The Invisible Sex

The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory

When you think of prehistory, do the roles of women or women in general  instantly come to mind? Probably not. Instead you’re probably thinking of a hairy Neanderthal man, spear in hand, ready to strike a giant mammoth. This image of prehistory is not only inaccurate, but there is something missing from this picture. Yes, women. In The Invisible Sex, the authors attempt to reveal the way in which women shaped human evolution and the roles women played in prehistory.

Now I don’t know a whole lot about evolution or natural selection, probably just the basics; but the authors of this book clearly explain how scientists and anthropologists have based many of their theories and assumptions about these concepts based on gender stereotypes. I remember taking anthropology in high school and rarely did we discuss women and how women’s roles in prehistory shaped human life today.

The authors argue that women played an integral role in the development of agriculture, language, hunting, and art. J.M. Adovasia and Olga Soffer, leading experts in archaeological artifacts, discuss how items such as spear heads and  rope used for nets were crafted by women and used by both men and women to hunt (not large mammoths, but more likely smaller animals). As humans developed throughout thousands of years, artifacts such as the sculpture of the Venus of Willendorf (which the authors argue was crafted by a woman) revealed not only the importance of maternity, but the way in which humans developed art and concepts of symbolism. Did you ever learn that women were the ones who first developed what we can call modern language? Again, probably not. Yet, the authors explain (more coherently than I can here) that is was mothers who first began communicating with their children using verbal sounds that could be decoded into a specific language. And as women’s birth canals became narrower and the birthing process became more difficult, women depended on other women such as midwives to help in giving birth. Therefore, women formed close relationships with one another and communicated with one another more frequently.

As humans began to move out of Africa, they traveled further north to much cooler climates. In order to survive the colder climate, humans needed to be warmly dressed (duh). So, who do you think constructed and produced clothing that was warm enough for frail human bodies? Yup, women.

Women also played an important role in cultivating agriculture. While men did most of the hunting, women began growing food and domesticating plants. Soon, the plants and food that women grew became the main source of sustenance for villages. Being that women were in charge of agriculture, this gave them greater power over men. This type of dynamic is especially evident in many Native American cultures. These cultures also worshiped Goddesses and family lines were matrilineal; meaning, the family lines were traced on the mother’s side.

Victims of Fashion: Effects of the Corset on the Body

        Since the 1850’s, the ill effects of the corset on the female body has been the site of constant feminist debate. Nineteenth century fashions and the corset were inextricably linked to issues of women’s rights. The corset was thought, among dress reformers and feminists of the nineteenth century, as a garment imposed upon women by men in order to physically and mentally suppress women. Yet, not all feminists were willing to abandon the use of the corset. Women’s rights leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton advocated “frilly” women’s fashions in order to appeal to the public and gain support for “larger” women’s rights issues. Feminists and advocates of women’s rights and dress reform had a lot to lose if they abandoned wearing the corset. Since the corset was the sight of femininity and respectability, the “woman question” would never gain support if women abandoned the corset, and thus appeared less respectable in public. There were “reform garments” that were created tin place of the corset which were much looser and had less shape, which made these reform garments non-appealing and less attractive to women and men. Yet, because women were not willing to abandon the corset, they were accused of being vain and narcissistic. Men accusing women of being vain because of their use of the corset is ironic in many ways because men set the standard for sexual beauty. Also, the tiny wasp waist as depicted in advertisements set the standard for female sexual beauty (achieved through drastic means such as tight lacing). In order to obtain a “tiny,” attractive waist, a woman risked her health in not only tight lacing but wearing the corset over an extended period of time.

Doctors of the time studied the effects of the corset, and it was universally agreed upon among medics that the corset negatively affected women’s bodies and health. Yet, doctors’ reports were mainly circulated within medical circles and their findings were not disseminated amongst the larger general public.  Women were also afraid to confide in their male doctors of any of their complaints related to the corset. Sexual assault by doctors during this time was not uncommon, and the female body in general was not only taboo, but something to be feared. Thus, women were rarely if at all educated about their own bodies, and entirely dependent on male doctors if they wanted to seek out information about their bodies. Although some of the negative side effects caused by the corset may have been exaggerated or ill founded, many of these “female complaints” and medical findings cannot be ignored.

