266 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



SEX AND BRAIN-WEIGHT. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Dear Sir : In the April number of " The 

 Popular Science Monthly " there was an 

 article, by Dr. William A. Hammond, enti- 

 tled " Brain-Forcing in Childhood," of which, 

 in so far as it deals with that subject, I have 

 nothing to say here. But the doctor took 

 occasion to have another fling at women, and 

 to that I wish to reply in a way to give him 

 an opportunity to prove, if he can, that his 

 statements are based upon scientific facts 

 and discoveries. If such discoveries have 

 been made they should be on record, and I 

 am assured by the leading men of his pro- 

 fession that no such records exist. 



I propose on my side to prove that his 

 statements on this subject, both in this ar 

 tide and a previously published one, from 

 which I shall also quote, arc based upon 

 assumption and prejudice, and can not be 

 sustained by scientific tests either by the 

 doctor or any one else. 



Since the published opinions of such a 

 man as Dr. Hammond, and in such a maga- 

 zine as " The Popular Science Monthly," are 

 likely to have a wide influence upon the 

 welfare and prospects of a large number 

 of women, it is most important that he 

 either prove his case or correct his indict- 

 ment. 



In his article on " Brain-Forcing in Child- 

 hood " he devotes two and a half pages to a 

 series of statements regarding the native 

 incapacity of woman, the inferiority of her 

 brain in quality, quantity, and development 

 in what brain anatomists call the nobler 

 proportions; and argues that it is an ab- 

 surdity to allow girls and women to receive 

 and use the means of development which 

 he admits have produced these higher re- 

 sults in man ! 



Cause and effect, in man, he recognizes 

 as related in the usual manner ; while cause 

 and effect in woman appear to have no pos- 

 sible connection. 



The higher races of man have a higher 

 brain development than have the lower races. 

 This, he argues, is the direct result of the 

 nature, variety, complexity, and accuracy 

 of their mental training and opportunities. 

 Women's brains in the lower races, he says, 

 are very nearly like those of the men ; but 

 in the higher races there is a much greater 

 difference between the brains of the sexes ; 

 which, oddly enough, he does not attribute 

 to the fact that they have never been al- 

 lowed the very training and opportunities 

 which he claims produced the desired change 

 in the males of their race. He holds that 

 it is natural, unalterable difference in the 

 brain-mass itself. Now, if this were the 

 case, would not the difference be quite as 

 marked in the lower races ? That the dispari- 

 ty is not natural and unalterable, but that it 

 is the result of lack of opportunity and ine- 



quality of education and environment, seems 

 to be plainly indicated by his own argu- 

 ment when logically carried to its conclu- 

 sion. But he argues that, since the ratio of 

 difference in the brain of the sexes has not 

 remained the same in spite of the great ex- 

 pansion of opportunity for the one and the 

 restriction of opportunity for the other as 

 they rise in the scale of civilized races, it 

 proves inability on the part of the restricted 

 sex. And he then asks for further restric- 

 tion ! This is surely as unscientific as it is 

 illogical.* 



All this upon the basis that the doctor can 

 prove that such great anatomical differences 

 do exist in the adult brain. But I hold that 

 it never has been done, and that the doctor 

 can not do it. I prepared a number of ques- 

 tions, for which I regret there is not space 

 here, which were submitted to twenty of the 

 leading brain anatomists, microscopists, and 

 physicians of New York, with the results 

 given below. 



Dr. Hammond asserts : " Again, it is 

 only necessary to compare an average male 

 with an average female brain to perceive at 

 once /iow numei-ous and striking are the dif- 

 ferences existing between them." (The ital- 

 ics are mine.) He submits a formidable list 

 of striking differences which include these 

 " The male brain is larger, its vertical and 

 transverse diameters are greater proportion- 

 ally, the shape is quite different, the convo- 

 lutions are more intricate, the sulci deeper, 

 the secondary fissures more numerous, the 

 gray matter of the corresponding parts of 

 the brain decidedly thicker." Of this lat- 

 ter point the doctor modestly says that the 

 evidence is not so full as might be desired. 

 But, as if all these were not quite enough to 

 enable the merest novice to distinguish a 

 male from a female brain, he offers these 

 re-enforcements : " It is quite certain, as 

 the observations of the writer show, that 

 the specific gravity of loth the white and 

 gray substance of the brain is greater in 

 man than in woman." f 



All this would seem to leave woman 

 without a chance of escape; for if by any 

 accident her brain did not fall short in gray 

 matter, fissures, etc., the specific gravity of 

 the rest of it would enable the doctor to 



* "The reason that the brain of the woman ts 

 1'ghtcr than that of man is, that she has less cere- 

 bral activity to exercise in her sphere ol duty. In 

 former timex it was relatively larger in the de- 

 partment of Lozere because then the women and 

 the men mutually shared the burden of iheir daily 

 labor. The truth is, that the weight of the brain 

 increases with the use we make of it.'' Topi- 

 nard, p. 120. 



t A recent article in " Mendel's Journal," by 

 Morselli the only recent article which agrees with 

 this theory while asserting that the specific grav- 

 ity is less" in the female, is compelled to make tho 

 sinister admission that "irith old aae and with in- 

 sanity the specific gravity increases." If this is 

 the case. I do not know that women need sigh lor 

 more specific gravity than they have. 



