This weekend I was in Atlanta, GA and went to "Bodies: The Exhibition" downtown. The exhibit itself was truly amazing - actual cadavers stripped of their skin in order to show the muscles, nerves, etc. The exhibit is meant to show us how as humans, we tend to take our bodies for granted, when they are truly amazing.
However, I was bothered that all the specimens were male, with the exception of the reproductive exhibit, where there was one female display. There were many different rooms with many different bodies, and they were all male. I felt that they were portraying the male body as the normative, and the female body as some other than the normative.
I asked a few of the exhibit employees and scientists who created the exhibit why they chose to only display male bodies, and received no answers. I suppose it may come down to maybe more men chose to donate their bodies to science, but I find it hard to believe they couldn't find anymore female specimens to display.
I was curious to see if anyone else has seen this exhibit. I believe it is a traveling exhibit, because I know that there was a Bodies exhibit in Portland, OR last year. If anyone else has seen it, I would like to hear your take on it.
Here is a link to the official Bodies website if you are interested: http://www.bodiestheexhibition.com/bodies.html
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Male Body as Normative.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12522
I actually got to see the exhibit 4 years ago in Chicago, and 2 years ago in the Twin Cities. It is really cool, and it was mostly male bodies, but at least one of the exhibits I went to did have more females than just the reproductive room. There is actually more than one exhibit moving around the country at the same time. I know because I asked an employee since some of the things I saw in Chicago were not at the one in the Twin Cities. So maybe the collection you saw happened to be a partiuclary bad cross section. Although I still bet there are a lot more males presented as the "normal" body.
I saw the Body Works exhibition in Chicago a few years ago, too. I think that this one is different. Body Works definitely had a little more female representation that I remember.
I'm not sure if this is just a sad knock off of the original or the other way around. In any case, there might be a lot of reasons for lack of female representation, from sexist to practical. It's worth asking about.
That's so common. I was pointing out to my students the fact that the male version of everything is taken to be the norm last week, and the campus paper gave me a perfect example. Both the men's and women's nordic ski teams here on campus won titles in this year's competition. One article covered both teams. The first half of the article covered the men's team, and referred to them only as "Wyoming." As in "Wyoming placed first in the last three events of the day..." But the women's team was referred to as the "Cowgirls" or "the ladies." Half of my students thought it was no big deal, or didn't even get what I was pointing out until I had explained it repeatedly. The other half thought it was ridiculous.
It also made me think of something I read in intro to WGST way back in the day. It was about how medical students had to memorize lots of standard data (urine production, etc) for a 70 kg man, because the 70 kg man was considered the norm. It then went on to argue that this has impacted medicine negatively, especially as medication is designed for and tested on men, which ends up harming women.
What it was getting to was that we shouldn't get equality mixed up with sameness.
I believe it was called "The 70 kg man" or something like that, and it's a standard intro text, kind of like "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack."
I would link to it, but I can't find it.
I've read similar things, but only in articles about specific medical research topics. And there was an article in one of my philosophy of science readers that covered the NIH Act in the early 90s that requires the inclusion of women and other minorities in research. I think there's also an article about cancer research and how so many types of cancer treatments have only been tested on men.
Fascinating stuff.
Just wondering, but was it mostly the male half that thought it was "no big deal"? Because, I'm also wondering if the people who put together the "Bodies" exhibit were mostly male. Not that I'm thinking anything bad regarding these men...But, from what I have seen, it seems that a lot of men are mostly, if not completely, unaware of the privilege that they posses in which males and representations of males are considered the "norm" in our society...Sadly, I wouldn't even be surprised if the scientists that the OP questioned had never even considered the fact that there were no representations of female bodies in the exhibit...simply because it reflects precisely the way things are in our everyday lives.
There were definitely more men than women who didn't get it. And one of the male students defended the wording of the article by saying it was "just tradition" and disagreed with one of the female students when she said that the preferencing of male athletics on campuses reveals the underlying attitude that women are less-than. But there were a couple of female students who seemed unconcerned over it.
I do think it's a case of being oblivious to your privilege, and of women who have never really thought about it just internalizing the implicit cultural way of differentially valuing people. It's hard not to, unless something has really forced you to think about it.
Thanks for bringing this up. I'd like to see a community post about it. This male-as-norm bias is frustratingly common in the sports world. It is practically standardized (I know...sports media is sexist? STOP THE PRESSES!).
On ESPN.com or any of ESPN's news tickers, Men's college basketball is listed as "College Basketball" or "NCAAB" (B for "Basketball), while women's college basketball is listed as "Women's Basketball" or "NCAAW" (W for women's).
