What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Women's Bodies
Used book
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 20, 2014
I read this book while researching maternal mortality in the Netherlands in the late 19th century. Shorter does a fantastic job of synthesizing source material and academic research for a popular audience. Think Malcolm Gladwell for a historical demography audience. The descriptions are graphic at times, so be warned!
October 14, 2021
As a young woman growing up in the Seventies I was very confused. I was extremely good at schoolwork, got into Cambridge etc. At single sex schools I had not taken in the fact that no matter how clever I was, I was still 'inferior' to boys. Once I got to Cambridge this was pointed out all the time, not least because I could not go to my chosen college, Trinity, because I had breasts. Seemed utterly arbitrary to me. I also noticed my brothers being favoured in all kinds of ways over me - trips abroad etc. This book fell into my lap when I was 19 and it was a revelation! Of course.
The difference was that female humans have still not evolved to deal with the huge heads and pelvic floors being at the wrong angle (horizontal rather than vertical), big brains/skulls and upright stance being evolutionary advantages in every other way, but particularly for males. They did not have to squeeze these massive headed foetuses (born early in gestation, with malleable skulls, unlike other mammals, as otherwise the huge heads would kill us) through a pelvic floor not fit for purpose, and then spend the next however many years wetting themselves (see now mainstream, ads for incontinence pants today), and feeding and nurturing the dozens of offspring, while males went hunting and nicking territory from other humans and gaining power and control as civilisation arrived.
With civilisation came organised religion, and with organised religion came stuff we still labour under today. The people of the book are told we deserve the terrible time we have giving birth because of Eve and her terrible tempting ways. Sorry????!!! But the metaphorical implications are fascinating - they realised that sex led to childbirth in some way, and that females 'tempted' males with their lovely bodies (that hasn't gone away has it? and even more so in 'religious' countries where if you don't go out covered like a sofa you risk a good punishing flashing and/or disgusting remarks - as I experienced wearing a baggy t shirt and trousers in Egypt) and it seems to be saying that the revelation of consciousness led to the increasingly agonising and damaging births humans suffer. Makes sense doesn't it? Bigger brain = human consciousness. No longer like other animals which have a relatively easy time giving birth to infants, many, particularly herd animals, able to walk. And sex correlated closely with sin... the fall of man being women's fault. Thou shalt not commit adultery? Why not?
Pelvic floors do not take kindly to this treatment, the majority of women after a vaginal birth even now are to some extent incontinent. Can you imagine that in a time before modern hygiene? Particularly double incontinence and anal fistulas. These days ads on TV for incontinence pants etc are commonplace. In my childbearing years it wasn't even talked about, and I could not understand why I had this problem and what to do about the nerve damage and difficulties with exercise/sneezing etc. Women have always suffered, wherever they are, and the idea that women in remote places don't is just nonsense and probably racist. They simply die or are permanently disabled by a bad birth.
It's notable that celibate women often attained positions of great power in history (See Abbesses etc) or if they could not have many children (see Lady Margaret Beaufort who had one at 13, and it destroyed her organs to such an extent she never had another - she put that one on the throne as Henry VII).
Science has freed us to a certain extent in the last 50 years with contraception etc, at least from the yearly baby till we drop. And cleanliness earlier stopped us from dying from internal gangrene as male doctors examined us having come from the dissection table. Menopause was an excellent evolutionary step as it meant there was an end to it if it didn't kill you first, and that women could help each other raise the children.
The right wing/religious backlash so visible all over the world is a direct result of our new freedom to excel without the previous limiting/disabling factor, and therefore nick territory from male humans. We are a highly territorial creatures, and many of them don't like it. Religion was always a social control mechanism most particularly aimed at women - banning contraception? Why do you think the Pope wanted to do that? Marriage as the be all and end all of women's ambition? Still the case until very very recently. 'Obeying' your husband? FFS!
