AP Texts

My first reaction is that this man is looking at a bias aspect of history. Sparta had women very high in society, in charge of government and social aspects. The Bible, which he would have been culturally aware of, has many women who play key roles in society and government. ALl major European nations had Queens that ruled government, religion, and society. I think Gould uses this quote to introduce the bias of Broca in everything. I wold respond to him by bringing him to Egypt to see Cleopatra’s empire.

It is true that prejudice women have faced isn’t because women are less intelligent, it is because people think women are less intelligent than men. It isn’t women’s nature to have “blundering lives.”

M initial reaction to this quote is that it is completely unscientific. He’s making a claim based on research that he did on do and data he does not have. This quote is not even a conclusion based on hypotheses, it is a claim. I think Gould uses this quote to show Broca’s ridiculous superiority complex, bias, and unscientific conclusions. I would probably tell all of that to Broca, and then teach him calculous.

By initial reaction is that I was certainly not created inferior by “the Supreme Power” I think Gold uses this quote to introduce that there is no scientific way yet to prove that women are inferior: it’s all merely speculation. I would respond to this person by counting to four.

L. Manouvrier understood that numbers, when misinterpreted, cannot be used to prove anything. It is ridiculous that theologians even questioned whether or not women have souls, even though this could be caused by the story of Adam and Eve, that represented women as weaker in morals.

edublogs is judgemental

I liked the contrast between Manouvrier and Broca here. M. wrote with a definite emotion and feeling; he backed up his claims with pathos. He talks about the effects of the “numbers” of Broca on the egos of the women – “These numbers fell upon poor women like a sledge hammer,” he said. I think that Gould used this quote to provide a contrast between the strong opinions that this topic elicits.

I think this quote is amusing because it shows what may at some point have been considered a “liberal” view. However, this author is just basically pulling random ideas out of the air and trying to use them to justify his prejudice. However, in reality this “scientific” theory makes very little sense.

So, pretty much the taller you are the more intelligent you are. If only I was Yao Ming…

I think that this quote makes the mistake of assuming that there is a worldwide conception that every male in the world believes women are useless. I think that it could be used, however, to set the tone for the kind of argument she is going to be making later on in the writing piece. I would have to say to this person, that although this quote is a little bit extreme, there is some truth behind it, and the problem is very well worded.

This quote shows the extremities of what men have thought through out history. The only audience which would percieve this as true would be misogynists or sexists. This quote is used to show how absurd these beliefs were.

This is disgusting. The woman described here is just a piece of property who doesn’t have any real role. I would respond by saying that women’s responsibilities take just as much intelligence if not more.

I agree that philosophy and thought side with the intelligence of women. I don’t really see how that this mode of thought could lead to the denigration of women on a “scientific” basis.

I would probably respond to Manouvrier with a very big handshake.

Gould included this quote to paint a picture about what was facing women everyday. I liked how the quote started with, “Women displayed their talents and their diplomas.” This shows that its not easy to change an embedded perspective.

My initial response to this quote was confusion because I couldn’t believe that anyone could think like this. But Elliot is right in the fact that there is in fact no scientific way to prove that women are in any way less intelligent than man or that the reason they have “blundering lives” is due to their less than competent minds. Gould is using this quote because there is no foundation in saying that women had less than perfect lives because they were essentially ‘dumb’.

It is just obnoxious to say that women’s “role” is to raise kids, love, and be passive. Is it not men’s role to raise kids and to love? Can only women love? And if it is up to women to raise kids and to love, how is it that the man “has all the responsibility”?

This person not offer any evidence for their assertions aside from the fact that men are generally physically larger than women. It doesn’t have anything to offer for where this conclusion came from.

As a woman this quote strikes a sour chord with me. The fact that “theologians had asked if women had a soul,” is absurd. Without women in history, the human race would simply cease. The purpose behind this quote is to display how all throughout history women and their mind’s have been suppressed. Woman were taught to have submissive minds. I would tell the writer of this passage that the fact that, “some scientists were ready to refuse” women the minds that God has given them is shocking.

I find the metaphor of a cygnet and ducklings “in a brown pond” interesting. I agree that “here and there” a cygnet is born, but I believe that it is more often than we perceive. Legacies are created by living after death in the minds and memories of future people, and the reasons behind how and why people are remembered are responsible for their success, intelligence, or anything worth remembering.

With this in mind, I believe that women are not given as significant recognition as men, thus making them less remembered. Because of this, we don’t realize how many cygnets we’re surrounded by and have been surrounded by.

This quote is hard to interpret at first. However, the author makes a good point about how it is unfair to have prejudices built about woman because there is no magical test that shows woman to be less intelligent than men. I think Gould uses it to show that there is nothing at all to back up these prejudices.

This is one of the strongest parts of Gould’s essay in my opinion because he displays the largest problem with Broca’s argument: Broca uses his idea that women are less intelligent than men to try to prove that women are less intelligent than men. That doesn’t make any sense.

I don’t think there is a way to scientifically prove that women are less intelligent and less competent, and in no way am I implying that they are. Gould might have used this as some way to introduce Broca’s theory of women being less intelligent because of brain size, which is a scientific method.

my initial reaction to this quote was that i thought that the idea women are not as smart as men it is saying that the women that are not proven that they are not as smart as men. the use of this quote helps to argue the point of the author is trying to make. I would respond to it by saying that the idea is right and that the idea that women are worse then men is wrong.

Manouvrier’s comparison to the ancient philosophers in Greece who theorized that women don’t have souls is an excellent rebuttal to the “commentaries and sarcasms” of men of that time. Bringing up something that the clergy that ruled Europe for centuries furtively disagreed with shows how ridiculous Broca’s claim was.

HA! (is there anything else to say…)

My initial response to this quote is that this quote is extremely confusing. However, after a deeper examination its possible to see that she is actually saying that there is no scientific proof saying that woman are not as smart as men. Gould uses this in his essay to give an exmaple of how people have measured intelligence in the past.

I agree that you can’t prove the particular claim with scientific proof. But did all women have unfulfilled lives? I think it is exaggerated to say that women have “blundering lives.”

Its seems like the quote is meant to say that the difference is intelligence is indefinite and unclear. This means that there’s no way to scientifically and quantitatively assert that women are dumber. Gould shows it first to weaken the scientific studies by Boca and others that say that women are dumber.

