I’ve heard women being called a lot of things: the weaker sex, hysterical, bad drivers and whatnot. But learning about Aristotle characterising a female as a mutilated male took even me by surprise. Although when I think about it, it really shouldn’t have. How else do we explain why science is so misogynistic if we didn’t actually believe that women were a lesser species?
Let’s dig in, in this week’s The Global Tiller. We take a look at the historical roots of misogyny in science and how it has impacted the level of research into women’s health. Why are women missing from medical trials, how does this bias bode even worse for women of colour and how we continue to dismiss the female perspective, as shown in the Covid vaccine research.
Just to be clear, Aristotle calling women 'mutilated males' wasn’t a passing remark at a boys' dinner. It was an established philosophy that argued for the cognitive and moral inferiority of women. For Aristotle, "the female body constitutes ‘defective matter’ whose sole purpose is to accommodate the growth of the male seed."
Even Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution argued for the inferiority of women. Darwin believed that the male members of a species develop more advanced cognitive and bodily abilities because of their unique role in the survival of their species and in the selection of sexual partners, hence males have evolved to be smarter, more creative, more energetic but also polygamous and aggressive.
This is the kind of thinking that shaped how the West understood the world and that weighed heavily on the subsequent progress during the Scientific Revolution. A lot of these ideas were discarded in the 17th century and scientists accepted that female organs were as perfect as they could be for the purposes they served, but the very purpose of the female body was reduced to that of reproduction.
Early anatomists drew the female skeleton with wider pelvises and smaller skulls to illustrate that they are prevented by their small brain size from being as smart as men and are compelled by their bone structures to reproduce. In fact, it was a woman named Helen Hamilton Gardner, who investigated brains, who challenged this assumption in the late 19th century. Gardner observed that if brain size were an indicator of intelligence then humans would not be the smartest species, because we don’t have the biggest brain. It’s relative to body size and so since women are slightly smaller than men it makes sense that their brains would be slightly smaller.
Science and medicine, in particular, has been a male-dominated field and continues to be so. Since 2000, women have earned more than half of the total number of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees in the United States and more than half the doctorates. Yet they are a minority among scientific leaders overall. Once women earn their PhD, they receive only 39% of postdoctoral fellowships and 18% of professorships. A typical research grant by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to a male principal investigator is $41,000 larger than to a female one.
Women are missing not only as scientists and medical researchers but as subjects to be studied as well. The NIH did not require the inclusion of women in medical trials until 1993. Not to mention the lack of research into women of colour which contributes to the fact that black women are five times more likely to die in childbirth in the UK. I should point out here that it’s not just women who are missing from medical research but female animals in general.
This has led to a glaring lack of knowledge about the female biology. Endometriosis affects one in 10 women, which means it is as common as diabetes in women, but our understanding of diabetes far exceeds what we know about endometriosis. In fact, doctors often dismiss patients of endometriosis and fibromyalgia as "reproductive bodies with hysterical tendencies". Even gender-neutral issues, such as a heart attack, are understood from the perspective of male bodies even though women have shown different symptoms.
The reasons to justify this gender gap vary. Traditionally, women were excluded from medical trials on grounds that menstruation and fluctuating hormones make women’s bodies too complicated to include in clinical trials. Others adopted more paternalistic attitudes, like those insisting that since women are born with all the eggs they will ever produce, they should be excluded from drug trials in case the drug proves toxic and impedes their ability to reproduce in the future.
We would like to believe we, as a society, have evolved from these archaic views of women’s role in society but the medical community continues to dismiss the female perspective, as we can see in the case of the Covid-19 vaccines. After insisting for months that the vaccines did not impact menstrual cycles, a recent study in the British Medical Journal shows that the vaccine shots delayed, or sometimes induced, periods among women.
There is an uphill battle for gender equity but we have to ensure that we are fighting for gender dignity too. Let’s do better than dismissing one half of the population as a mutilated version of the other.
Until next time, take care and stay safe!
Hira - Editor - The Global Tiller
Dig Deeper
Picture a Scientist is a documentary that chronicles the journey of biologist Nancy Hopkins, chemist Raychelle Burks, and geologist Jane Willenbring into their own experiences in the sciences, ranging from brutal harassment to years of subtle slights. Along the way, from cramped laboratories to spectacular field stations, we encounter scientific luminaries - including social scientists, neuroscientists, and psychologists - who provide new perspectives on how to make science itself more diverse, equitable, and open to all.
…and now what?
How hard is it to change? This question comes up quite often these days when we look at all the systemic changes we need to implement to get our societies fit for the existential challenges facing us today.
It’s actually not an easy question to answer.
Our visions of the world, of us and how we are all working together are so deeply ingrained in our minds that they become a significant force for resistance. And, unfortunately, when it comes to gender bias, it runs deep in our communities, in our history and in our traditions.
In a previous issue of this newsletter, we spoke about artificial wombs that are being developed and we envisioned them, maybe a bit provocatively, as the next necessary step for women’s empowerment: helping them disconnect at will from their genetic and biological fate. Some people strongly disagreed with this notion, believing the birthing process to be a sacred ritual of a female body.
But it’s questions like these that are fundamental. We need to ask ourselves deep provocative questions that will eventually challenge things that we deem unchangeable. Big questions that are meant to shake our grounds are not easy, they’re unsettling, sometimes even painful to think about. But if we don’t ask them, we won’t be able to change.
Ideas, biases and unquestioned theories are like habits or addictions. Once deeply rooted, taught and printed in our minds it takes a lot of work to change them. Even when we have been talking about changing, we eventually don’t and, like drug addicts, we fall back on our addictions.
Look at the harassment happening in women sports. After swimming, gymnastics and now football, we find out once again that men continue to abuse women while in positions of power. Why? Because they are men, they’re meant to procreate and women are there at their service. Isn’t that what Aristotle and Darwin told us. Of course, their theories have been challenged but who cares. Those two names on their own carry the entire foundations of science.
In a recent debate at the Institute of Arts and Ideas, a panel of scientists and thinkers questioned the very ability of science to change and introspect, and in this discussion we hear a scientist struggling to accept that science could be mistaken, to the point that he eventually gives in not because he’s convinced but because he’s tired.
But we don’t have to be defensive when it comes to challenging our foundational biases. As Naomi Oraskes tells us in her fantastic book 'Why Trust Science', we have to remember that science works through diversity and consensus, not through single-sided imposed pre-conceived ideas.
It’s in our nature to evolve, it’s in our nature to change. And even if it’s hard as hell to change, it’s also quite a natural skill for us. We evolve, we adapt and we develop new ideas, new solutions to answer the challenges of our times. And it’s critical if we want to make sure our civilisation will thrive through the coming times.
As it is for the question of colonialism, the question of gender bias, the question of making sure that we open ourselves to other perspectives, we include others in our work, thinking and decisions, it’s not about being nice or even being 'woke', it’s about not cutting ourselves from what more than half of the world can bring to the table in terms of ideas, innovations and abilities.
So let’s work hard to break down those limiting standards to give back our species the potential it has thanks to its truly natural diversity. What I’m saying sounds kind of obvious yet, it seems it’s still necessary to say it. So I said it...
Philippe - Founder & CEO - Pacific Ventury