Why is being a 'genius' still so gendered?

As of 2015, 90% of Americans surveyed said that geniuses tend to be male. A 2017 study published in the journal Nature reported that girls as young as 6 are more likely to associate “brilliance” with males rather than females. Men are still more likely than women to be considered and/or hired for leadership positions, even when their female counterparts have resumes similar to theirs. In science, a field that prides itself on impartiality, women have been asked to add male colleagues to their research teams. Even the media coverage of incredibly accomplished women still often focuses on their roles within their families and what clothes they wear.

This constant denial of women’s intelligence makes sense given how constantly the media celebrates men as geniuses while overlooking women who have done equally impressive work — or even the same work. In 2019, when Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo were announced as the winners of the Nobel Prize in economics, some media outlets reported the winners as “Abhijit Banerjee and his wife.”

The phenomenon of gendering “genius,” however, does not solely refer to intelligence, but also excellence in other areas, such as achievements in fields including arts, culture, and politics. Take Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon, a legendary choreographer and dancer, respectively, who were active from the 1950s to 1980s (and central characters of the recent FX series Fosse/Verdon). Fosse was often celebrated as “tortured genius” while Verdon had to clamber to get work worthy of her, even though Fosse was only able to reach his potential because Verdon, who had won a Tony, supported him and assisted him in his work.

When confronted with brilliant women, our culture often automatically imbues them with negative connotations. Men that are at the top of their fields can display deplorable behavior — like decades of excused sexual misconduct, for example. But if a brilliant woman exhibits any behavior that is less than perfect, such as not being amiable enough, her genius status does not matter; she might even be labeled a “nasty woman.” Take the original nasty woman herself — Hillary Clinton — and her husband, former President Bill Clinton. In the 1990s, the media persistently attributed Bill Clinton’s infamous affair with Monica Lewinsky to Hillary Clinton being a bad wife. Throughout her political career, Hillary has gotten a lot more flak than either her husband or most male politicians who have committed far worse missteps.

In order to combat this automatic assumption, brilliant women need to go out of their way to be thought of as palatable. Many experts agree self-confidence is an important element of success. Still, women have to walk a tricky line of being resolute and self-assured without being considered duplicitous, scheming, or selfish. For instance, research shows that American students react negatively when female professors do not grant them special favors, and they ask more of female professors than they do male professors. Then, they are more irritated, disappointed, and more persistent if a female professor denies their request, as opposed to when a male professor does. The implications of this are disheartening: To be considered a worthy leader, and to survive in a “man’s” world, women have to prove they’re both nurturing and smart, without being threatening.

Women also often have to navigate men’s social lives for them, but often without reaping equal rewards for the emotional labor they put in. In addition to their domestic lives, women are often expected to do emotional work in professional settings. The researchers William Masters and Virginia Johnson are known for their breakthrough work on human sexual response. Even though both of them worked on the project, Johnson was responsible for talking to their participants, nurses, and other volunteers, in addition to collecting data and writing their reports. It can be argued that her social skills might be the primary reason for the team’s successful data collection and analysis. Johnson’s intellectual contribution to the project was at par with Masters’, but she could not even earn a doctorate and was largely defined by her duties stereotypical to “womanhood.”

Female geniuses might be as adventurous, imaginative, and excited about the world as their male counterparts, but they still don’t have the avenues to explore their potential adequately. We’re in much the same position as Virginia Woolf’s fictional Judith Shakespeare. Even if she does go against the tide and takes up her interests, she might be overlooked or undermined because of her gender. The answer, it seems, is what Woolf argues — for women to be given money and a room of her own. That, and a major shift in our society’s embedded gendered expectations and unfair treatment of women.