Gould says that scientific data is often distorted by the researcher's’ prejudices or failure to include other important variables. Broca did not do his research correctly because he failed to look at ages, heights, and other physical characteristics that would affect the size of a skull. Also, men in general are bigger than women in all aspects, so their heads would be relatively larger. Instead, he explained that there would be a difference on the brain's mass based on height. Lastly, Gould pulls out one of Broca’s quotes “We know, a priori, that women are not as intelligent as men.” Gould refutes Broca’s argument upon what he is testing. Goulds main argument about scientific inquiry is that even data can sometimes be inaccurate or inadequate, …show more content…
He is making an argument about the discrimination minority groups receive. The article also talks about the brains belonging to persons of African descent, as well as the poor, instead of just talking about women's brains. “Prejudiced men with stake in the outcome” are the ones to make assumptions based on inconclusive data.
This essay could potentially be read by the general public, especially because Gould meant for this piece to be read by a more general audience, but it is written in a way that is geared more towards the scientific minds of the community. This would be easier to read for those who are accustomed to scientific texts because this essay has a very scholarly tone, language, and diction for a majority of the piece. In addition, this piece includes a substantial amount of quantitative data about the brain, as well as an in-depth summary of Broca’s research.
Questions on Rhetoric and Style on Women’s
…show more content…
He argues that Broca’s research methods are not right by saying that his subjects are not parallel. The females that Broca used were older and much smaller than the males, which affected the brain size. He points out diseases and old age cause the brain to decrease. All of Broca;s women were all “considerably older” than the men so they were more than likely to have a disease, causing their brain to lose weight as they get older. Gould also points out that brain size is somewhat determined by body build, weight, and height. He finishes by stating that even “modern students of brain size have not agreed” on the issues of gender versus brain size. This elaborates and supports his claim that fight against the targeting of women’s intellectuality based on brain
In Women’s Brains, Gould argues that the data used by scientist Paul Broca was misused only in order to confirm the inferiority of women and other discriminated groups. Through anthropometrics, the scientific study of the measurements and proportions of the human body, Broca and his colleagues “proved” that women were intellectually inferior, because on average the size of their brains were smaller than men’s. Even though Broca’s numbers were sound and accurate, Gould states, “. . .science is is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing” (Gould 1). This means that even though the data proves that women’s brains are smaller than men’s it did not take into account body stature, height, weight, etc., which all contribute to the size of the brain in a human body. As Gould describes, “. . .the true figure [of the difference of brain
Gould cites Paul Broca and Gustave Le Bon to display sciences’ discriminate nature on the intelligence of women. Through the explanation of Broca's mistakes in his interpreting of data, Gould uses logic in order to refute any claim that the size of a woman's brain validates she is unintelligent. Gould also uses Le Bon's caustic attack on women to inspire indignation, thus using appeals to emotion in a negative way to make his audience distrust the theory of lesser female intelligence when compared to men. L. Manouvrier's quote serves to demonstrate how even some of Broca's own followers did not accept his results as feasible, discrediting Broca even more. Gould refers to Maria Montessori because she took Broca's data and applied it to justify that women were more intelligent. Proving that the same numbers can support opposite cases, Gould strengthens his claim that the attempt to use science to discriminate against a certain group is futile. The individuals each make similar points in Gould's argument: science is not free from discrimination. Some of the sources are examples of injustices, while others reveal this prejudice. Each is necessary in Gould's argument and could not be removed without damaging his
Connell: Chapter 4 “Sex Differences & Gendered Bodies”: I found this entire chapter quite intriguing, but I really appreciate the way that Connell approaches the ways in which males and females differ, and yet she also points out how there is no significant difference in brain anatomy and function between sexes. I found the statement by neuroscientist Lesley Rogers incredibly interesting, she states, “The brain does not choose to be wither a female or a male type. In any aspect of brain function that we can measure, there is considerable overlap between females and males” (p.52). This statement when paired with information about the affect social processes have on the body is mind boggling to realize, as Connell states, “biology bends to the hurricane of social discipline” (p.55). It is unnerving to think that I am merely a product of my society.
“On the Equality of the Sexes” began with arguing against the idea that woman were not mentally equal to men in all areas.
Moreover, education can also be halted due to ones gender. This is so in the case of Carrie Bishop. Because she is female, her father will not pay for nursing school. If not for Miles, Carrie's liberal brother and graduate of Berea College, she would have stayed at home and become the traditional homemaker. Another way her education was stunted is not due to anyone persons prevention but by her own personality and physical appearance.
He discusses the differences between boys’ and girls’ behavior in academics, “girls suppress ambition, boys inflate it” (432). Kimmel believes that girls do better in some academic areas, and males do better in others. He provides a logical explanation for rising test scores of girls compared to boys. Kimmel states, “Girls are more likely to undervalue their abilities, especially in the more traditionally “masculine” educational arenas such as math and science. Only the most able and most secure girls take courses in those fields.
