hoped to explain how physical differences in the two sexes could potentially explain mental and social differences. Furthermore, these “natural inequalities” could help justify a woman’s place in social hierarchy.

 
Schienbinger gives us many examples of how these anatomical differences between men and women helped shape their social identities. For instance, the finding that women had larger pelvic bones and wider hip structures meant that they were naturally fit for giving birth. The idea of motherhood became a role for women that was “destined” based upon their anatomy. Similarly, in the 1820s, findings that “woman’s skulls were larger in relation to their body size than men’s – but then, so were children’s” (64) provided a basis for scientists to compare skull size to intelligence. A larger skull in women and children meant that they were similar in intellectual maturity, therefore less mature than men. Schienbinger would argue that this comparison of women to children was a common social identity in the late eighteenth century. She states, “middle-class wives were on average ten years younger than their husbands; it is not surprising that middle-class women should have appeared ‘childish’ in comparison to their husbands” (66).

 
Schienbinger also explains that in order for anyone to participate in the debate over rights and social order, they needed to be able to back up their reasoning with scientific proof. This was particularly difficult for women because they were not allowed in the scientific realm in the first place. During this time men found women to be “incapable of scientific endeavor” (71) and therefore they could not argue their position on suffrage in an intelligent manner. Men were able to justify gendered roles based on scientific evidence and women were left out of this debate completely.

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.

The essay “ Skeletons in the Closet” is a symbol of equality and natural during the period of eighteenth to ninetieth century. There is not only biological difference between men and female, many scientists put some stereotype mind to judge how the physical structure should a women being. Also, the limited resources and methods give some misunderstanding in sexism. The scientist only determines the physical part of body such as, pelvis, breast, and sacrum to give men or women identity. The lack of critical thinking and social development created lot arguments in the anatomy. Then, we can see stereotype between men and female that bone, muscles means a brain of human being. The Schiebinger describe struggle in equality not only in gender, but also on class and race. I believe there is another issue cause the argument that the value of color.

When scientists use social scale to evaluate how a human body weights, the way of scientific method is not accurate. The inequality among white men, white women and Black women. The symbolizing of women skeleton is physical weakness, but the man’s skeletal as intelligence and strong. These subjective ways of some evidence, even some medical manuals have some connections between nature and moral. Most of doctors are white male during that time, so the social status of women is still a housewife and do not have enough education. As we can see, the nature of science and society is connected together in author point of views. The unfairness of women is cause of how the science is affect moral and nature belief in ancient world.

In Schiebinger point of view, the research of anatomy became a critical project is cause of conflict between gender identify and moral of social. Most of people hold a judgment view in science, it cause inequality between different sex and race. The nature law is not given any space and changes to female because there is tag a label to them. It’s like a symbol of not being intelligence and strong. This essay shows the development of women’s equality during eighteenth century to now. Compare to the science method, we have more fair ideas and moral thinking about women now that help women has more power.

In her essay, “Skeletons in the Closet,” Londa Schiebinger stated that comparative anatomy of white women and men became an important research projects for the medical community in Europe during in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. During this period, many scientists added a great attempt to define the position of the female in the European societies where they thought females were properties of mans. Although there were scientist who were supporting women’s social status, most scientists found the data to pull women down and discriminate them in the political and scientific areas since most scientists were male.

In the eighteenth century, there was a growth of democratic tendency which brought reorganization on social order, especially on women because there wasn’t exact women’s role in new social order. Therefore, there were scientists and philosophers who advocated women’s social equality. Some philosophers, such as Rousseau, tried to break the natural from the social in human nature. For example, Rousseau stated that women were not equal to man but they were supplementation of man. He argued that women have different inheritance of physical, moral, and intellectual difference which made them do the roles for society. Furthermore, drawing from Rousseau, Roussel, and Georges Cuvier, Pockels showed that men and women are both perfect and they complement each other. In addition, The Encyclopedie article of 1765 on the Skeleton showed that women have different skull, spine clavicle, sternum coccyx, and pelvis to have children and bring up them.

