fJennifer has 12 post(s)

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.

The inspiration for the Seneca Falls Convention was clearly rooted in the dismissive treatment of female abolitionists, whether in London at the World Anti-Slavery Convention or before, on the premise of human rights. Davis describes the struggle, for the organizers to define the varying nuance of women’s rights and the human rights of slaves. In hindsight, we can see that the rights discussed at either convention are no different in the oppression of humanity. What I see Davis pointing out is the dismissal of Charlotte Wood and admiration mixed with hesitation of Sojourner Truth. To negate the working woman, Charlotte Wood, is more than a classist issue. The working condition of the mills were no secret to the middle-class women, despite many of the women abolitionists not having to personally experience the conditions they must have known someone who had. Charlotte’s struggles for autonomy as a married woman working in the home were also easily identifiable as many of the married women had undervalued work they provided for their family.

Luckily for the organizers, Sojourner Truth was in attendance to direct the conversation. Presumably many of the middle class and bourgeoisie had never experienced any level of hard labor and if they had would likely not talk about it in mixed company. The male adversaries, then as now, are quick to emphasize the assumed weaknesses of women and by discouraging the women in attendance from speaking the men could maintain their supremacy. Fortunately, Sojourner had already survived extreme physical and emotional trauma and was entirely unfazed. Although she was a forceful and inspiring speaker, the economic and racial tensions between the white majority and Sojourner would overshadow her contribution to the convention and women’s movement, an issue that is alive and well to this day. Despite the Seneca Falls Convention’s success to create movement in the fight for women’s rights the blind spot on what defines oppression was left looming. Women’s rights are not specific to class or race and collectively uniting has consistently proven far more efficient. Davis suggests that the struggle we face, as women and a society, could be linked to our own self-imposed categorization of our differences instead of uniting our similarities. It is impossible to imagine what would have happened at Seneca Falls if Sojourner had never taken it upon herself to attend and speak for women. At the end of the day liberation is liberation and not connecting oppressive behaviors of capitalists, sexists or racists only perpetuates the “acceptance” in society.