She later states that, “sisters and brothers are exposed to the same parental backgrounds and attend schools of the same quality” (O’Neill, 2003, p.309). She has no evidential statistics to make that claim. Parental backgrounds vary from cultures, often boys are given more privileges than girls. It can be argued that families encourage boys and girls differently, which can be a factor to what school and career choice the individual wants to pursue. Without realizing, parents can pressure boys into aspiring for more prestigious careers to be able to support a family because of gender roles. Throughout history, women have proved that they are able to do the same work that males do. When it comes to work productivity, it can be argued that one sex does not have work done better than the other. In the statistics given, there is none that relate to a certain career. She continues to add on that the types of skills in a particular field of work are important but, does not give wage differences between men and women in particular jobs. There have been testimonies within workplaces that men are being paid more than women with no reasonableness. There could have been more statistics added to specify the fields of work that show significant differences in
Brooks argues that male and female brains work and experience things differently. He suggests that this theory is also the reason as to why young girls are surpassing their male counterparts in school settings. He incorrectly assumes that by separating males and females, males will be allowed to break free from gender stereotypes. Brooks strengthens his argument with results of brain research on sex differences. But, Brook’s argument is unpersuasive. He categorizes all young males, and suggest that single sex-schools are the best solution for them. He wants to apply a black-and-white solution to something that is just not that simple. While Brooks uses comparisons and surveys to convince the reader, his argument simply does
The bodies of the two sexes seem to have been planned for different ends.” He believes that “God” designed women for a specific purpose which isn't the same as men. He then goes on to say that women have superior brains than men by stating, “It is quicker, more flexible, more elastic.” These claims are unverifiable and he seems to be using apple polishing fallacy to persuade the reader to join his viewpoint. He then says that women cannot be independent of men because of two reasons, “God never designed you should, and your own deep instincts are in the way.”
...ignificant evidence for my research argument indicates that the nature of gender/sex consists of a wide consensus. The latter is significant to original sex differences in brain structure and the organized role through sex differential prenatal hormone exposures through the term used in the article as (the ‘hardwiring’ paradigm). The article is limited to scientific shortcoming that presents neuroscientific research on sex and gender for it lacks an analysis that goes beyond the observed results. The article is based on neuroscience studies and how it approached gender, yet the article suggests that gender should be examined through social, culture studies, ethnicity and race. This article will not form the foundation of my research but will be used a secondary material. The neuroscience evidences will be used to support my argument and will be used as an example.
A common belief at the time was that women did not have the same intellectual aptitude as men (Murray 176). Murray sets out to disprove the belief through the image of children; “Will it be said that the judgment of a male of two years old, is more sage than that of a female’s of the same age? I believe the reverse is generally observed to be true” (Murray 178). Murray makes her point. In general young children have the same intellectual level, regardless of gender. Therefore, why later in life are adult men smarter than adult women? Does age and time change aptitude and gifted ability? Continuing with her line of reasoning, Murray proposes that women are not as smart as men because they are not receiving an education; “Are we deficient in reason? We can only reason from what know, and if the opportunity of acquiring knowledge has been denied us, the inferiority of our sex cannot fairly be deduced from thence” (Murray 177-178). Murray suggests that an accurate scaling of mental prowess cannot be deduced because men and women do not have the same educational level; the very reason that women are being denied and education in the first place. Women’s education has become a paradox. Women cannot receive an education because they are not smart enough, but they are not smart enough because they are denied an education. Murray, having now established that women should have an education, then sets out to explain its
If women lack intelligence and cannot be a scientist, then what should they be? If they can’t act intelligent, then how should they act? Woman should stick to their society roles and stay away from thinking the way a male is expected to think. A woman thinking scientifically is considered to be thinking like a man (Keller 77). Keller’s statement explains that science is considered to be a male subject. It is not appropriate for females to think scientifically. Women then begin to get treated differently because they are not meeting society’s
Gould argued about Paul Broca's scientific procedure that men are more intelligent than women because he already assumed the outcome that men's brains are bigger than women's brains. Broca's assumption comes from "the general theory that supported contemporary social distinction as biologically ordained"(157).
Do humans let their gender define their capability to learn? In the “The Gender Gap at School,” David Brooks talks about how “Male reading rates are falling three times as fast as among young women’s” (Brooks 391), because teachers are not providing equal reading interest in both genders. However, gender does not play a role in males capability to succeed in their education for reading. “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be, rather than recognizing how we are” (Adichie).
Oestrogen receptors in the brain are believed to cause gender-appropriate behaviour. Oestrogen, a hormone found in the female genital tissue, acts as a ligand and, by activating the oestrogen receptors found on the surfaces of brain cells, causes notable changes in behaviour. Professors at Yale University have studied the effects of oestrogen and found the hormone increases neural connectivity in the brain resulting in a more accurate memory. Turnham et al (2002) supports this as upon investigation...