Elliot makes a good point that unless we can show that stupidity is the sole reason for women’s unfulfilling lives, that we can’t rule out the possibility of other reasons.

This is a strong argument because, as we see later in the essay, numbers must be analyzed in a logical way before they have meaning. Just saying that men have bigger brains, without taking into account body size, has no significance. This quote says that centuries ago, it was wondered if women had souls. It seems ridiculous that that was even a question, and it makes the idea of women being less intelligent seem even more ridiculous.

It baffles me to think that a group of people (men in this case) could think that women do not even have a soul. Belittling women to the point of refusing to acknowledge them as even human seems to me selfish and in a way THEY now seem the idiots.

My initial response to the quote is one of disgust. I am slightly offended that someone would suggest that, “the inconvenient indefiniteness with which the Supreme Power has fashioned the natures of women…” is a scientific fact. Women are not innately inferior to men and there is no science that can prove women’s “scientific certitude.” Gould uses this quote to show that there is no scientific principle that proves that women can count above three. Gould uses this quote that to show that science cannot prove inferiority of women. I agree with the statement that since we cannot prove with scientific fact that women are incapable of higher level thinking, the latter is completely false.

I think she is saying that although many believe that women are fashioned by a “Supreme Power” to be less intelligent, there is actually no way to actually prove it. Since women do display intellect, and are able to at least think simply, there is no way to prove that they are intellectually undeveloped.

One question I have is why the speaker thinks that the world would be a better place if women’s incompetence could count to three and no more. I think Gould uses this quote to put in context some of the more negative attitudes toward women of the past. I would say to this person that maybe the fact that they can’t find anything definitive to pin women’s incompetence on means that they may be smarter than they think.

I find it curious that Elliot calls the indefiniteness of female incompetence “inconvenient.” Does he actually want to have a way to scientifically measure the incompetence of humans? Why females? What would this give her, what would it give the human race? It seems pretty clear why Gould uses this quote, because it introduces the topic at hand, but I find Elliot’s proposition inherently ridiculous.

I’m not really sure what Elliot is suggesting here, but it sounds to me as though she’s crying out for a universal way to determine intelligence.

Alright then, I suppose that women are just destined to be completely inferior in all ways to everyone? I feel like the author here (of the quote) is trying to apologize or seem sympathetic to women (”…a difference which we should not exaggerate…”), but at the same time resigns them to a life of inferiority.

This is interesting because it takes into account the nature of the duties of men and women, especially at this time. Men were, throughout history and still at the time this was written, in charge. They were the breadwinners who went out into the world and had to protect their families, while women stayed home and cared for them. Broca extrapolates these societal rules to be anatomical rules.

It’s amazing that someone can just say women are dumber than men. Simply because women are biologically smaller than men doesn’t mean they are dumber. If these false ideas could have been scientific in the 19th century, i wonder what ideas today will eventually be disproven in the next century or two.

Were this to be published somewhere publicly now, almost 150 years later, I think the reaction against Broca’s expression of women’s roles would far override the acceptance of it.

- I feel very happy and agree with this person. In this situation with Broca as well as in other situations the minority in question is fitted into these numbers without well founded examination of their person.
- I think Gould used this quote to show that though there was a lot of bias against women there were still educated people that were able to go against what was considered the norm for males to believe and make their own idea, thus singling out their own community to be at fault.
- I would give this person who wrote this quote lots of praise. I think it is really good that a person makes this observation. Though I would like to add that if there is a mindset that is made and placed on a minority then they will start to conform to it as they feel like it will be futile to escape.

“Women, like it or not, had smaller brains than men and, therefore, could not equal them in intelligence.” It seems so absurd that there was such a thought as this quote, even so long ago. The size of a person’s head does not prove their intelligence proved through scientific research. Whereas, Broca’s theory is based upon a favored prejudice of society. It was was surprising to stumble across while reading, and seemed completely unbelievable.

I agree with this quote completely. It seems completely stupid that obviously intelligent women were discredited by sets of data. The fact that theologians questioned the existence of women’s souls speaks to the degree of discrimination that women faced.

No one I’ve talked to has ever described raising children as passive. It takes a lot more to raise children than he gives women credit for. He seems extremely patronizing.

When I first read this I was a little suspicious of the logic, but when I think about it more it makes some sense. I am curious what evidence Elliot would supply to back up her hypothesis, and what, exactly, she means by “inconvenient indefiniteness.”
Gould uses this quote to lead into a discussion about the methods people have used to measure intelligence, such as crainometry and anthropometry.

Once again it seems that these “scientists” are more interested in boosting their own egos instead of raising the scientific standard. All of these claims have no scientific backing whatsoever and seem to be more based on the simple the ramblings of men who were probably beat up when they were little by other kids so they have the need to feel superior over someone.

This is a great example of circular reasoning.

Although I agree that ideas established during this time period are false, I am not astonished that scientists believed this. The size of the brain was the only physically measurable thing of that time for scientists to examine. They were not able to perform brain scans and probably didn’t test women’s abilities compared to men’s.

Secondly, when we look at a time period where women were oppressed, it could easily be said that women did not make as many renowned contributions to society as men.

As a woman, this quote leaves me feeling completely belittled. At one time in history, we, women, were denied souls. The male race believed that we did not have souls, but finally accepted that we did. Now, they refuse believe that we have intelligence. This is absurd? Women are just as important as men. They have contributed just as much to society, in one way or another, as men. Without women, the human race would not continue to flourish!

He comes up with the idea that maybe the different sizes are related to body size, and then totally pushes it aside. He was so close to actually making sense, but then he completely ignored it. Where did he get this idea that “women are, on the average, a little less intelligent that men”? Where is his evidence for this?

I thought that the Cranial studies had been considered irrevelant to intelligence. It is the amount of Grey Matter, Association areas, and a multiplicity of things which determine intelligence. Besides, anyone who is intelligent could most likely come to the unscientific conclusion (however true), that intelligence is not a matter of quantitative judgement (you have so much grey matter, etc.) But what you do with your life. And plain and simply woman are doing a hell of a lot of things right in this century and thats a fact.So this seems irrevelant to today.

I especially like this quote (not only because it disagrees with Broca) because it shows how far we’ve come…”theologians asked if women had a soul,” sounds pretty ridiculous to us but there was time when this was an actual question.

