In the section “Recapitulation”, gender roles are a prevalent topic in the discussion of reproduction, but how much of these perceived roles are dictated by society rather than by science?
In the first three sections outlining fertilization of the egg, the man’s sperm is seen as having the sole power to begin life, while the role of the egg and then the placenta is to nourish the sperm and the fetus it becomes when combined with the egg. Such description of the reproductive process seems reminiscent of the familial structure with the man as the bread winner who controls the family’s money and actions while the women stays home to care for him and his children.
Then, in section five, sources of birth defects are discussed as a function of improper nutrition from the mother. First, a baby born to a mother who fails to adequately nourish the fetus is compared to a mule; however, should the mother fail by over nourishing the fetus, it is said that the child will have “duplicature of limbs”. This creates the idea that the source of life, the man’s sperm, was perfect until the woman failed to adequately nourish it, creating the birth defects.
Are such claims completely justifiable with the scientific knowledge of the time or were these claims confounded by societal norms?
Regardless of the source of these roles, do they create an implicit gender hierarchy as The Chain of Being created an implicit hierarchy of species?
In the first three sections outlining fertilization of the egg, the man’s sperm is seen as having the sole power to begin life, while the role of the egg and then the placenta is to nourish the sperm and the fetus it becomes when combined with the egg. Such description of the reproductive process seems reminiscent of the familial structure with the man as the bread winner who controls the family’s money and actions while the women stays home to care for him and his children.
Then, in section five, sources of birth defects are discussed as a function of improper nutrition from the mother. First, a baby born to a mother who fails to adequately nourish the fetus is compared to a mule; however, should the mother fail by over nourishing the fetus, it is said that the child will have “duplicature of limbs”. This creates the idea that the source of life, the man’s sperm, was perfect until the woman failed to adequately nourish it, creating the birth defects.
Are such claims completely justifiable with the scientific knowledge of the time or were these claims confounded by societal norms?
Regardless of the source of these roles, do they create an implicit gender hierarchy as The Chain of Being created an implicit hierarchy of species?
I feel that these claims are scientifically valid for their time. The similarities between pregnancy and the stereotypical family structure seem coincidental at best--pregnancy is a biological process, not a condition forced on women by men and society at large. In a similar vein, the man's sperm cannot have the sole power to begin life if it must be combined with the female's egg; if anything, this makes the claim that men and women are equally important to the reproductive process (women arguably more so than men). Finally, the description of birth defects seems logical given that Darwin had no knowledge of modern genetics. After impregnation, the health of the fetus is not visibly tied to the man, so assuming that development should proceed normally, the only possible source of developmental issues must be the woman. While genetics do play a role, nutrition is also a major factor, such as in the case of fetal alcohol syndrome. Human biology is innately unfair to women given their greater investment in reproduction, so I think Darwin's descriptions of it reflect the biological rather than sociological disparity between men and women.
ReplyDeleteI thought the very same thing you did Lindsay after reading that section of Zoonomia. I read it as Darwin arguing for a sort of biological patriarchy by deeming the “living filament” to be in the male sperm and casting the mother as a passive, nutritive object.
ReplyDeleteBut reading Appendix B has largely changed my mind, or at least confused my thoughts. In the Appendix, which talks about the educational influences on Dr. Frankenstein, there is a selection from the second canto of the Temple of Nature that posits that sexual reproduction is “more perfect” than solitary or asexual reproduction. Darwin first off says that the offspring of sexual reproduction are all male: “These orphan babes of solitary love; Birth after birth the line unchanging runs, And fathers live transmitted in their sons”(p269). The parent grows frustrated with the lineage and develops a “fond wish to form a softer sex” (p269). The parent invokes its “Imagination” (?) and is able to produce a female offspring. This is crucial because, “Where no new Sex with glands nutritious feeds…The feeble births acquired diseases chase, Till Death extinguish the degenerate race” (p270). Darwin’s early emphasis of the importance of sexual reproduction and the role of women in species propagation in general doesn’t really support a gender hierarchy to me.