I have but little patience with the theory of some scientific men that there is necessarily an inequality of the sexes because of the greater avoirdupois quantity of the male brain. Mind cannot be weighed with a butcher’s scales, no more than strength can be computed according to the amount of muscle. What does it prove if a difference exists between the brains of the two sexes of no less than 220 cubic centimeters per individual, more than to say that because two men live in different sized houses, the one living in the larger house should be consequently the greater man, when everybody knows that a large minded man may live in a hut, and a fool be in a palace. Therefore it seems that size and weight is no indication of quality. Should not fineness of texture and quality give value to brains and to everything else? But, say the scientists, no difference can be seen in the composition of the male and female brain. Nor can any difference of texture be seen in the brains of an educated man and a fool. Take two rays of light of the same degree of brightness, no difference in appearance is observed, yet the one ray is full of heat, and the other of cold. Analysis by the spectrum shows a difference. My skeptical common sense suggests that our scientists have not found the right kind of a spectrum for brain analysis. Suppose we leave out the material brain altogether and consider the mind alone as we would lose sight of the house and think of the man separate from it. Is not the great mental difference between the sexes, as between individuals of the same sex, due to the training and development of that immaterial, subtle something, that no eye can see, or scale can weigh, or mortal comprehend, the mind itself? Why make the soul a clod of matter? Why try to estimate mind only by the weight or shape or texture of the brain matter it lives in and uses, any more than we should judge of the weight or worth of a man by the size or value of the house he occupies? It is said that a fool can ask questions that a philosopher cannot answer, so I have ventured. Yet with all due respect to the philosophers I cannot always accept their dogmatic assertions without protest or questions. For instance, a great brain anatomist asserts, “Woman is a constantly growing child and in the brain, as in so many other parts of her body, she conforms to her childish type.” Suppose I assert “Man is a constantly growing child, and in the brain as in so many parts of his body, he conforms to his childish type.” What value has one assertion over the other? CHAPTER XXV.