Obviously, the men's basketball labeling is an example of a simple male-as-norm scenario, but the discrimination extends a step further to marginalize other forms of women's athletics:
Nevermind that BOTH genders have a professional league (owned by the same company, no less!), but the "Women's Basketball" label ignores this.
Meanwhile, the "NCAAW" designation infuriates me because it implies that other than basketball, Women's college athletics do not have a place in national sports media coverage.
I saw Bodies in NYC a couple years ago and thought it was so awe-inspiring that I didn't notice the gender ratio. But now that you point it out, the exhibit in New York did have a lot more male bodies, especially male bodies in motion, like a model of a man's muscular system while he's playing basketball or something like that.
But there is a larger human rights controversy over this exhibit, I couldn't find the original article and I'm on my way to class so here's a blog post that hopefully references the real article.
http://www.idealog.us/2006/06/controversy_of_.html
I saw it four years ago in Chicago as well, and I remember seeing more than just male bodies.
One thing to consider - since these are bodies that were donated to science, they kind of have to work with what they're given. Would there have been something that caused more men to donate their bodies than women?
Well I am glad to hear that some of the other exhibits have more female bodies!
I had this EXACT thought when I went to see the Bodies exhibit in NYC last August. I went with my father and my fellow feminist best friend, and as we left we both commented on how the only female bodies on display were in the reproductive section, and of course, the lone example of obesity, which was rather disheartening as it is such an awe-inspiring exhibit and has the potential to destigmatize the female body as dirty or other.
I feel that relegating women to that one section not only sets up the assumption that that is their sole place and purpose, but also gave me the impression that women's bodies were a "special" version of human being, as in, "it also comes in this other flavor, with these lady-bit add-ons- pink accessories not included."
I think they probably just didn't want to distract from their exhibit. Women's naked bodies are sexual, private, whatever, and men's naked bodies are... "meh." I'm not saying that's right or that I agree with it, before you all jump all over me, but if they had women the exhibit would be lost on most people. I'm thinking of a bunch of people just giggling 'boobies!' and missing the point.
That being said, I think you could argue that the only way to change this is to include more female bodies in exhibits like these until it just seems normal to everyone.
True. I wonder how long it would take for people to get used to it?
I really feel that the way the exhibit is displayed, it would not have mattered if the body was male or female. In order to display a preserved body, the body has been stripped of skin and fat, which means that in order to include breasts, they had to be added on later. Without the breasts, the female and male bodies (aside from the genitals) are going to look about the same. I didn't feel there was any reason to exclude the female bodies; if the breasts have already been removed in the preservation process, one would think that it wouldn't matter if a male or female body was displayed, it wouldn't be seen as "sexual" either way.
I am not in the US, so I have not been to this exhibit. But I have to agree with what jjgirl23 says and what others have said.
When I was in school, in Biology there were always pictures of naked men, full front nudity and there was even a full anatomical body of a naked man in the Biology lab. They showed the breast and female genitalia too, but only in diagrammes, not the full female body.
I think there should be a phrase for the phenomenon of naked male bodies being 'meh', just like how women's bodies are constantly thought of as being accessible to the public. For example, when the girls' lockers were being renovated, they got moved and changed in the boy's lockers/changing room, and the boys had to change somewhere where everybody could see them. No one complained. It would be ludicrous to think of a boy complaining to his gym teacher when the teacher plays the basketball game using "Skin and shirts". So I think this definitely jives with what jjgirl23 stated above.
Good point, but at the same time... isn't that kind of exactly the problem?
If I had a dollar for every time someone had told me "well, women's bodies are just more attractive/aesthetically pleasing/etc."... I have to be honest, that shit fucking infuriates me. For fuck's sake, if you want to talk about whose bodies are about decoration versus functionality, um, how about looking at WHICH SEX CARRIES OUT THE REPRODUCTIVE FUNCTION, huh??? Doesn't get much more functional than that! Men's genitalia are on the outside... why? All I can think of is logistical ease for transmitting genetic material to a partner -- but then why are testes external? And why do they have nipples? Conversely, everything about a woman's naked body, conversely, is functional. External nipples for feeding young. Internal reproductive organs that are protected from the elements and help incubate fetuses, etc.
Women's bodies are built much more functionally than men's, yet WE are the sex considered more decorative? It makes no sense, people! Women's bodies are only more attractive to people because WE HAVE DECIDED, UNILATERALLY, THAT THEY ARE MORE ATTRACTIVE. And then, idiotically, people never question WHY they would find a woman's body more attractive, assuming with lemming-like confidence that it must be because they simply "are." Um, you don't think that living in a culture that exaggerates, idolizes, fetishizes, and sexualizes the female form might have a LITTLE something to do with your supposed "objective" observations about what kind of body is "more attractive"?????????