There are lots of other backlashes, some subtle, some not so much. The road to gender equality is very rocky indeed - and inequality between male and female in our species ONLY HAPPENED because of our reproductive biology dealing with other evolutionary advantages threw us under the bus. Our brains vary across the intelligence spectrum, and in variety, as much as males - although at the very extreme top and bottom there are possibly more males - but this has not been fully proven. Anyway, it was wonderful for me to realise this at 19.
All other feminist texts of the time didn't do the same thing for me at all. Yes I could see it was all very unfair being stuck in the kitchen, but no one apart from Edward Shorter ever told me why this had happened. And he's a man.
The difference was that female humans have still not evolved to deal with the huge heads and pelvic floors being at the wrong angle (horizontal rather than vertical), big brains/skulls and upright stance being evolutionary advantages in every other way, but particularly for males. They did not have to squeeze these massive headed foetuses (born early in gestation, with malleable skulls, unlike other mammals, as otherwise the huge heads would kill us) through a pelvic floor not fit for purpose, and then spend the next however many years wetting themselves (see now mainstream, ads for incontinence pants today), and feeding and nurturing the dozens of offspring, while males went hunting and nicking territory from other humans and gaining power and control as civilisation arrived.
With civilisation came organised religion, and with organised religion came stuff we still labour under today. The people of the book are told we deserve the terrible time we have giving birth because of Eve and her terrible tempting ways. Sorry????!!! But the metaphorical implications are fascinating - they realised that sex led to childbirth in some way, and that females 'tempted' males with their lovely bodies (that hasn't gone away has it? and even more so in 'religious' countries where if you don't go out covered like a sofa you risk a good punishing flashing and/or disgusting remarks - as I experienced wearing a baggy t shirt and trousers in Egypt) and it seems to be saying that the revelation of consciousness led to the increasingly agonising and damaging births humans suffer. Makes sense doesn't it? Bigger brain = human consciousness. No longer like other animals which have a relatively easy time giving birth to infants, many, particularly herd animals, able to walk. And sex correlated closely with sin... the fall of man being women's fault. Thou shalt not commit adultery? Why not?
Pelvic floors do not take kindly to this treatment, the majority of women after a vaginal birth even now are to some extent incontinent. Can you imagine that in a time before modern hygiene? Particularly double incontinence and anal fistulas. These days ads on TV for incontinence pants etc are commonplace. In my childbearing years it wasn't even talked about, and I could not understand why I had this problem and what to do about the nerve damage and difficulties with exercise/sneezing etc. Women have always suffered, wherever they are, and the idea that women in remote places don't is just nonsense and probably racist. They simply die or are permanently disabled by a bad birth.
It's notable that celibate women often attained positions of great power in history (See Abbesses etc) or if they could not have many children (see Lady Margaret Beaufort who had one at 13, and it destroyed her organs to such an extent she never had another - she put that one on the throne as Henry VII).
Science has freed us to a certain extent in the last 50 years with contraception etc, at least from the yearly baby till we drop. And cleanliness earlier stopped us from dying from internal gangrene as male doctors examined us having come from the dissection table. Menopause was an excellent evolutionary step as it meant there was an end to it if it didn't kill you first, and that women could help each other raise the children.
The right wing/religious backlash so visible all over the world is a direct result of our new freedom to excel without the previous limiting/disabling factor, and therefore nick territory from male humans. We are a highly territorial creatures, and many of them don't like it. Religion was always a social control mechanism most particularly aimed at women - banning contraception? Why do you think the Pope wanted to do that? Marriage as the be all and end all of women's ambition? Still the case until very very recently. 'Obeying' your husband? FFS!
There are lots of other backlashes, some subtle, some not so much. The road to gender equality is very rocky indeed - and inequality between male and female in our species ONLY HAPPENED because of our reproductive biology dealing with other evolutionary advantages threw us under the bus. Our brains vary across the intelligence spectrum, and in variety, as much as males - although at the very extreme top and bottom there are possibly more males - but this has not been fully proven. Anyway, it was wonderful for me to realise this at 19.
All other feminist texts of the time didn't do the same thing for me at all. Yes I could see it was all very unfair being stuck in the kitchen, but no one apart from Edward Shorter ever told me why this had happened. And he's a man.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews