THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION AND FEMALE ANATOMY ON THE WOMAN
Editor’s note: In this paper, Harry S. (‘17) discusses the oppression of women through anatomy and religious justification throughout history.
Throughout the course of our Race and Gender class, we have explored many readings about the history of, the reasons for, and thought processes behind many issues regarding both race and gender. The readings cover many regions of the world including Greece, England, France, America and many more, as well as a range of time periods stretching from the time of Aristotle to the current day. Although it seems like these readings are scattered, there are ways to understand how the texts are connected to each other through the several themes within them. Authors like Clifford D. Conner, Elizabeth Leacock, Lesley Dean-Jones, Londa Schiebinger, and Cordelia Fine explore how religion has been used as justification for atrocities as well as the use of female anatomy as a tool to limit the roles of women.
In both the readings by Elizabeth Leacock as well as Clifford D. Conner, there is the constant theme of the European Catholic religion being used as justification for committing atrocities. In Leacock’s Myths of Male Dominance, she takes us back to the 1500s and 1600s and explores the dynamic between the French traders, represented by leader Jesuit Paul Le Jeune, and the Montagnais Naskapi tribe. The French were appalled by the culture of the Naskapi and how it lacked their familiar binary gender role separation and defining role expectations. They were concerned about the Naskapi allowing their women sexual liberty, a female privilege entirely foreign in European culture. For example, the women in the society were not only allowed to choose their own marital partners, but they also worked outside of the house and even had the right to divorce. When given the mission to “civilize” the Naskapi, which in the eyes of the French meant altering the society to make women subordinate for fear that they were too sexually free, Le Jeune used Christianity as a means of justification for introducing the extreme binary gender roles to what was originally a much more accepting society. Le Jeune told the Naskapi that “the inconstancy of marriages and the facility with which they divorce each other, [were] a great obstacle of the Faith of Jesus Christ” (Leacock, 50). Leackock shows how Jesus himself was used as a fear mechanism for those whose culture was being destroyed due to societal differences. The French had their own ideals primarily based in Christianity and patriarch, which collided with those of the Naskapi whose ideals were based on equality and community, so the French intimidated them into conforming.
Like Leacock, Clifford D. Conner depicts the religious justification of the marginalization of women in A People’s History of Science. Religion during the 1600s in Europe was used as more of a means of self-protection rather than the supposed betterment of a foreign society like in the case of the Le Jeune and Naskapi. During this time, many legitimately thought that “old women had gained dangerous supernatural powers from an alliance with Satan” (Conner, 366). With this thought in mind, the killing of thousands and thousands of females became normalized and thus began the Witch Craze. What is most interesting about the Witch Craze is that, much like the Naskapi, men believed that women were too sexually deviant with their “voracious sex drive”, and in both cases, men in religious positions argued that these anti-female movements “had no genuine social roots, but was imposed from above” (366). The Witch Craze was thought to be “an elaborate ideology—a new ‘science’ of demonology” (366). Conner explains that this was really was an excuse for people to use the name of European Christianity to execute a plan for an idea that was perceived as a “threat by the social elite.” (365). Religious justification is only one of the recurring themes within our array of readings. Even though this trend has remained constant, there are clearly quite different ways of depicting it throughout history, as is the case with themes as simple misconstrued anatomy.
Another shared theme among writers is the usage of incorrect human anatomy to verify the inferiority of women, a topic discussed by Londa Schiebinger, Lesley Dean-Jones, and Cordelia Fine. In comparing the ways in which the writers address this subject, Schiebinger and Dean-Jones can be viewed similarly while Fine, being the true outlier, can be contrasted to their approach. In Dean-Jones’ The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek Science and Schiebinger’s Nature’s Body, the common approach to the supposed anatomical difference between males and females revolves around breasts, while Fine’s Delusions of Gender tackles the female brain. The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek Science is an explanation of an ideology in Ancient Greek culture and how they thought that breasts were a collection of blood and moisture, which were thought to gather when when one was angry. Due to women typically having larger breasts, it was believed that “women would always be more susceptible to having more blood in their breasts than men,” which “[gave] a ‘scientific’ basis to the belief that women were always closer to the irrational than men” (Dean-Jones, 6). This not only demeaned women’s societal roles, but was also intended to exclude them from the democracy, otherwise known as the polis, which was meant strictly for males and unfit for those who were temperamental. This example of Ancient Greek society exemplifies how social norms were able to affect scientific thinking.