I’d like to know which church fathers he was talking about. I’d heard that the church believed that women should occupy a separate social sphere, because they were softer and their kindness should remain uncorrupted. But I have never heard the church questioning that women had a soul.

I think Gould uses this quote, because he is trying to explain how woman are being held back by numbers. The way he uses the word numbers in this quote, he makes it sound like the ‘numbers’ are actually men. The individual who was quoted, was saying how woman are not only being held back by men, but also their words that they speak to the woman.

What is this quote attempting to say? At first, I was completely confused with what George Elliot was attempting to say. I believe that Gould began with this quote to start out with an open beginning. I feel like the openness of this quote sets up Gould’s essay. He wants to begin with a questioning beginning that makes you interested ini reading more. It also leaves the reader questioning the existence of great women or the lack here of. If I were to respond to this woman, I would further question her idea about the limitations placed on women.

Although slightly confusing if just glancing over the quote, after actually reading the passage I found my initial reaction to be pretty much in agreement (for since their is no level of female incompetence that is strictly limited, therefore our intelligence can’t scientifically less…) This argument by George Elliot is similar to Stephen Gould’s overall purpose and thesis and therefore is why he used in the beginning of his essay.

- I am shocked and slightly insulted by the comment, it groups women all together saying that because some women are incompetent the whole “social lot” are ignored. However they fail to make the acknoledgement that men are also stupid.
- I think Gould used this quote because she wanted to show that women were not really judge correctly for who they were as people.
- I would say that they are not giving women enough time to fully express themselves and they should rethink their comment.

Broca uses his pre-existing prejudices to twist the data he got into fitting what he wants it to fit. He acknowledges that the smaller size of women overall would have an effect on this, but because he already “knew” that women were less intelligent, that must be a reason for the smaller brain size.

I don’t think the quote means that women are innately incompetent, but they women are raised in a society that makes them believe that it is the nature of women to be incompetent. If you grow up under a stigma or gender type that defines you, you may be treated as such, and may then be lead to believe that indeed you are in fact to a measure, incompetent. We are limited by the biases and social expectations we hold for each other. If we treated people as equals in the scientific field I don’t think there would be this disparity. So it is tragic because a talented woman may not reach her full potential because she and her peers believe her expertise to be stunted, and so it will be stunted.

I find it interesting that this invokes an idea that has been common throughout history–that if the woman “leave[s] the home” “a social revolution will begin,” destroying the “sacred ties of the family”.

This quote seems strange, as it turns away from the idea that women are simply inferior to men, and instead argues that if they leave the home, society will fall apart. I would ask Le Bon, “Which is it? Should women be kept in the home because they are inferior to men and simply can’t handle the outside world, or is it because their leaving would cause a change in the traditional family?”

Eliot comments on the “blundering lives” of women. Does this mean that she thinks her own life has no purpose or direction, because of the indecision of whatever “Supreme Power” lords over it?

The weight of the brain does not effect the usage of it.

I thought this was a good way to start out the essay because it helps the reader understand the way people thought about women.

So, the lives of talented women are mistakes? I hope she was being sarcastic.

I think my favorite part about this quote is that the speaker assumes that we all know that women are less intelligent than men “on average” without giving any sort of scientific backing to his claim. His assumption is little more than an urban legend of the day that Gould uses to show the ignorance of the scientists at the time. It seems the intellects of the day were more interested in finding data that not supported the scientific world but supported their own egos.

It is interesting that at this point in the essay, the author is commenting on the “Supreme Power” granting woman with incompetence, and there is not yet a comment on the Man-Woman paradigm in which most social are relayed.

[...] we’re going to talk “Women’s Brains” in class today, but first…we’re going to find the quotes Gould chooses and [...]

[...] inconvenient indefiniteness with which the Supreme Power has fashioned the natures of women if therhttp://aptexts.edublogs.org/2007/10/19/womens-brainsby-stephen-jay-gould/Amazon.com: With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa: E.B. …An Alabama boy steeped in American [...]

I cant believe that this guy really thinks that women are intellectually inferior to men. He says that there have been studies done comparing the intelligence of men and women, but i have a feeling that they are not the most thorough results and I’m sure that the studies were done by men, not women. Also these studies don’t take into account the fact that at the time, women were not given the opportunity to have an education and therefore the results of these studies can be greatly attributed to womens lack of an education, not their lack of intelligence.

This guy is crazy. He is arguing that it is not possible for the size of the male and female body to be the explanation for their proportional brain sizes, but the only argument he has is saying “But we must not forget that women are, on average, a little less intelligent than men, a difference which we should not exaggerate but which is , nonetheless, real.” He is supposed to be a scientist, yet he draws his conclusions from an assumption that has been made by men over time and was taken to be common knowledge, though no one had actually proven it.

I think that it is quite amusing that they thought that intelligence was directly connected with the size of a persons skull. It is funny that they scientists who went unquestioned and were considered the “jewel of nineteenth-century science” and they were so niave. They didn’t even think about the fact that though humans don’t have the biggest skulls compared to many other mammals we consider ourselves to be the most intelligent. So why would it make sense that skull size would impact intelligence only when they thought that it was convenient because it would serve as the only way to “prove” that men are more intelligent that women. I find it to be extremely ironic that some of the most respected scientists of the time were also some of the most ignorant, and they were not even thorough enough in their conclusions that they never really proved anything.

It’s interesting to see how big a difference there is between thinking now and thinking when this study was done. It gives an idea of just how much this view has changed in that time.

I just felt like commenting in rampant protest because everyone else was, but there is definitely enough of that without my two cents. Funny how this is the most popular paragraph in the piece.

Did any of theses scientists bother to question and study what was accounting for teh supposed difference in size of the brains? It seems like theese science men were trying to come up with any excuse possible to tell the public that women were/are more inferior. Their ego’s needed a bigger boost apparently.

The author holds Broca’s “detailed work” in too high esteem. He claims that it is sound science when there is no evidence or proof of Broca’s “soundness.” It sounds as though Broca is being compared to god by having a “host of disciples” and depicted as “an apostle.” To be honest it’s kind of disgusting to read.

“Women are, on average, a little less intelligent than men…” What women was he testing for this so called statistic of his. I can’t believe he has the guts to say this stuff.

Why doesn’t he just keep on saying “women are stupid” about 500 more times in this essay. He definitely needs to do some more research because a bigger brain doesn’t mean you are more intelligent!