/rant
God, sorry. Guess I really needed to get that off my (functional, non-sexual) chest :-P
While I agree with your argument, I take minor issue with the idea of men's bodies being more about "decoration" than women's bodies--i've never come across any scientific suggestions that men's outward genitalia evolved as a display of dominance or virility (compare to bright plumage in male birds). Quite to the contrary, most scientists agree (though science is certainly not free from gender bias) that external testes help regulate temperature for sperm production (a very temperamental process). And male nipples develop before the gender of a fetus is determined.
I think, though, in principle, we both probably agree that men's bodies and women's bodies should be treated as equals, and its culture, not nature, that is at fault here. The idea of a natural consensus that one gender's body is more appealing, sensual or invites voyeurism is hogwash.
I saw the one that went through Portland). It was Body Worlds 2. (There are 3 different Body Worlds exhibits and at least one Bodies)
I hated it and thought it was terribly sexist! I went to it before I was spending a lot of time thinking about feminism, so I didn't even realize how I was viewing it through a femisist lens, but the objectification was so obvious I could hardly stand it and yet, no one else seemed to comment. I mentioned it to my boyfriend who agreed once he gave it some thought, but he hadn't even noticed it. Shows to me how much society just accepts these things.
1. They are still learning how to plactisize fat, so none of the bodies had any body fat. However all the women had breasts. No other body fat anywhere but breasts somehow.
2. None of the bodies have skin, except the women all have nipples. No nipples on the men!
3. While they're all in strange poses, ALL the females were posed moderately to unmistakably sexually, including one hanging upside down from a trapeze, legs spread. Are we meant to get a decent view of the reproductive areas, or just have a little fantasy? I kept wondering if that women had any idea what she was signing up for when she donated her body.
4. The women's reproductive system was entirely confusing. It felt like an afterthought to include an actual uterus in the display cases and I think it may have been upside down or something. I was really looking forward to seeing what a uterus looks like (other than a drawing) but I really didn't learn anything.
There was also a whole room with fetuses and stuff like that. Unfortunately we ran out of time and didn't see it so I can't comment on it one way or another.
In general the exhibit blurred the lines between art and science in a way that made me uncomfortable.
I didn't see Body Worlds, I saw Bodies. It was several years ago. I do remember noticing that the female bodies were all either in the reproductive room or they were posed attractively (but not really sexually). There weren't many female bodies, and there weren't any females doing active things like playing sports.
I was going to respond to JJgirl23 and say that I didn't think that bodies without the skin would really be that sexual, and my main argument would have been that you would be getting rid of the nipples and hair. Clearly the Body World's exhibit managed to leave the nipples in and keep the cadavers sexy, which is gross. *sigh*
Also, all the breast were round and perky and b-c cups. No sagging anywhere. Even the (presumably elderly) woman with the artificial hip and perky breasts.
would the breasts be perky when dead and treated as these bodies are? i imagine fat was gone
i meant would the breasts be flabby
We must have seen the same exhibit, because I was also really annoyed by the nipples on the female bodies. I also thought the female bodies, particularly the gymnast,seemed sexualized. I found the exhibit interesting as a whole, but thought that the nipples and "sexy" poses were offensive and detracted from its quality.
Naters' and Rachel in Wy's comments are right on.
We can argue back and forth about whether or not more men donate their bodies than do women. But the larger cultural standards remains, as evidenced by tens of thousands of science textbooks, diagrams, and anatomy courses:
"The human body" IS the male body. This is the standard of our society.
There is the human body, and then there is the female body. The female body is a different "flavor," a spin-off of the standard human one. It so happens that its flavor is of the reproductive sort--that's why you always see women's bodies in the sexuality and reproduction parts of texts but never, say, in the "respiratory system" diagram.
Think about it: out of all the "human" diagrams you've ever viewed of the respiratory system, the voice box, the digestive system, the heart--how many of those were illustrated with a female body? For me, it's been maybe 2 out of every ten, and even then not in science textbooks (which are uniformly male) but in advertisements driven towards female marketing groups (i.e. Dulcolax laxative).
I find this particularly amusing, given that the reverse is more accurate, biologically speaking.
I have also heard/read that many of these exhibits use the bodies of Chinese convicts, which may affect the gender balance.
I heard the same thing. I'm not sure of its truth, however it would also call into question who it was that "donated" these bodies and their cultural aim.
