å Monday, February 13th, 2017

Throughout the history of the world and present day there have been various instances of inequality that have occurred. Inequality is the unfair treatment of people on the bases of their race, gender, religion, socioeconomic status, etc. There are many groups that have been subjected to discrimination; however, my essay will focus on the factors that contributed to the inequality of women. Writer Londa Schiebinger wrote an essay named Skeletons in the Closet which discusses the major role anatomical differences between white males and females played during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Schiebinger’s piece also examines how these physical differences affected both the social and political circumstances during these time periods.

During the eighteenth century many scientists developed a growing interest in the anatomical differences between white males and females. In her essay Schiebinger questions whether the sudden interest was in response to the movements for women’s equality at the time as a plot to discover inequalities between the sexes (Schiebinger, 1986). In the early eighteenth century one of the goals of the medical community was to learn more about the female anatomy as they believed it would be beneficial to their health care. However, as time went on the data gathered from this research was also used to discredit women. Scientists would then utilize the data to “prove” that women were incapable of being intellectual beings which aimed to prohibit them from participating in politics. The research also “proved” that the anatomy of women was constructed to fulfill a specific role in society which appointed women as child bearers capable of nurturing a family and nothing more. The study of the composition of white men and women influenced the attitudes of people which led many to believe that women were inferior to men and that they were capable of only one role in society.

In the nineteenth century the research that was conducted created an apparent division between both white men and women. The anatomy of white men was deemed to be superior over the anatomy of others. This belief resulted in women being pushed away from practices like the sciences which greatly affected midwives at the time as it was believed that their one true purpose was motherhood. Writer Schiebinger wanted to know why this project was important to the medical community. Her essay reveals that although there was an interest in the anatomy of women for a medical purpose there were other intentions. Scientists aimed to use their research as a way to not only minimize the capabilities of women but to also diminish the number of roles they could hold in a society. Although at the time science was male dominated and heavily influenced by male chauvinistic views of society its known reputation for being authentic made it effective in skewing attitudes. The main goal of scientists was to reveal that the distinctions in the anatomy were far too great. These dissimilarities portrayed men as strong and women as weak and even childlike. As women held movements to show they were equal to men the medical community tried to taint their claims by using science to sway public opinion and prolong their oppression.

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

The nature versus nurture debate is as alive and well today in the 21^st century as it was in the 18^th century, the scientific data we have collected throughout the years, breaking down racial and gender differences, appears to have had little impact on current social theory. Schiebinger’s argument that the prestige given to science does not make the pursuit of scientific facts innocent from bias and bias is something that must be considered when examining all scientific research. Understanding human anatomy and human sex differences are an important pursuit of knowledge for the medical community, but the pursuit of knowledge is not the issue being waged. The differences noted in the skeletons of white men and white women by the scientists in the 18^th century was then used by philosophers to solidify a social hierarchy that continues to dominate most societies today.

As philosophers engaged in theories to explain masculinity and femininity the scientists used the smaller bones of white women to reemphasize the white male superiority. Although the correlations were untested on live humans, and largely ignored other races, they were used to develop social theory. Placing women frozen at an assumed lower cognitive developmental level created a morally acceptable excuse to keep higher learning opportunities out of reach for women, as well as for the primitive people they were associated with. Not only was the medical community using their information to solidify social norms they were also in pursuit of beauty norms by focusing primarily on universality in their discoveries, not nuances within genders.

The medical community’s exclusion of women and any person of color made objectivity unlikely. Once white males established themselves as the gold standard, then comparing white women to children and non-white people, they were then focused on maintaining their social status before the middle-class white women of the time defined a place for themselves. If science could conclude women to be subordinate in the state of nature, then social equality could be righteously ignored and physiology could be used to appropriate lifestyle. Schiebinger’s essay “Skeletons in the Closet” makes a compelling argument on the lack of objectivity and the individual bias of researchers and philosophers in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Due to the bias that persists today from their work, Schiebinger’s perspective remains a relevant critique of social status and the privilege of prestige.

In Skeletons in the Closet, Londa Shienbinger reveals the history of women’s exclusion from equal rights, social and political participation, education, science and commerce in the XVIII and XIX centuries. Scientists such as Kant, Locke and Rousseau, as well as many doctors and prominent male figures of the epoch, influenced society with their concepts of “nature” and imposed the hierarchical order of white male, female, ethnic and racial disparities.

White male scientific thought dominated the knowledge of society, and definitions of superiority produced the platform to control the political and public spheres. Women were undermined as socially incapable to participate  in any other businesses than procreation and home matters. The argument that scientists and thinkers used to exclude women from equal development, self-realization and opportunity were based on the differences between the anatomy of the sexes. Apparently, the female skull was smaller than the male skull; Therefore female brains were smaller and less intelligent. And the  female pelvis was larger than the male pelvis. Therefore, women were better suited to procreate.

Scheinbinger states the reasons why the scientific community established sharp differences between the sexes.  Scientists studied the female and male bodies in the time period of the French Revolution when women started to organize to change their status and to access equal rights and freedom. There was a re-arrangement of classes in France, and the possibility of women changing their social status thretened the male supremacy. Ideas of female and male and gender roles would block the progress of women’s rights. Scientist scrutinized female and male’s anatomy to establish natural differences of bones, organs and muscles.Women would be compared with children to point out lack of strength and mental power to occupy public positions. And women would be also compared with primitive people, to show that both shared similitudes, and both were inferior to the “white male excellence.”

Moreover, the exclusion of women in the sciences and in the study of human anatomy allowed male doctors and artist to romanticize and shape the image of women and men as they wanted. This creation of “nature” was used as a political tool to control the dynamics of society, to decide who had the authority to occupy the most prestigiuos status. On the other hand, supporters of equal rights for women and people of color did question the notion of “nature” and pointed out that “nurture” was the key to promote social equality. Social reform and access to education were needed to change the statuses of women and people of color.