WOW!!!!!
I can’t believe somebody can be so ignorant and even have enough courage to say, “women, like it or not, had smaller brains than men and, therefore, could not equal them in intelligence.” Does this guy not realize that he is what he is because of a WOMAN! He’s a hypocrite for sure!

Broca obviously did not know anything about statistics. Random sampling? Hello?

Not only that, but a 6 foot 4 inch guy should be an outlier.

Did he really expect that a 6′4″ man and a 5′4″ woman would have equally sized brains? I’m 5′4″ and I can tell you that a guy whose 6′4″ probably wears twice the size of shoes that I do… And he probably has bigger hands, longer limbs, etc. Of course he’s going to have a bigger brain! That doesn’t mean anything though. You’d think a man as educated as Broca would have known even just a wee bit of psychology… unfortunately, it seems like he didn’t.

So yes, I agree with Gould. Who knows what to do with Broca’s data? It proves nothing.

I want to revive Le Bon for just a few minutes to make him read what the women here have been saying about his conclusions.

I also like how Gould uses “horrified” as if he knew that Le Bon did not just see educating women as destructive, he also saw it as a threat — something to be feared.

*unnecessary

“I do not regard as empty rhetoric the claim that women’s battles are for all of us.” I like that he added this. It is use of ethos, as he’s trying to show us that he is sympathetic and we can agree on his viewpoints. He is making female readers more likely to agree with him because he’s showing them that he appreciates their intelligence and understands their struggles.

I’m kind of lost… what’s the point of this paragraph? I mean, I can kind of see how it might be useful to the essay but so much unnecessarily detail is given about Maria Montessori in the beginning of the paragraph that I lost interest.

“I do not regard as empty rhetoric the claim that women’s battles are for all of us.” I like that he added this. It is use of ethos, as he’s trying to show us that he is sympathetic and we can agree on his viewpoints.

Let me NOT even comment on the content of this…Otherwise, I’d end up with 15 pages proving that men are not that great either… In fact, they’re more primitive than women.
ANYWAY… Let me just say that it was a very wise move on Gould’s part to quote this because, especially in the 1980s (during the Third Wave Feminism), this would have enraged a lot of women (and maybe some men) to the point of heart attacks.

“I do not claim his views were representative of Broca’s school…”
This seemed an unnecessary thing to mention to me. He is too worried about credibility that his writing comes off as weak in some points. Like this one.

Sedentary woman? Well, who forced women to become sedentary in the first place?

Also, what this scientist neglects to realize that you actually love with your mind and not your heart (psychology stuff!)

Why doesn’t Broca say that short people are dumber than tall people because that is what his research would shows.

I’d like to see him say this to the family matriarchs of his day. I’m sure these smart, scheming, political-and-social minded women would give him a polite answer to his comments about women being intellectually inferior.

HAHA! “in short” – it’s a pun (ish). ANYWAY, this paragraph shows how ridiculous all of teh “data” “supporting” the claim that women all have smaller brains and therefore inferior intelligence to men. The sample used to support thsi general idea is very selective, which of course then shows the data that Broca was looking for. He did not take into account all the other variables that DID affect brain size (or rather, he did, but instead ascribed the results to an unrelated “cause”).

Here Le Bon, aside from showing his readers what a sexist prat he is, further ruins his credibility by showing his biased belief that woman are not worthy of the same opportunities and rights as men. He doesn’t believe women should have the right to teh same education, which shows that his claims can’t be trusted because he shows no evidence to support them – they are all completely opinion-based and ridiculous.

The arguments Le Bon makes are absolutely ridiculous. First of all, he has no support for any of his claims. He just says that women are stupid, and no one can disagree with him. This guy is ignorant and a loser. I don’t like him. Also, by refering to the “distinguished women” as another “monstrosity”, comparing them to a gorilla with two heads (what??) he implies that even these women of superior intelligence are not necessarily a positive thing.

Although in today’s society this is completely ridiculous, in the 1800s women were seen as the caretakers, the mothers, and the “arm candy” (passive). For some reason this part reminds me somewhat of the bible JUST because God instructs the man to be the protector and the woman to be the mother and lover. Obviously this idea was taken too far but I don’t think Topinard is thinking outside the box of his time; this just was the way women were viewed.

This is so absurd. It was just like common knowledge: women were not as smart as men. They just weren’t. And for that reason MEN are allowed to theorize as to why their brains are smaller. Oh, of course it’s partly due to a woman’s physical inferiority. But it is also due partly to intellectual inferiority. I’m so glad we had so many smart men to have biased opinions.

Since Broca had data that the difference of a 5′4” guy and a 6′4” guy was 113 grams why didn’t he say shorter people are stupid?

Some of the smartest people I know are short women…. Don’t take that the wrong way =(.

‘ve heard about this experiment before, in psychology last year – but it never ceases to amuse me. Not only did this theory carry people in distinguishing intelligence, but they also used this theory in predicting the future criminal potential of people as well as mental disabilities. Can you believe that? They actually measured the size, shape, and number of “dents” people had in their heads to predict the future of their criminal potential. Imagine, someone comes to measure your head, and says “you have three dents on the left side of your skull so it means you’re going to rob a bank in the near future.” How hilarious! It’s amazing to see how much medical technology has advanced in the last 150 years. Thank god.

I do not agree that the “role of women is to raise children, love, and be passive.” Although these things may be parts of womens’ lives, woman have more than that. I think that this is a very sexist statement. I do not agree that men are souly the ones who care about tomorrow and do all of the hard work and responsibility. I think it is generally more accurate that men and women work together to “raise children and love.” However, I also do not believe that it is any ones role to be passive. Men and women both have the right to stand up for what they believe, have their own oppinions, and be leaders, not just follow someone else.

Is this guy nuts? “Women, like it or not, had smaller brains than men and, therefore, could not equal them in intelligence.” I sure hope this guy is writer is writing through the process of Broca’s thought process, because if this is really how he feels, then he has something coming to him. I can kind of understand where Broca came up with his theory, because it’s somewhat logical – and considering the time period, limited knowledge of intelligence was readily available. I can’t help but scuff at it now, in the 21st century, because we all know that the size of somebody’s head has no correlation with the level of their intelligence.

” Brain weight decreases with age, and Broca’s women were, on average, considerably older than his men.” How does this correlation work again? It doesnt make any sense. This is really bad science or bad research. It is soo hard to read and understand this!

