Read the article Women’s Brains by Stephen Jay Gould* https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/wbgould.pdf (Links to an external site.)

and answer the following questions:

(Links to an external site.)

Questions
1. Jay Gould’s argument focuses on research about women’s brain size, but — more important, what does he say about the nature of scientific inquiry — that is, about how scientists think?

2. What does Gould mean when he says, “Women were singularly denigrated but they also stood as surrogates for other disenfranchised groups” (para. 13)?

3. Why does Gould say, “I do not regard as empty rhetoric the claim that women’s battles are for all of us” (para. 13)? Is he being patronizing? Does such a personal comment undermine his scientific credibility? Explain.

4. Gould’s essay was published in 1980, and it centers on research conducted a century before that. What case can you make that Gould’s true subject was not women, but assumptions about the abilities of certain groups?

5. Would individuals accustomed to scientific texts have an easier time reading this essay? Why or why not? How do your own experience and prior knowledge of a topic affect your reading process?

Rhetoric and Style

1. In paragraph 3, Gould states, “I have the greatest respect for Broca’s meticulous procedure. His numbers are sound.” Despite this praise, Gould goes on to refute Broca’s findings. What vulnerability does Gould find in Broca’s conclusions? Does Gould’s praise of Broca strengthen or weaken his own argument? Explain.

2. Gould builds two parallel arguments: one on scientific method, another on speculative conclusions. In which passages does he question the scientific method(s) rather than the findings themselves? How does Gould weave these sources together in order to make his own point?

3. How does each of the individuals Gould cites — Paul Broca, L. Manouvrier, Gustave Le Bon, and Maria Montessori — contribute to the development of his argument? Does each make a separate point, or do they reinforce one another? Could Gould have eliminated any of them without damaging his argument? Explain your reasoning.