On the other hand, in nineteenth century, most scientists diminished the social status of women. There were a emerged tendency that science have right to decide an answer of social questions. For instance, Das Weib und das Kind, a book published by German doctor E. W. Posner, showed similarities of anatomy between women and children. This made society to treat women as weak and subordinate them.

In “skeletons in the Closet,” Londa Schiebinger mentions the arguments about the sex differences for men and women on physical, race and ethnic. Through out the history, many people believe the men have more capability to stand on the public spheres of government and commerce, science and scholarship, and women supports to be motherhood, doing house-works. They base on the anatomical evidence which ‘Woman’s skull was smaller than man, woman’s pelvic was larger than man’. Rely on this, they result men were more intelligent than women since they had larger brain. This is what they believe for “nature”. Base on this natural reason and the dignity of man, they reject woman to join the government, or stand on higher social events. But, another anatomist Soemmerring and student find out women have heavier brain than men. So this may not be a method to justified the social status for women or men.

In ancient world, Aristotle argued the women are colder and weaker than men. Galen also believed that women are cold and moist while men are warm and dry. They used those reasons to justified women’s inferior social status.

In seventeenth century, many feminist used explicitly medical arguments to buttress pleas for the social equality of women. They states that in anatomy, the head of women and men are the same size, also have same memory and imagination in their brains, women’s eyes can see as clearly. Those feminist’s argument have make some influence i Renaissance and early modern medical circles.

After the influence of those feminist, some anatomist have stand up states that they did not believe in sex difference. Such as Eliza Haywood, she believe the natural reason which anatomist gave is incorrect, she think female brain may not less strong than male.

The comparing of the anatomy of women and men was an important topic because since many people justified women and men’ social status depends on the brain size and how strong they are.

In “Skeletons in the closet,” Linda Schiebinger illustrates the social, scientific background of seventeenth to nineteenth century in European society.The first illustration of the female skeleton appeared in European science, in late eighteenth century. Since then, among various people such as scientists, anatomists, philosophers, and sociologists, analyzing the physical differences of human body affected physiological, social and scientific areas. Without a doubt, female body was primarily acknowledged as “inferior” to men’s, and therefore it was considered as suffering intellectual and social weakness. Moreover, several scientists and anatomists defined that women and children had similarity in body forms, which were less sharply developed than men’s. They were classified as “primitive” peoples. Also, white men were considered as having the most natural dignity and the superior of all types, even when compared to men in other races. This idea of iconizing white men worked as a prerequisite and thus, had become a critical issue among every study. However, some anatomists argued that individual body is uniquely equipped and comparing them was useless. These opinions were usually ignored under influential scientists or philosophers, such as Rousseau, who emphasized the superiority of men, by confining women’s physiology to be resulted in intellectual weakness. By late eighteenth to nineteenth century, race and sex symbolized social worth, and science was largely controlled by social forces. The scientific community was dominated by white males, so it could be easily defined that women as having lower social status, that meant lower level of intelligence. By connecting the mistaken physiological issue to social part, this worked as a starting point of categorizing gender roles, which having its effectiveness even in contemporary days. Schiebinger gives many examples from different people in various fields, which helped to analyze the social and political circumstances of gender. In spite of Social and educational reform, the society defined subordination of women and linked physiological measurements to moral characters.

Londa Schiebinger’s essay, “Skeletons in the Closet” illustrates the link between anatomy and science and how scientists used anatomy to justify the inequality women faced. The first illustrations of the female skeleton depicted their skulls as smaller, as well as their pelvises as larger, a fact that anatomists used to justify their lesser roles in society. Scientists believed that women’s smaller skulls indicated they had less intellectual power than men, and that their large pelvises meant that women’s roles should be mainly childbirth.

