å February 2017

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.

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.