In general, corsetry, and especially the practice of tight lacing, pressed upon the stomach, liver and the large and small intestines. One of the most common side effects of the corset, however, was known as chicken breast. Chicken breast occurred when the corset pressed too tightly against the ribs, causing the ribs to fracture. Fractured ribs could then lead to punctured lungs. The constant pressure upon the ribs that the corset caused inevitably spurred the myth that some women actually had their ribs removed in order to wear their corsets as tight as possible. This myth is completely unfounded considering the fact that no medical procedure during the nineteenth century would have been able to successfully complete such an operation without the proper disinfectants and anesthetics. Another popular misconception and caricature of corsetry is that it caused women to have fainting fits. The corset did press upon the diaphragm which did not allow it to expand properly, causing trouble in breathing. There were, however, cases of fainting due to the corset, but only under extreme circumstances were women prone to faint. Another more significant ill effect of the corset was that of women experiencing a prolapsed uterus. A prolapsed uterus was so common among women that pessaries (pictured to the left) were created and used to hold the uterus in place. Pessaries were created to be worn along with the corset in that the pessaries were attached to the corset. Although doctors knew about all of the negative effects of corsetry they were reluctant to advocate the disuse of the corset because much of their practice depended upon these “female complaints” caused by the corset. Essentially, the corset, to some extent, kept doctors in business.

Finally, since women were always expected to wear the corset, it may come as no surprise that even pregnant women were expected to wear a modified form of the corset. Although women were essentially bred to be married and have children, the pregnant woman’s body was taboo and was not meant to be shown. Therefore, corsets for pregnant women were created in order to reduce the appearance of their pregnancy, to the obvious detriment of their future child. The pregnancy corset was essential in order for a woman to maintain her ideal “virginal” state of appearance. In fact, during a woman’s state of pregnancy the female body became invisible, offensive, and tabooed, and it was the fetus that was of the most concern and not the mother. However, if a woman was unwed and became pregnant, the corset was used to not only hide her pregnancy, but to cause a miscarriage as well. Some women who were unaware that they were pregnant, and continued their use of corset or even of tight lacing could inevitably cause an unexpected miscarriage. It was also widely thought among doctors at the time that the continual use of the corset throughout a woman’s pregnancy would produce a child that was not only unhealthy, but would affect the child’s mental capabilities as well. In fact, pregnant women were chastised for wearing the corset, yet in order to appear in public during their pregnancy they had to wear the corset. Again, women experienced a double standard in being criticized for wearing the corset and not wearing the corset. Also, corsetry also affected women during labor, making labor more painful for women, especially women who began wearing corsets at a young age. In terms of the psychological effect that pregnancy had on women, the corset functioned as a means for “the pregnant nineteenth-century woman to convince herself, consciously or unconsciously, that no pregnancy had occurred and that bleeding after months of ‘failed’ menstruation was simply a case of cleared ‘obstruction’” (Summers 52). In sum, the corset was used to perpetuate society’s taboos about pregnancy and the maternal body.

The Corset

The Roots of Constraint: The Juvenile Corset

According to historian Leigh Summers, “the corset was the first item of juvenile material culture to be sexualized” (63). Indeed, the juvenile corset became a necessary garment for female children and adolescents by the mid nineteenth century in order to properly mold the female body during its crucial development. Thus, the seeds of the ideal Victorian woman, gender division, and control over female sexuality were planted at a very early age.

Yet, up until the middle of the nineteenth century, men and boys wore corsets not only for support, but for fashion purposes as well. Caricatures of the early nineteenth century, however, depict “dandy” men in corsets, indicating that the trend of wearing corsets for men was going out of style. Men who continued to wear corsets, however, wore them for medical purposes. Therefore, as male corsetry was going out of style, the female corset increasingly became a means of distinguishing gender. Juvenile corsets reasserted female gender roles and were used to control the perceived fluidity of the female gender. As early feminists continued to threaten the concept of the traditional female identity, the juvenile corset reinforced gender division and in effect limited “the physical behavior of girl children to that considered appropriate to their gender” (Summers 68). Essentially, Juvenile corsetry reflected gender anxiety in the nineteenth century concerning male fears of female power and independence.