Without doubt there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely.

I LOVED this line. Comparing an intelligent woman to a two-headed gorilla? Seriously?

And clearly, ALL psychologists, poets, and novelists think that women are inferior and savage.

If these guys are so obsessed with cold, hard facts, perhaps they shouldn’t be stating what is merely a biased, prejudiced opinion as fact.

Le Bon says that woman “excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason.” He is saying this after women have been compared to gorillas and said they have intelligence closer to a child. This thought had gone on for a very long time, so the woman were used to hearing it. Perhaps the reason they are fickle and no able to think is because the men of the society neglected to educate them because of their brain size. His argument is completely absurd because he tries to show that woman are stupid because of how they act. It doesn’t cross his mind that men are the reason woman were uneducated.

Children of successful families were better fed, and therefore taller with larger skulls, would probably turn out to be successful as well, though not because of their skull size.

I like that the author is neutral here, and doesn’t put in an opinion about what we just read. We can interpret it for ourselves, and he just makes sure to provide a segway into the next section. Gould understands how much more effective it is to show us a vivid example than to just tell us about sexism.

This is particularly amusing in light of a study I read about in the Times a few weeks ago. Turns out that men and mentally challenged people both laugh at the same kinds of jokes.

Anyway, yeah, this is a vicious attack. His statement about how the inferiority is obvious is equivalent to saying “clearly”–no, it’s not clear or obvious! You have to prove it!

“A supposed increase in male superiority through time”? What? Did he think they were eventually going to be able to do away with women?

As much as Gould tries to create an irritating persona for Broca, we also somewhat get a sense that he was not the only stupid one during his time. “We know, a priori, that women are not as intelligent as men,” wrote Gould. This conviction that “we” (or at least “they” — basically, much of society back then) held seemed unworthy of scrutiny. So Broca was just testing upon something society never felt the need to question.

Seriously? This guy is too much. Just because someone has a small skull doesn’t mean they are unintelligent. So, because these women had a head size close to gorillas, it means that they’re dumber than men? REALLY?! So, what about the rest of the human anatomy? Ears? Feet? If someone has smaller ears then others, it means they can’t hear? OKAY, Le Bon. You’re nuts.

WOWWWWW!!!!!

what do these men say to their wives?!?!?!

“honey, will you cook me dinner? oh wait… can you understand me? i didn’t know that savages understood english…”

i’ll bet that all of these men died single.

How does human weight relate to human intelligence is what I am confused about. His research isn’t even precise. He didn’t even conduct the research accurately. Why did he survey more men than women? How does the correlation of weight affect human intelligence. So is he saying that the more weight a human has, the smarter they are????

He was a terrible scientist. He took numbers but apparently had a very small correlation between his independent and dependent variables (head size and intelligence). And how did he measure their intelligence and reasoning? This has not been mentioned. This would be a deciding factor in whether to be believe his conclusions or not. Instead, the people who read his findings did not exercise critical thinking and question how he conducted his experiment, they instead believed the results because of their already existing bias.

I wonder if Broca was a tall or short person? It’s always nice to have prejudices confirmed. His reasoning seems to be a case of doing an experiment anticipating for one answer, and trying to bend the data so it supports this conclusion.

Broca’s work gave exactly what men wanted to believe; that they were superior then women, now mind you, not all of them. The fact that Broca is a scientist makes it authentic and not some bogus theory that was created by a sexist. The experiment instilled a false sense of inferiority in women and failed to prove anything scientifically.

Yeah. OKAY mister smartie pants. clearly he’s an idiot. the sexism is isn’t even subtle, he goes right out and says what he thinks, showing that he’s very bold and also, very confident that others are going to agree with him. maybe his mother didn’t love him? cause I just think this is rediculous

Degenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s, is more common in women and old people, because women live longer and are less likely to die in accidents, it would make sense that more women’s brains were abnormally light.

This is AWESOME! Broca didn’t even try to determine the effect height would have on brain size; he just assumed that it didn’t matter. Way to follow the scientific method, Broca. It’s nice of him to not “exaggerate” the difference.

Yeah, what?

This is so weird…this guy is a scientist, so it seems like he should be intelligent. Yet he actually thinks that it’s possible to make accurate inferences about how people related to each other in prehistoric times, and use no actual science to back this up…he didn’t know how to use rhetoric very well, because all I could see from his explanation was what it is lacking…meaning evidence…

For 292 male brains, he calculated an average weight of 1,325 grams; 140 female brains averaged 1,144 grams for a difference of 181 grams, or 14 percent of the male weight. Broca understood, of course, that part of this difference could be attributed to the greater height of males. Yet he made no attempt to measure the effect of size alone.” For one thing the physical size of the brain has nothing to do with the intelligence that that person has. It is purely attributed to the amount of synapses that are connected in the brain. Therefore, just because men’s brains where measured to be larger does not my any means prove that men are superior to women. Secondly, I find it wrong that any scientist would think that his/her experiement was incorrect and not investigate it further.

The great irony here that really struck me (and which I loved) was that a man who wanted to impress upon others the mental and academic superiority of man over a woman erroneously thought that he could measure intelligence by the size of a person’s brain. This was a subtle yet smart technique on the side of Stephen Jay Gould.

I also like it how he tried to show that he does have an open mind by pointing out that he “[has] the greatest respect for Broca’s meticulous procedure.” He shows that he is aware of Broca’s scrupulousness but, as he points out, “Numbers… specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them.” It is a subtle yet mocking way to prove the inaccuracy in Broca’s theory and method.

Really, really funny.

Of course, to a woman, men may seem devoid of logic and reason as well.

This is a good argument – it uses phronesis to establish the author as a logical person, and it’s appealing heavily to women who may feel offended by these findings.

That does indeed sound familiar. In fact, it is exactly what the conservatives say as a defense to Gay marriage. They say it is not natural, goes against family values, and will destroy the “sacred” families. All social revolutions will begin this way–with people disagreeing and bringing God into it. People should just keep fighting until they win, like the feminists did, the African-Americans did, and the GLBT’s are doing.

I think it’s great that the author included that last sentence of this example, because I think it is a generalization that hardly anyone would agree with, and most would adamantly oppose. This is an example of ethos, because the author is showing opposing opinions that are ridiculous, and therefore is making his own opinion seem to be obviously the correct one.