Many men at the time perceived that “natural law” reigned supreme over all political ideologies and governing laws. White men used their belief in the power of “natural law” to justify the oppression of women, even when philosophers at the time such as John Locke argued that all men were created equal. This reliance on “natural law” to keep women subdued in society was reflective of the attitude of many white european men, that since science proved men and women to be unequal, their roles in society should be unequal as well.

The exclusion of women from scientific practices in this era prevented any women scientists to dispute the scientific claims being promoted by the scientific community. The unfairness of women’s predicament was evident in that science claimed they were less smart, and therefore were unable to have the opportunity to even study the claim and challenge it. Women were shut out from the scientific realm, resulting in their fixed position in society.

It is interesting to read about how science was used to justify women’s place in society because this is something that can still be witness today, despite the fact that this original evidence scientists produced was false. The 2016 presidential election proved the doubt that many men still have in association with a woman being in power. Many people believed Hillary Clinton would be unfit because she was a woman, therefore being more “emotional” and less rational, a claim which is absolutely untrue. This essay helped demonstrate the link between sexism and science, something that many people often overlook.

Schiebinger is saying that the project was so critical because the skeletons were used to separate and define the roles of women and men in the eighteen and nineteenth century. The parts of the skeleton, such as the skull, pelvis, waist, and limbs were drawn and analyzed by scientists. However, the problem was that a large majority of these scientists were men which resulted in women being defined by the men who drew the female skeletons. The skeleton drawings were also meant to represent the culture there, so it didn’t include any black men or women which future skews the inaccuracy of the drawings since black people were compared to these drawings also. Many skeleton drawings showed women having wider pelvises compared to men. This was interpreted so that women were seen as motherly and the wider pelvises meant that their roles in society were meant to have children and raise them. The size of the skull was also a large issue that was debated. At first the fact that the women’s skulls were larger than men’s meant that they were more intelligent according to Ackermann however, Barclay said the large skulls women had were similar to children and just because they were larger didn’t mean women were more intelligent. The comparison of women to children lead to them being seen as not fully matured, and because they weren’t fully matured they were less intelligent compared to men. This was even worse since women’s intellect was determined solely by the skeleton drawings that were drawn by men and also interpreted by men. Women weren’t seen as being able to be smart and be scientists like men were because of how negatively some of the skeleton drawings were analyzed by some male scientists. The fact that women were seen as less intelligent prevented them from participating in anything related to science such as medicine. This influenced society to see science as something only related to men and women weren’t smart enough to participate in.

In Skeletons in the Closet, Londa Schiebinger points out the ideas that scientists had about male and female anatomy differences during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Nature played and important role in those investigations based on the studies of male and female skeletons. Scientists used nature as their “law” in the rise of their political and social thoughts. They hid the social inequalities behind the natural law, basing women’s capacities in their physical aspect and using this as an excuse to exclude them from science or any other activity where men had the power and to continue justifying the exclusion.

The difference between the skeletons was used to indicate or impose a hierarchical order in society for men and women. Scientist such as Bidloo, Cowper and Vesalius created the concept that women were inferior to men just because of their external bodily shapes and reproductive organs. Women were catalogued as unqualified to participate in any other activity in the public sphere and they were condemned to be a reproductive machine and housewives. According to the theory of some anatomists, female skulls were smaller that men’s, and female pelvis were larger that men, for scientists, these supposed differences meant that women were less intelligence than men and their purpose in life was to be housewives and mothers as natural given, while men had been created to participate in other activities outside the home.

Schiebinger claim that the idea of anatomical comparison between the sexes was conceived in order to justify female subordination. The demand of intelligence increased every day, it was an essential part to participate in political movements and to gain social opportunities, but unfortunately for women the scientific community was conformed by male who use a the male anatomy as the standard to study female anatomy. All these ideas came as a result of those standards created by man in an attempt to dominate and subordinate everything he does not know and believes inferior to him.