In Victorian times, scientists argued that women's brains were too small to be fully human. On the intelligence scale, researchers recommended classifying human females with gorillas.
The great 19th century neuroanatomist Paul Broca didn't see the situation as quite so dire, but he warned his colleagues that women were not capable of being as smart as men, "a difference that we should not exaggerate, but which is nonetheless real."
The president of Harvard University suggested that a lack of "innate ability" might help explain why women couldn't keep up with men in fields like math and science ... oh, wait, that one happened just last month.
Hold for a minute -- OK -- while I dig out my corset and bustle.
If that sounds snotty, I mean it to be.
I, for one, am ready to leave the 19th century behind. Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers can apologize all he wants, but the fact is that -- from a position of power -- he felt comfortable speculating about women's inadequate intelligence and ignoring years worth of science that proved him wrong.
I don't find that excusable. Period.
And I wonder why we women are so willing to tolerate this kind of behavior.
Summers raised the issue of women's lesser capabilities in an economic conference in Cambridge, Mass., in mid-January. And the most consistent response from women -- the one still resonating across the country -- is defensiveness.
A litany of female scholars quote studies proving that, yes, we girls can do long division, actually understand a chemical formula, comprehend a physical law or two and not only become professional scientists but do good work.
In fact, when allowed, women have done excellent science for decades, even since the corset-and-bustle days. The physicist Marie Curie won two Nobel prizes -- in 1903 and 1911 -- for her work in France with radioactive elements. As one Stanford University professor assured her audience last week, "clearly, girls are as capable" as boys.
No argument there from me except this one: Why does that have to be said at all? How well must women perform before the question of our competence gets taken off the table? How many times do we have to make the point before people actually believe it?
I wonder when it was that male academics last organized a conference to explain that their brains worked as well as those of their female colleagues. Perhaps they should have. At least, if more attention was given to the limits of male brain function, Summers might not have made quite such a fool of himself.