I was confused when it mentioned that “But they were opposed by numbers unknown to Condorcer or to Johnh Stuart Mill.” Is the quote saying that women doesn’t have soul? Are women not human? If so then how are women being a human being does not have human intelligence? This is ridiculous.

I think this is a great way to end the article. It’s a profound reminder that even if women were on average less intelligent than men, or content to be at home, there would always be those who will seek something better. We should give it to them.

Perhaps their measurements were accurate, but Le Bon, as a “scientist”, was out of line to throw in his own opinion by calling the supposedly rare occurrence of smart women a monstrosity and basically a birth defect. And scientific procedure aside, he was stupid to tell the public to neglect smart women, even if they’re smarter than the average man. Why wouldn’t society benefit from someone possibly smarter than he?

…that’s pretty funny.

It seems like the reason why he did not investigate was because it was a known fact that women were not as intelligent as men so he did not need to.

I don’t understand how this idiot believes women are like gorillas, because at the time they took care off everything in the house, no easy job. This guy comes along and assumes that women are less intelligent then men, even though his wife probably cooks all his meals and does all of the chores of the house every day. If women are closer to savages and children, men would probably not entrust them with anything, but women took care of some of the most important things in life at that time and now, and is ridiculous for him to even suggest that women are not as intelligent as men.

Ignorance.

Funny how all of these studies are conducted by men.

i think it’s funny that even though broca knew that the size of the brain could be affected by height, he disregarded that information… and it’s not like the weight of the brain can justly determine how “smart” someone is… information cannot be measured as a mass… unless i’ve been missing something.

And here he is not only sexist, but racist as well. Here, though, he brings up “savages.” I’d like to know what he’d say if he compared brain sizes between races, and if the “savage” race was on average taller and had a bigger head size, whether he’d come to the same conclusion about brain size equalling intelligence.

Hey, it’s like what we learned in Psychology! That correlation doesn’t mean causation. Except that in this case, what was being effected wasn’t even being measured, so they had no scientific proof of whether there was really a correlation or not.

“…because we know, a priori, that women are not as intelligent as men” is an example of sarcasm. It is effective because when I first read that, it caught my attention and made me immediately react with “that’s not right.” But then I realized that it obviously is not the author’s actual opinion, he’s just using that particular technique to show me how wrong Broca’s idea was.

It’s funny how they state something that is obviously the truth and then quickly disregard it after having taken into account a fabricated truth.

“But we must not forget that women are, on the average, a little less intelligent than men, a difference which we should not exaggerate but which is, nontheless, real.”

And the fact that the smaller you are, the more inferior. Now the smaller bodies that women have are physical evidence of their inferiority. That’s pretty frustrating.

I’m really shocked at how easily he states that we are “permitted to suppose” that women are not as intelligent because of the size of their brain. Yes women’s brains may be smaller, but that does not dictate how much of it they use.

This time, Broca failed to account for education and poverty differences in his intelligence tests. Was Broca’s test biased against women? Again, Broca was so sure that he was right, that he failed to see the obvious.

Broca knew that his evidence and findings posed curious questions with simple answers, but he also knew that society would eat it up regardless. People wanted to hear that women were inferior because it had been assumed to be true for as long as they could remember. It seems that less concrete proof is needed when you’re preaching to the choir…

Well, reading through this paragraph was hard because its ridiculous. How does he know that women have smaller brains then men? He cannot prove this fact, therefore, could the intelligence be equal or not cannot be determined. IF Broca “bowed before facts” then where did he get these facts from? Women could be intelligence equal, more or less but that can be proved through his words. In fact recent studies showed that the percentage of women attending college is higher than men.

It’s interesting that the theory that women weren’t as intelligent as men had such an impact on science, and what questions the scientists were trying to solve. What other scientific questions haven’t even been though of because of commonly accepted “truths”?

Way for Broca to assume two things at once. How does size physical size determine anything at all in humans? Plenty of women are taller, stronger, and smarter than men, maybe it’s just the society he lives in, but maybe he didn’t notice this.

How exactly did Broca presume to measure intelligence? Even now, there isn’t really a correct, accurate way of measuring intelligence. Furthermore, he states his hypothesis that women are less intelligent as fact, even though he hasn’t actually proved its truth.

Well it’s about time someone said something. And how ignorant is Broca? Calling himself an apostle…

How does measuring a person’s head make any sense in determining how smart they are? Some people just have really oddly large or bumpy heads, but I’m guessing that this doesn’t automatically make someone any smarter than they are. If he was an objective scientist, he wouldn’t have assumed that smaller brains meant less intelligence.

Broca’s certainty about his belief that small heads mean small brains and therefore less intelligence is flawed. Broca failed to consider fully test his hypothesis. After proving that women’s heads were smaller, he should have proved that smaller heads means smaller brains and that that in turn means less intelligence. Broca was so sure of himself that he missed several crucial things.

yeah… of course it was ridiculous. but it was also a widely accepted idea by men, which is probably why it wasn’t questioned at all. however, this isn’t the first time people were judged by the size of their heads. hitler determined who was jewish by the distance between the person’s nose and forehead or something like that.

science has changed so much and broca’s work was merely unchallenged because the majority of the men in society probably believed the same thing anyways. kind of sad and interesting at the same time.

Not only did people used to use the size of the head to determine intelligence, but they also attempted to define personality and characteristics using the bumps on a person’s head. This was a “highly sophisticated” scientific method called “phrenology” and there was actually a little tool developed to make such measurements.

Right off the bat I want to make it clear that I in no way shape of form support the claims of Le Bon. In fact as far as things I believe his ideas are about as far away from my thoughts as possible. That being said, I think I can understand how this train of thought could have existed during this time, not just in Le Bon but in a vast amount of other men as well. Women who were subjected to the most menial of jobs, for no fault of their own, but rather that of the existing stereotype, obviously did not exert a great amount of influence or even any kind of reputation whatsoever. Thus I can understand the cycle effect that must have existed.

I find it odd that one would compare death with intelligence. As Woolf said, we cannot avoid the power of death. This is also interesting because men tend to die before women do. I also find it difficult to believe that brain mass has anything to do with intelligence. Trying to prove this theory would be hard because there are too many factors involved. There would be no simple answer.

