å February 2017

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.

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.

According to Schiebinger, during the period of the eighteenth to nineteenth century, white men used science to define women and Black men’s place in society and the political realm. At at time where the study of anatomy and science was flourishing, many found it necessary to use this to explain why women and Black men were considered unequal to the supposedly superior white man. During this time, people of privilege would only consider someone’s argument to be valid if it was backed up with scientific evidence. Although most of the scientific evidence used was incorrect, white men used biological explanations to exclude women from the social and political realm of Europe.
Many scientists at the time used the supposed differences between the male and female skeletons to explain why women are inferior. Without the desire to find women’s place in society, the first female skeleton and the study of female anatomy would not have came out. Certain aspects of the supposed female skeleton backed up common stereotypes of women at the time; the idea that women were less intelligent because it was believed that they had smaller skulls, and the concept of the main role of women to be mothers because their pelvis was larger. These findings put women at an even lower political and social place; before this research was published, there was no scientific evidence to back up people’s stereotypes about women, but now people took this as real evidence as to why women were inferior. Many people believed that science was a set-in-stone policy, and that basically anything a scientist claimed about women’s bodies relating back to their status was correct because there was scientific “evidence”.
Another claim that excluded women from the political and social realm was that their bone structure was similar to children. This relates back to the idea that women are submissive, innocent creatures that have no place in a political arena. This and the common belief that women had a smaller skull which meant they were less intelligent led to the belief that politics were a place only for men. Men were considered intellectually superior because of their structure; their “larger” skulls and more robust bodies.
Although men were put on a pedestal because of their anatomy, this only applied to white men. The skeletal figure of man that was drawn was a white man, and Black men’s anatomy were rarely studied, and when they were they were used to exclude them just like women. A popular anatomist Soemmerring stated that the skeleton of Black people were similar to apes, which is a racist insult that is still sometimes used today. These claims allowed white people to belief that their racism and exclusion of Black people from the social and political realm were justified, just like how they treated women as well. Both are rooted in mostly incorrect science, and both were an attempt to place both women and Black people at a lower tier in society than white men.

In her essay, “Skeletons in the Closet,” Londa Schiebinger rhetorically asks why female anatomy gained traction during the eighteenth and nineteenth century in order to apply the focus of her argument on the scientific aptitudes that were unavailable to women at the time. During an era of freedom fighting and movements for equal rights (race, class) it may seem obvious that the science of women became a subject of mass inquiry by many researchers connected to the struggle for equality among genders, yet Schiebinger emphasizes the importance behind the ulterior political motivations regarding the publication of female science. Schiebinger’s response to her own question indicates that the publication of women related studies in the scientific community during this time period carried some type of bias or pseudo-scientific hypothesis, which created deeper differences further separating men from women in society both naturally and morally. The eighteenth century portrayal of gender specific skeletal structures by Marie-Geneviève Charlotte drives home this point, with the claim about skull size being proportional to intelligence showing how early steps in modern science were actually a step backwards for women. Such evidence also applied to studies of non-white people and in this way, science as a field of study was being used as a social tool to justify the divide between genders and race, and maintain the social hierarchy that favored wealthy white men. Schiebinger continues her response by explaining how medical advancements could have had a more positive effect had people abandoned “ancient authority”, or simply changed from a traditionally archaic mindset. Because this failed to happen immediately, ideas of superiority and inferiority emerged directly from the scientific world and carried out consequences in nineteenth century social standard. Thus science and society intermingled to reinforce the position of men and their desire to dominate every subject relevant to civilization.

I’ve just finished reading through your responses to chapter three from Davis’ work, Women, Race & Class (1983). Before commenting on the substance of your posts, I want to make a few comments about the more formal aspects of your writing.

Please make sure to proofread before you publish. If there are numerous spelling and / or grammatical errors, you will receive partial credit. As I mentioned in class, posts might appear in wingdings if you use a web-based platform (like google docs) to compose your post, and you accidentally copy html when transferring the content to WordPress. To prevent this from happening, you can write and edit in Microsoft Word. Alternatively, you can review your post in WordPress using the text editor (above) and remove any html coding that appears (HTML coding is everything that appears in brackets <> ). Make sure everything is written in your own words, and any paraphrased text includes a citation. Finally, the only category assigned to your post is the assignment for that week. For example, this week you should have tagged your post with the category on the right: “assignment 01.”

—————————————————

In your responses to Davis, many of you noted who was not asked to attend the Convention at Seneca Falls. These omissions, as some of you stressed, are all the more shocking because of the recent struggles faced by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott when attempting to contribute to the Anti-Slavery Society on equal terms with male abolitionists. In light of these experiences, we might expect Stanton and Mott to have been more sympathetic to “outsiders” to the women’s movement.

By way of introducing details about the life of Charlotte Woodward, Davis considers the different motives working women had for attending the convention at Seneca Falls. On the whole, the declarations that were the outcome of the convention addressed challenges that faced middle and upper class white women. Charlotte Woodward and some others were looking for guidance on how to improve the conditions of their lives as workers, but the conditions of working women seemed to be a marginal concern at the convention. This was too bad, because the activism of working women prior to the convention suggests what these women could have contributed to the movement had their problems been fully incorporated into the Seneca Fall Declarations and the tenets of the women’s movement during this period. In fact, by making the struggles of married women a primary concern, we could argue that Stanton and Mott reveal how much they didn’t understand about the conditions governing access to “rights.”

Some white women were quick to make comparisons between the lives of married women and that of slaves. From this analogy they did not mean middle and upper class women should dissolve their marriages in protest. I say this only partially in jest because to make this case would have required these women to see the way inequalities based on race, gender, and class were (and are) linked to accumulations of wealth in a capitalist economic system. As Davis underlines in this chapter and throughout her book, it was their mistake to think the subject of rights could be addressed separately from the economic concerns about labor (both slave or wage-based) that were also unfolding during this period.

Angela Davis attempts to convey the initial free-for-all that was the commencement of the women’s rights movement alongside black liberation, describing the difference in ideologies, interests and involvement of women and abolitionists determined for equal rights. Davis sheds light on the juxtaposition of the already destitute working conditions available to working class women, the all around inhumane treatment of African American women and the concerns of the Abolitionists party. Through the mentioning of Charlotte Woodward and Sojourner Truth, Davis shows all women outside the rising middle class made up a notable majority of women that were mostly unrepresented by the Convention at Seneca Falls, which included mill workers and slaves. Such are the lives of Woodward and Truth; women who strived for much more than an equality of status to men, white or black. Focusing on the absence of any colored women at the Convention at Seneca Falls, Davis makes it clear that there is a difference in agendas within the women’s rights movement regarding association with the lower class women and African Americans. As a result collaboration between oppressed women and abolitionists was not prioritized and prevented the movement from achieving its full potential. Thus, the lack of integration of abolitionists in the women’s rights movement outside of the few Davis mentions most likely stumped the collective growth of the effort early on, or at least partially nullified the impact of the Convention at Seneca Falls. Moreover, I believe that Davis wants the reader to understand the importance of the conflicting movements during mid-nineteenth century and how they competed, by highlighting both the differences and similarities of African Americans and women fighting for equal rights. Had both parties effectively collaborated, women’s suffrage and the freedom of black Americans could have essentially provoked the undertaking of a second American revolution.