í Assignments

In her essay, “Skeletons in the Closet: The First Illustrations of the Female Skeleton in Eighteenth-Century Anatomy”, Londa Schiebinger analyzes the social and political circumstances surrounding the eighteenth-century search for sex differences. These sex differences were often physical, focusing on the physical differences in the anatomy of men and women.  However, these physical differences were also used to justify non-physical attributes such as mental capabilities, social/economic status, opportunities, duties, and even rights that women held at the time. For example, Things like the larger pelvis of females compared to the men’s were used to argue that women were naturally created to serve as mothers, while a bigger male skull indicated that men enjoyed more mental capacity than women. Such “scientific” claims were very effective and appealing to the medieval public because science was associated with empirical data that was often perceived as the raw truth and “nature” of how things were.  These physical differences were mainly referred to in order to portray women as inferior to men in almost every aspect of life and to push political/social agendas, rather than scientific discoveries, which hindered any potential development that women could have achieved towards equality. I think that Londa Schiebinger does a great job of setting a strong base to her argument by emphasizing the obscure history that has undermined the equality of women to begin with.

In a male-dominated scientific world during the 18^th century, the purpose of science has become more political rather than factual. While some scientists viewed the sex differences neutrally, many scientists used them as a way to prioritize the male gender over the female due to social, political, and economic surroundings that have favored the man more than the woman. Through her essay, I believe that it is within Londa Schiebinger’s objective to highlight the failed centuries of dichotomy between men and women based on physical differences that were used to justify political agendas that have empowered men over women, rather than embracing the differences and valuing each other as different genders that are made to complement each other.

In the essay “Skeletons in the closet” by Londa Schiebingers, she wonders why the female skeleton grasped the attention of anatomists to begin with, or was it relevant to scientific objectivity she questions. She realized these dissectors focused on the parts of the body that would be politically important. Reason being, the first skeleton would become visible when  the position of woman in the European society would come to surface. A published drawing of the female had shown the skull appearing to be smaller than a males, and their pelvis’s being larger. For no other reason then showing woman weren’t as smart as men, and their pelvis’s being larger related to the thought that women were “naturally destined for motherhood the confined sphere of hearth and home” (Schiebingers,3).

Nature and equality play an important role in this article, as it did with Davis’s chapter 3. When woman asked for equality it wasn’t granted to them, and the study of nature of women became a specific topic during the time. During the 18th century women and men had very different roles, and woman’s qualities were always associated with children and nonindustrial jobs.

She relates back to the ancient world, where Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen drew pictures of the nature of woman trying to justify a women’s inferior social status. One of these philosophers actually claimed that women were colder and weaker than men. Along with the accusations that women are lazy while men are active. Poullain a French feminist who stated a very needed appeal on behalf of the equality of women claims “their eyes see as clearly, their ears hear with the same degree of accuracy, their hands are as dexterose, and their heads are the same” (Schiebingers, 6). The sex differences in men and women shouldnt determine them politically or socially, their simply skin deep.

Londa Schiebinger’s essay, “Skeletons In The Closet”, asked an important question, why did the comparing of the anatomy of white women and men become such a critical project for the medical community in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth century? And Schiebinger was able to fully answer this question in her essay. In the beginning of the 1750s was when doctors in Europe began to look for the sex differences in the human body, and during this time was when the first drawings of female skeletons appeared (Schiebinger, page 42).  Londa Schiebinger believed that the first representations of the female skeletons came forth to help define the position of women in the European society. The fact that a woman’s skull was shown to be smaller than a man’s skull was evidence to the statement that a woman’s intellectual capabilities were inferior to a man’s. On top of that, a female’s large pelvis added more to the reason as to why she should be confined in the sphere of her home, it showed that she was naturally designed for motherhood and the role of a nurturer (Schiebinger, page 43). Anatomists used the research they did on the skeletons to make visible the separate roles of a man and woman in the social hierarchy, and in the eighteenth century, they began to believe that women held a low ranking in the natural hierarchy (Schiebinger, page 46). Londa Schiebinger explains in her essay that the reason why comparing the anatomy of white women and men became such a big issue was so it can be used to further show the inequality between the both sexes. Basically, it was more of a political reason than anything else. This conveniently happened during the time when women began to raise their voices against the denial of their civil rights, but it only made them fight harder for their freedom.

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.