Broca created an experiment of a topic in which he was already certain of the result. He tested only 6 female brains and 7 male brains. The women were older then the men and the heights between both sexes differentiated. He did not have a valid variables, or a control group. His bias was his experiment

Though Broca claimed he was a scientist, he proved that he should not have been taken more seriously than Britney Spears. Because he studied only small parts of the total picture, and used plain numbers without studying the affects of these numbers.

I agree with Katie and Lucy. There is no statistical data and DEFINITELY not a wide enough sample group to suggest that women are intellectually inferior to men. The totally off-your-rocker-and-hoping-i-trigger-fear way that Le Bon states this is a great example of how illogical sexism is.

Is it not excellent when scientists actually try to eliminate other variables when gathering information from testing? (Answer: Indeed it is!)

I think this piece written by George Eliot had some interesting ideas. It was well organized with a great choice of words, and a substantial flow of facts with emotion. It gave the reader a good sense of the historical events, and different peoples ideas concerning the intellectual capabilities and challenges for women.

It is interesting to note that Broca’s prejudice was not limited too women, but they “bore the brunt” of his arguments because of the accessibility to their brains. The major foundation of the “inferiority” of women is based on the accessibility and innate prejudice; therefore it is interesting to think about what the standards would be if African Americans were more “accessible.”

If only Le Bon were still alive today he could see just how wrong he was. Hopefully he’d notice that despite the fact that women are now receiving the same level of education as men–and even many of the same jobs–the importance placed upon family in our society hasn’t yet disappeared.

He created just about only two categories here. The first category is the white adult male and the second category is…just about everyone else, the women, colored people and children. Not only does he seem both racist and sexist, but he makes a generalization that since overall women seem inferior, it would make sense to disregard them all despite the fact that he admitted that for a fact, women can be much superior in intelligence over men.

The idea that brain size reflects intelligence reminds me of something that I read in my AP Psychology book. Even if a person at a young age were to lose a significant amount of brain matter, they could still lead normal lives and turn out like normal people. It showed an example of a young girl who had a large portion of one side of her brain removed to avoid seizures, but the other half of her brain simply made up for it. Therefore, I agree completely with Katie in that Broca was unreasonable in his conclusions and that intelligence is based off of more than just the size of the brain.

“Everything happens for a Reason.”
This philosophy is tossed around because as a people we want to believe that the good and bad things that happen to us have some explanation, that everything will turn out okay in the end. It offers a reason and makes something that is big much smaller, as if someone could hold it in their hand.
The argument that women are less intelligent then men seems to be like such an explanation. Men did not see women as similar creatures to themselves and wanted explanations, insight on the topic. Women and Men have distinct roles in society, roles that have currently shifted; however, the idea of a “stay at home dad” did not begin until the late 20th century.
By saying women had less intelligence and therefore attempting to prove the statement gave these men understanding of something they knew little of.

Yes, I finally agree with this paragraph- that the data was extremely irrevelant. There are going to be both men and women with larger brains and smaller brains and thais has no effect on each person’s intellectual capabilities. I think the idea must be put into broader terms to show each individuals interests vary, there strengths differ, and how they apply themselves, and the support they receive in return will justify their intellectual success.

This is an interesting quote because it is granting women status, even though it is unintentional. If women are so important to the success of family ties, than why shouldn’t they be treated with the same respect as men. This quote is interesting because it is suggesting that if women haad education, they would “follow” men’s example of war instead of pursuing their own solutions to problems/issues.

Gould is able to subtly undermine Broca’s work with the simple use of the word “prejudice.” By slipping in words that show Gould’s disagreement with the inferior inteligence of women, the work of Broca and the other various scientists are viewed with critism on the reader’s part. Gould is therefore able to convince the reader of an opinion before even viewing the arguement of the scientists.

And what caliber was the intelligence of a little white girl?
Reading about all of this past scientific “knowledge” which discriminates against all minorities, and “proves” how they are lesser beings, brings in mind the Genome Project, especially about the differences between race. Last I heard, there seemed to be no known significant difference in DNA between humans of different races.

This paragraph tries to make the argument that one possible evolutionary reason for a difference in intelligence was that men were more dominant and women were more passive. Broca was saying that since men had to protect women and was constantly in combat with the environment, that was the reason why men were more intelligent, and I don’t believe that this is a valid argument.

Though I don’t necessarilly agree with this viewpoint, it is worth noting that such a perspective has managed to survive into modern times.

I wonder if this man ever had a girlfriend [who loved him].

I’m happy to hear that this guy is making no assumptions and rather just going off of facts that he knows are true. It’s refreshing to me because it’s as though he’s not just saying stuff left and right but rather stating facts that are true and real.

So basically his findings were only valid due to the existing stereotype which he was trying to prove/disprove…

As I mentioned in my comment for paragraph 9, the disregard men display for the true reaches of the female human intellect stunt mankind’s overall growth and prevent the society from moving forward. It is ridiculous how strongly Broca emphasizes that women are expected, in his time, to be less intelligent than their male counterparts. “Tiedemann has proposed this explanation. But we must not forget that women are, on the average, a little less intelligent than men, a difference which we should not exaggerate but which is, nonetheless, real.” If thoughts like these prevail, how is mankind supposed to find the truth?

finally a women who draws the right conclusions!!!

Broca’s data is interesting, but obviously the weight of someone’s brain may not prove them to be smarter than someone with a lighter brain. “They must be weighed in the context of a general theory that supported contemporary social distinctions as biologically ordained. Women, blacks, and poor people suffered the same disparagement, but women bore the brunt of Broca’s argument because he had easier access to data on women’s brains. ” This paragraph tries to address the fact that Broca’s data does not reflect an isolated prejudice towards a disadvantaged group, however, the entire theory suggests that women (in a general group) are disadvantaged.

Here is the argument that bigger brain does not necessarily correlate with intelligence. Taller people nautrally tend to have bigger brains, so does that mean taller men have higher level of intelligence than shorter men? Probably not…

Thank you, sure he may have numbers to prove that women have smaller head sizes, but perhaps that isn’t about intelligence at all. He is just claiming these things and throwing them around to other people to hear. It’s like he’s spreading a vicious rumor.

If Broca, as I understand, was using only a limited number of corpses, how can his data be so valid that they necessitate something “to do” with them?

