Glandular Activity and Feminine Talent: A Reply to Dr. Leuba

"The progress of man has never been impeded by preconceived ideas regarding his abilities, his proper interests, and his appropriate activities. Woman has always been so hampered."

The question of woman's capabilities seems never to be settled. She must ever be analyzed and explained—her intellect or logic or emotional stability endlessly measured against man's as a standard. And always she is told that the results prove her inferior, and prove also that this inferiority is due to some inborn lack which cannot be overcome or successfully ignored. Therefore woman is assured that she may never expect to rise to the same heights which are possible to man. The certainty of inferiority is never questioned, but the lacking quality varies as the reliability of the proof is discredited.

The progress of man has never been impeded by preconceived ideas regarding his abilities, his proper interests, and his appropriate activities. Woman has always been so hampered. For generations her existence was narrowly prescribed because she was considered an inferior creature lacking a soul and possessing but a rudimentary intellect. As time passed, the existence of the soul took on less vital concern in the affairs of daily life. Then only was it conceded that it might be possible for woman to possess one, as it seemed improbable that she could hereby materially disturb the existing social and economic conditions. Equal intellectual capacity, on the other hand, was acknowledged only after positive experimental proofs, the results of which could not be disputed. Through the ages woman has been biologically handicapped in exerting her intellectual powers and establishing her own equality. By minimizing this handicap through a civilization less wasteful of human life, woman is beginning to enjoy greater economic and social freedom, and thereby hopes to have an opportunity to test her powers. To discourage these aspirations, there seems to be a tendency among a few men of learning to search for new obstacles to her success. She is repeatedly reminded that the greatest scientists, musicians, and artists have never been numbered among her sex. Therefore she presumably must suffer from some deficiency which earlier investigations have failed to reveal. She is encouraged to believe that her humble place among the geniuses has no relation to repression, but is due to an unknown factor in her physiologic construction. She is reminded of the comparatively greater variability exhibited among males, as evidenced by the larger number of male geniuses—and also inmates of institutions for the feeble-minded. She is not told that the proof of this sex difference has never been established conclusively, and that some scientists believe the difference is in favor of the female. Possibly they reach this conclusion because they consider greater variability a doubtful advantage.

Through the ages there has always been one particular organ or part of the body held in reverence as controlling the highest emotions and actions of the individual. We know, for example, that at one time it was believed that the dead heroes might return to earth only if the sacrum, a bone at the lower end of the spine, were preserved intact. Incidentally this is a particularly fragile bone, crumbling rapidly after death, and making the safe return of the hero through its integrity most precarious. The attention has gone in turn to various other centres,—the heart, the liver, or the brain,—as the quality attributed to each organ was most cherished. When the soul was most highly reverenced, woman had none. As the intellect became more important, woman lacked. And now, as ductless glands are considered the factors influencing character and the quality of intellectual and emotional activity, most assuredly woman possesses inferior, inadequate secretions.

Internal secretions are sometimes spoken of as the romance of modern medicine. Like romance, consideration of the scope of their activity stimulates the imagination. Their physiology is still in a somewhat indefinite and unsettled state because of the difficulty of determining the exact function of each gland. Apparently they are closely interrelated, so that dysfunction of one results in changed activity of others. Animal experimentation does not differentiate the activity of each gland conclusively, because the removal of one produces a compensatory hyperactivity in certain others. However, experimentation does reveal definite characteristic changes following the removal of each gland or part of a gland. The scientist undertakes the interpretation of these results cautiously, with the understanding that he is venturing in a field in which there is as yet little actual proof, and realizing that his conclusions are hypotheses which later investigation may prove unwarranted and utterly false. Undoubtedly hormones are the factors determining metabolism rate and therefore energy; but because the functions are not clearly outlined they have served also as an alibi to the credulous for many disputed causes. By claiming their dysfunction, the scrupulous psychiatrist obtains the release of a condemned criminal, the quack collects his dishonest gains, the aged fools himself into a pseudo-youth; and now, because of sex-varying secretions, woman is offered a release from her newly discovered disorder, the inferiority complex. And why should not woman admit her inferiority frankly if it does indeed exist? If she lacks sufficient energy to accomplish great work, if her talents must ever be hormone-inhibited, let her face the matter squarely. As a student of history and of human nature, she obviously has a right, before she even consider the subject, to ask to have this physiologic deficiency proved to her with methods and results which she too may test and verify. No one disputes the comparative dearth through the ages, of women of great accomplishments. But why endlessly close one's eyes to present-day factors of environment and training which have an overwhelmingly inhibitory effect on feminine ambitions?

Presented by

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Technology

More back issues, Sept 1995 to present.

Just In