Juvenile corset advertisements also reflect the concept of physical and moral support that girls would gain in wearing corsets. The idea of providing women and young girls with moral support was directly related to the ideal Victorian woman, and the corset was used in order to prevent the perpetuation of “loose” morals. Thus, the corset not only physically prevented young girls from developing loose and unstructured bodies, but the corset also represented the symbolic process of formulating strict and contained moral constitutions of young women. In the corset advertisement shown to the left for an 1880 Ferris’s Good Sense Corset Waists, a “sensible (corseted) mother” is holding up a mirror to her young daughter who is wearing a “Good Sense” corset. The advertisement not only appeals to the health and comfort of the corset, but it also promotes conceptions of female beauty. As the advertisement states (not pictured), “Beautiful children (which is bolded and in large type font) wear Good Sense.” The fact that the mother is showing her daughter’s reflection in the hand mirror indicates a perpetuation of the emphasis on female beauty. This young girl in the advertisement is being taught to value her beauty, a beauty that can only be obtained through the use of a corset.

However, the juvenile corset continually sexualized the young female body and became the topic of much debate and interest within Victorian society. Although girls and young women did not possess breasts or hips, the corset objectified the waist the juvenile and pre-pubescent girl “naturally and generally possese[d]” (Summers 79). In order to maintain the sexual desirability of their daughters, mothers were encouraged to lace their daughters at a young age as evidenced from the advertisement above. Yet, the juvenile corset at the same time was used in many ways as a “chastity belt” in order to suppress what was thought to be a rampant sexual desire among young girls. In fact, the sexual and moral constitutions of girls and young women reached an almost hysterical proportion during the second half of the nineteenth century. Prevention of sexual desire and female masturbation was a major concern for mothers in the protection of their daughters’ moral constitutions. Clitoridectomy was even practiced in order to “cure” masturbation and mollify male fears of female sexuality (Summers 84). The corset, however, became an alternative means to suppress female sexuality other than clitoridectomy. Consequently, the aim of the juvenile corset was paradoxical in that it was used to promote female sexual objectification and admiration while at the same time attempting to contain and suppress female sexuality and sexual desire among girls and pre-pubescent women.

Save the Trenton Barracks! Save American History!

Trenton, NJ December 1776

After having been driven from New York to Pennsylvania, Washington’s troops were down and out after a string of defeats against British troops. Only a miracle would bring the Continental Army back on its feet.

On December 25, 1776 Washington began the march to Trenton, crossing the Delaware River in treacherous wintry weather in order to execute a surprise attack on 1400 Hessian troops stationed at the Trenton Barracks. Finally on December 26th, Washington began his attack. The freezing and tattered Continental Army killed or captured over 900 Hessians. The Battle of Trenton was one of the major turning points in the Revolutionary War. From the Battle of Trenton, Washington and his troops went on to defeat the British at the Battle of Princeton, ultimately, boosting moral and leading America towards victory. But the history of the Barracks did not begin there.

The Old Barracks was built in 1758 in order to house approximately 300 British soldiers. The Barracks were built in order to relieve New Jersey citizens from having to house British soldiers in their own homes. Today, out of the five barracks built to house British soldiers in New Jersey, the Trenton Barracks is the only one to survive.

You would think that such a treasure to New Jersey and American history would be highly preserved, but the Trenton Barracks is facing closure. The state of New Jersey is about to cut the budget that funds and runs the Old Barracks. Without these funds, the Barracks can not survive on its own. Recently, a petition has been made in order to protest these budget cuts. The petition needs only 1,000 signatures, and then it will be given to Governor Christie. To lose such a landmark would be a tragedy. The Old Barracks is an essential part of American history, and as an important landmark, it should not have to be placed in such jeopardy.

The Trenton Barracks is a part of Trenton’s community. Hundreds of school groups and visitors come to the barracks each year to learn about its history. The Barracks has provided these thousands of people with an invaluable education about New Jersey and American history. The public and future generations have a right to such places that harbor the history of the birth of our nation.

The petition needs only 400 more signatures, and soon! All that is required is a name and an email address. Please help for the sake of the preservation of American history in keeping the Old Barracks alive!

Please visit this site in order to sign the petition! Thank You!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/14/save-the-trenton-barracks/