Similarly, Schiebinger argues that in 1758, Carolinus Linnaeus was influenced by his social beliefs to create the term “Mammalia”, literally meaning “of the breast” (Shiebinger, 40). Schiebinger shows how science was altered in European society by explaining how “the female breast evoked deep, wide-ranging, and often contradictory currents of meaning in Western culture,” and how “there were more immediate and pressing political trends that prompted Linnaeus to focus scientific attention on the mammae” (41). Here, too, we see the exclusion of females from politics, as during this time in France, the Revolution was soon to begin, and males like Linnaeus wanted to make it as clear as possible that the revolution was for a democracy that would not encompass women. Shiebinger would argue that the emphasis on the female breast in the naming of “mammalia” pertains to the idea of nature in society, and how a woman’s “natural” place was not in the public sphere, but in the private due to the norm that women breastfed solely in privacy. In both readings there is a stigma surrounding breasts, and although they are in very different time periods, this stigma is powerful enough to influence the scientific ideologies of the time.
This strongly contrasts to Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender in which the anatomy of the female most targeted is the brain. The time periods are also interesting to observe, because while there is almost an overlap between Fine discussing the 19th century and Schiebinger’s reading being set in the 18th century, Fine also explains how the belief that females have different brains than males manifests itself in the 21st century. In the 1800s the idea surrounding the female brain was that qualities like “close and comprehensive reasoning… should be ‘impart[ed]... to the female mind with a more sparing hand’ because women have less need of such talents in the discharge of their duties.” (Fine, xviii). While there is nothing about breasts in Fine’s analysis, the trend of using a female’s anatomy against her is maintained. What’s more fascinating is that the belief that women were meant for the domestic sphere, a concept believed in ancient Greece as well as 18th century Europe, has been able to survive all the way through modern day. Fine discusses Simon Baron-Cohen, a current Cambridge professor, and how he too believes that women are essentially programmed for specific tasks. “‘The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems.’” (xix). This shows how the skewing and inaccuracy of the anatomy of the human body has been used as a defeating mechanism against women, and how this use has been a concept kept alive by males throughout thousands of years.
It is clear that these trends have not just survived throughout the ages, but been quite prominent in many societies. Whether it be religious justification, exclusion from politics, rigid and divisive gender roles, or even non-factual anatomy, the victim always is the same: the female. It is time for society’s fears and insecurities to stop crumbling down upon women. As these themes continue to be more commonly defied, the feasible excuses made for their continued existence become sparser and sparser. We can no longer hide our aggressions and inabilities to change behind unsound biological claims or outdated social norms. How humiliating it would be if student’s writing similar essays 200 years in the future could look back on our time and draw parallels between our own cultural norms and gender roles between those of the ancient Greeks. We all must now ask ourselves: how do we eradicate these patterns to ensure a more accepting and progressive society?
In both the readings by Elizabeth Leacock as well as Clifford D. Conner, there is the constant theme of the European Catholic religion being used as justification for committing atrocities. In Leacock’s Myths of Male Dominance, she takes us back to the 1500s and 1600s and explores the dynamic between the French traders, represented by leader Jesuit Paul Le Jeune, and the Montagnais Naskapi tribe. The French were appalled by the culture of the Naskapi and how it lacked their familiar binary gender role separation and defining role expectations. They were concerned about the Naskapi allowing their women sexual liberty, a female privilege entirely foreign in European culture. For example, the women in the society were not only allowed to choose their own marital partners, but they also worked outside of the house and even had the right to divorce. When given the mission to “civilize” the Naskapi, which in the eyes of the French meant altering the society to make women subordinate for fear that they were too sexually free, Le Jeune used Christianity as a means of justification for introducing the extreme binary gender roles to what was originally a much more accepting society. Le Jeune told the Naskapi that “the inconstancy of marriages and the facility with which they divorce each other, [were] a great obstacle of the Faith of Jesus Christ” (Leacock, 50). Leackock shows how Jesus himself was used as a fear mechanism for those whose culture was being destroyed due to societal differences. The French had their own ideals primarily based in Christianity and patriarch, which collided with those of the Naskapi whose ideals were based on equality and community, so the French intimidated them into conforming.
