mmcirvin | Friday at the museum (Reply)

On Friday,

schwa242's sister Katie came through Boston on their way home from Ireland, and

samantha2074, Jorie and I met them at the Museum of Science. It was Jorie's most involved outing since she was born, and she's more prone to sudden cranky moods than she was back in her sleepy newborn days, so the logistics were nontrivial; Sam spent a considerable amount of time feeding Jorie in the car. But Mez, Schwa and Katie were wonderful and charming despite the effects of jet lag and end-of-vacation exhaustion, and a good time was had by all.

In the process I made a somewhat truncated visit to the Body Worlds 2 exhibit at the MoS. I'm aware that there's been some controversy over this exhibit, which shows partially dissected human bodies artfully preserved through a process called plastination, but I was surprised at how interesting and generally non-exploitative the actual exhibit seemed. I noticed a lot of people with medical training having a grand time there, pointing out stuff to their friends.

There was a bit of pernicious silliness on the exhibit web FAQ, though:

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 exhibition, Dr. von Hagens has received numerous requests from women visitors to see more examples of female anatomy. Based on this, Dr. von Hagens has included more female plastinates in BODY WORLDS 2.

When feminist theorists talk about "privileging the male gaze", this sort of thing is what they're going on about. There's something odd about the idea that display of the female body is "voyeuristic" or inherently sexualized in a way that display of the male body (including male genitalia, which were very much on display) is not. It reminds me very much of the late Stanislaw Lem's stated reason why his novels had so few female characters, that introducing women would bring in a sexual element where he didn't want one. If your readers are all assumed to be straight men and they see women as the carriers of sex, I suppose that makes sense, but it doesn't otherwise. I'm glad that this version of the exhibit did include some female bodies.