I’m going to “be passive” right now and say THIS GUY IS RIDICULOUS. I should throw a pointy spoon at him or something…

Gould shows how ironic and ridiculous it is that Broca tested a hypothesis with skull sizes, while assuming that his hypothesis is a fact by quoting him in this paragraph. His audience, if they still believe in women’s inferior intelligence, can see how ridiculous the idea is.

I found it interesting that a man who thinks so highly of his gender, could forget that he was raised by a woman. In this quote, Broca suggested that it was the womens’ job to raise the next generation with “love.” Yet he also says that a husband “must protect and nourish,” therefore implying that women have an inability to care for themselves. This demonstrates that he beliefs that women need to be treated as children as well. The unintentional situational irony is important because while women raise the children, who will one day grow up to be men and women, they somehow “need” to be nourished and fed like children themselves. How could women be so dependent on men, when they have the huge responsibility of raising children?

like lucy said, there are many things that are just being thrown around and they have no evidence of any of it. that’s what makes me the most angry, they should stop being so rude to women when they have to evidence for what they’re talking about.

The widespread corruption of sexism evident in this passage shows the extent to which such prejudiced thinking prevents mankind from moving forward. Instead of the two sexes working together, building off of each others’ strengths, and heading towards a brighter future, man is oppressing the female intellect. They are criticizing women by essentially calling them a necessary dependency (than the woman whom he must protect and nourish, the sedentary woman, lacking any interior occupations, whose role is to raise children, love, and be passive).

Absolutely unbelievable. I am completely amzed that this experiment was accepted by the scientific community despite its gaping holes and lack of throughness.

It’s appalling how ignorant this one guy must be. First he makes the outlandish claim that all whites are more intelligent that people of color and then he goes on to insult women to the highest degree. Comparing women to monkeys is not the way to a girls heart. someone should remind him of that.

what..i am truly saying this article is ridiculous

How amusing! The feminist movement was indeed a “social revolution” and the definition of family (and the roles within it) changed drastically.
So to some extent, Le Bon predicted correctly, but was entirely incorrect in his reasoning.

Paul Broca provides this assertion from his study of intelligence of both gender’s brains, “Women, like it or not, had smaller brains than men and, therefore, could not equal them in intelligence.” Broca stated a “fact” he had aquired though a study to persuade the nation of his belief, that biologically men were more intelligent then women Modern society has refuted this statement and Stephen Jay Gould adds that science is not merely calculations it is observations as well. To provide a more developed assertion and to convince an audience from a later time period Broca should have provided examples. It is highly likely that during his time the reader of his works would have accepted this view without question. His readership would have been like-minded men.

“The theologians had asked if women had a soul. Several centuries later, some scientists were ready to refuse them a human intelligence.” Although women displayed signs of intelligence and talent, they were still questioned by theologians- I found this argument, the question of whether women had a soul, interesting, because without women human existance would cease to exist.

Many inferences are being made in this piece without conclusive data. What i get from it is that while it is possible that women have smaller cranial capacity than men, that the correlation is still to be made between capacity and intelligence. Without that correlation, no reasonable inferences about intelligence can be made

it bothers me that someone would suppose that their research might be faulty but not even investigate it. ugh. well i guess he just wanted to look more intelligent by any means possible.

Wow, i can not believe the stuff that they say about women. THey are more related to gorillas and children then the average male. It just stunned me that people thought this way just because of the size of peoples brain.

One must wonder at the abnormality of Le Bon’s intelligence — however, that would be considering his mutant LACK of intelligence. The sheer replacement of fact with assumptions is astounding in this experiment, that was “regarded as science.”
However, one also must wonder women could have fought back against this. How coudl they conduct experiments against it? It would be disregarded as ridden with unintelligent mistakes. A man would hvae to help point out the obvious fallacies in the experiment, and thus disprove it.

This entire paragraph is a steaming pile of lies. It find it absolutely disgusting that Le Bon willingly published his arrogant and bigoted opinion as scientific fact. “This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth disussion.” He is essentially claiming that this “fact” is so indisputable, that no scientific study need be made in order to prove it.

I find the reception of Broca’s work to be quite hilarious in that despite his claim holding no evidence besides the specific sizes of brains, it was viewed as being very valid in its determining that men are intellectually superior to women.

It really makes me mad that someone could be so ignorant to think that women aren’t intelligent. I mean come on, there are clearly more women than me attending college, more women than men in my AP courses, and more women than men trying to learn new things. It may be because we are always trying to prove ourselves against men but it is just something that’s true in our world. I am pleased though to see that there is someone sane in this essay that realizes that.

Is this true? Society really has categorized men and women. Men are the strong, responsbile one in the family who bring “bacon to the table.” While women roles are to rasie the children, and have love and be passive. This shouldnt define the average American family, but yet is it going on.

I wonder how much ridicule Manouvrier had to suffer through since he was a male supporting the idea that women were not inferior in intelligence…
What happened to this “black sheep” of Broca?

I guess this means that there is no conclusive data about how much height and intelligence individually affect brain size?

I find it ridiculous that these assumptions were considered scientific fact and truth. How could one trust an experiment with so many holes inside of it, even disregarding the subject matter?

I dont think the size of the brain depends on the intelligence level as well as phsycial inferiority.

WHAT???

What an amusing scientific study! I find it fascinating that society, and thus the scientific community, has changed so much in just over 150 years. If any experiment of this sort had been even HINTED at in the past 50 years, the hinter would be ridiculed and ostracized. In the past 50 years prior there would hvae been some concerned grumbling, and 50 years before that, this experiment actually existed.

I think it was so ridiculous for them to judge the intelligence of a person based on the size of their head. Just because a person is smalled does not mean that they are less intelligent. There’s even a tv show today where 8 year olds are smarter than the adults that they are competing against. I’m glad that they pointed out that just because women have a smaller cranium doesn’t mean that they are not smart, it really bothers me that anyone could really logically think that. They must have been really close minded. Oh, and i don’t mean to sound silly, but there’s a spelling error in this paragraph and that bothers me slightly.

This seems very bias.How could a man say “Women, like it or not, ahd smaller brains than men and, therefore, could not equal them in intelligence.” This is prejudice in male society.

[...] I want to look at Stephen Jay Gould’s Women’s Brains…You’ll check out my new blog–AP Texts–and as you’re reading. Please [...]

Interesting…So, is she saying there is some level of feminine incompetence, it’s just not easy to define? Or is it ironic? We can’t define it because it isn’t there?