Like Leacock, Clifford D. Conner depicts the religious justification of the marginalization of women in A People’s History of Science. Religion during the 1600s in Europe was used as more of a means of self-protection rather than the supposed betterment of a foreign society like in the case of the Le Jeune and Naskapi. During this time, many legitimately thought that “old women had gained dangerous supernatural powers from an alliance with Satan” (Conner, 366). With this thought in mind, the killing of thousands and thousands of females became normalized and thus began the Witch Craze. What is most interesting about the Witch Craze is that, much like the Naskapi, men believed that women were too sexually deviant with their “voracious sex drive”, and in both cases, men in religious positions argued that these anti-female movements “had no genuine social roots, but was imposed from above” (366). The Witch Craze was thought to be “an elaborate ideology—a new ‘science’ of demonology” (366). Conner explains that this was really was an excuse for people to use the name of European Christianity to execute a plan for an idea that was perceived as a “threat by the social elite.” (365). Religious justification is only one of the recurring themes within our array of readings. Even though this trend has remained constant, there are clearly quite different ways of depicting it throughout history, as is the case with themes as simple misconstrued anatomy.
Another shared theme among writers is the usage of incorrect human anatomy to verify the inferiority of women, a topic discussed by Londa Schiebinger, Lesley Dean-Jones, and Cordelia Fine. In comparing the ways in which the writers address this subject, Schiebinger and Dean-Jones can be viewed similarly while Fine, being the true outlier, can be contrasted to their approach. In Dean-Jones’ The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek Science and Schiebinger’s Nature’s Body, the common approach to the supposed anatomical difference between males and females revolves around breasts, while Fine’s Delusions of Gender tackles the female brain. The Cultural Construct of the Female Body in Classical Greek Science is an explanation of an ideology in Ancient Greek culture and how they thought that breasts were a collection of blood and moisture, which were thought to gather when when one was angry. Due to women typically having larger breasts, it was believed that “women would always be more susceptible to having more blood in their breasts than men,” which “[gave] a ‘scientific’ basis to the belief that women were always closer to the irrational than men” (Dean-Jones, 6). This not only demeaned women’s societal roles, but was also intended to exclude them from the democracy, otherwise known as the polis, which was meant strictly for males and unfit for those who were temperamental. This example of Ancient Greek society exemplifies how social norms were able to affect scientific thinking.
Similarly, Schiebinger argues that in 1758, Carolinus Linnaeus was influenced by his social beliefs to create the term “Mammalia”, literally meaning “of the breast” (Shiebinger, 40). Schiebinger shows how science was altered in European society by explaining how “the female breast evoked deep, wide-ranging, and often contradictory currents of meaning in Western culture,” and how “there were more immediate and pressing political trends that prompted Linnaeus to focus scientific attention on the mammae” (41). Here, too, we see the exclusion of females from politics, as during this time in France, the Revolution was soon to begin, and males like Linnaeus wanted to make it as clear as possible that the revolution was for a democracy that would not encompass women. Shiebinger would argue that the emphasis on the female breast in the naming of “mammalia” pertains to the idea of nature in society, and how a woman’s “natural” place was not in the public sphere, but in the private due to the norm that women breastfed solely in privacy. In both readings there is a stigma surrounding breasts, and although they are in very different time periods, this stigma is powerful enough to influence the scientific ideologies of the time.
This strongly contrasts to Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender in which the anatomy of the female most targeted is the brain. The time periods are also interesting to observe, because while there is almost an overlap between Fine discussing the 19th century and Schiebinger’s reading being set in the 18th century, Fine also explains how the belief that females have different brains than males manifests itself in the 21st century. In the 1800s the idea surrounding the female brain was that qualities like “close and comprehensive reasoning… should be ‘impart[ed]... to the female mind with a more sparing hand’ because women have less need of such talents in the discharge of their duties.” (Fine, xviii). While there is nothing about breasts in Fine’s analysis, the trend of using a female’s anatomy against her is maintained. What’s more fascinating is that the belief that women were meant for the domestic sphere, a concept believed in ancient Greece as well as 18th century Europe, has been able to survive all the way through modern day. Fine discusses Simon Baron-Cohen, a current Cambridge professor, and how he too believes that women are essentially programmed for specific tasks. “‘The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems.’” (xix). This shows how the skewing and inaccuracy of the anatomy of the human body has been used as a defeating mechanism against women, and how this use has been a concept kept alive by males throughout thousands of years.
It is clear that these trends have not just survived throughout the ages, but been quite prominent in many societies. Whether it be religious justification, exclusion from politics, rigid and divisive gender roles, or even non-factual anatomy, the victim always is the same: the female. It is time for society’s fears and insecurities to stop crumbling down upon women. As these themes continue to be more commonly defied, the feasible excuses made for their continued existence become sparser and sparser. We can no longer hide our aggressions and inabilities to change behind unsound biological claims or outdated social norms. How humiliating it would be if student’s writing similar essays 200 years in the future could look back on our time and draw parallels between our own cultural norms and gender roles between those of the ancient Greeks. We all must now ask ourselves: how do we eradicate these patterns to ensure a more accepting and progressive society?