I've heard anecdotally from law enforcement professionals that body donations are more common from inmate populations than society at large in the US, and that coroners offices sometimes donate unclaimed bodies, and that both of those populations skew male.
Still, consider me a skeptic that this is the cause of the gender bias in these exhibitions, where bodies are carefully selected for suitability, not taken as a random sample.
(Additionally, Analog's post below seems to account for it as a deliberate choice in at least one exhibition series.)
If it bothers you that much, I hope your living will designates a display case as your final resting place.
This comment suggests that the reason women aren't equally represented is because women don't donate their bodies for uses like these. Is there any evidence suggesting that? I've never heard of that, and from what I've heard from friends in medical school, there are as many female cadavers donated for their uses as male cadavers.
It also doesn't follow that if an individual woman is not comfortable with allowing her own body to be used that way, then she has no right to object to the unequal representation in displays like this. You could object to the selective use the males and restriction of the use of females for reproduction and individual body part displays without wanting to have your own body displayed in this way after death.
The website at BodyWorlds.com actually has an answer to this. I don't think it is a good answer, but here is what they say:
Why are there not more women plastinates in the exhibits?
Sensitive to perceived community concerns, Dr. von Hagens did not want to appear voyeuristic in revealing too many female bodies. Further, he sees himself in the tradition of Renaissance anatomists, whose works traditionally included far more masculine than feminine bodies, since all but the reproductive systems are essentially the same. The musculature of male bodies is generally more pronounced and illustrates more aspects of the muscle system. The organs on display come primarily from the female body donors. However, since opening the exhibits, Dr. von Hagens has received numerous requests from women visitors to see more examples of female anatomy. Based on this, Dr. von Hagens has already added and will add more female plastinates to future exhibits.
I certainly understand how male bodies may often be more useful for displaying musculature (though wouldn't it be neat to see the musculature of a female body builder displayed using this method?). But if there tend to be differences between male and female musculature development, then to me it seems obviously educational to show those variations. I'm glad to hear that Dr. von Hagens is responding to feedback from the public on this issue.
Thanks for posting this.
Interesting that women's body PARTS--literally disembodied objects--are used liberally, but their bodies as a whole very little to the point that "communities" have expressed "concern" over it.
Interesting, too, how they invoke the Renaissance artists' use of men only as a sort of validation of their exhibit's choice...simply because they're Renaissance artists (uh, those artists are not role models for contemporary people in many cases). Their stated reasoning also makes no sense: "Because men and women's bodies apart from the reproductive system are the same, we use more men's." Care to try that again?
And I agree with rhowan that to the extent that there are differences between male and female bodies' musculature development, the response must be to equally showcase both. The exhibit is about HUMAN bodies, right?
Human musculature /=/ men's musculature.
Human musculature = Men's and Women's musculatures.
...because if it was good enough for Renaissance men, it's good enough for us...
Yeah, because whoever posed this was worried about not being voyeuristic.
Perhaps the reason people were silent when you asked about why there were no female bodies was because they wanted to hide where they got the bodies. There's evidence that people's bodies are being used in anatomical exhibits against their will (while alive):
An article about "Bodies, the Exhibition" states:
it's entirely unclear how the bodies were obtained; exhibit sponsors say the deceased Chinese were "unclaimed or unidentified" and then turned over to Chinese medical schools. ... There was a similar exhibit in San Francisco earlier this year - again, with Chinese corpses of vague origin....I am growing curiouser by the day about all these mystery Chinese dead people popping up plasticized, in action poses, in American museums. Why is it never clear where they came from? The Chinese government has been known to censor Internet content and try to monitor e-mail, so I'm sure they can manage to know a dead person's identity, and get the family's permission for the body's public display. Seems to me the world press ought to be finding out just who these "unclaimed" and "unidentified" dead folk are, and how they died. ... the SF show raised concerns among the city's Asian population - like those that Florida officials voiced - that families of the dead persons on display had not given permission. ...I can't object to the educational, if graphic, nature of the plasticized corpse displays in San Francisco, Tampa, or elsewhere. But any public exhibit of dead bodies should be clearly sanctioned by the families of the deceased. If that is not possible, defer to the possible unspoken wishes of the dead, and/or their family members, to not have the remains shot full of plastic, posed athletically, and viewed by the teeming masses. After all, would you want that?Using the mystery corpses to make money, without explicit permission, smacks of crass commercialism; an infatuation with shock value; and a grave disrespect of the dead.
Maybe scientists find it easier to obtain men's bodies because a lot more men die in prison or in some capacity where they have few rights?
Here's the link to the body museum article:
http://www.rosenblog.com/2005/08/25/bodies_the_exhibition_anatomy_and_controversy.html