Inspiration for Polymath, and Polly herself came from my usual curiosity about people. How do people think? Why do they make the decisions that they do? How do some end up leading bold and publicly acclaimed lives, while others with seemingly similar traits and life journey do not.
Biographies and non-fiction books are a regular part of my balanced reading nutrition. Filing away my latest read about a genius, Leonardo DaVinci, it occurred to me that my shelf was full of wonderful stories about men who had changed the world. Oddly, none of the books about women leaders or business executives, touted their genius.
I started to take note about the language used around me where men we described as inspiring, brilliant, and at times “a genius”. Women were described as smart, ambitious and offering an important voice. As I stepped back to look at my book shelf, the lives of men were captured in revelry and awe. The lives of the woman mostly spoke about their family lives; to whom they were married, how they balanced work and family.
Lists of geniuses from magazines and websites were almost exclusively men. Women listed on the pages included Elizabeth 1, who is most movie and written accounts in popular media is not discussed for her ability to speak multiple languages nor as being one of the most sophisticated war strategists known, for these you need to dig deeper into thesis papers. Rather, it was her love of Dudley, her decision to never marry, her childlessness and her jealous hatred of her cousin Mary Queen of Scots that is given the attention. Madame Curie, who is the most cited woman genius, never has her genius separated from the collaboration with her husband, and the very public shunning when as a widow she took on a new love.
Is Steve Jobs really a genius? Time magazine list him as such. Was he really just the outspoken person in a broad collaboration; the one who knew how to give a good marketing presentation? Reports of Einstein hint that his most productive work was when he was married to Mileva Einstein, and it was through that collaboration that breakthrough work was done. His eccentric persona made good for stories and celebrity sightings. While biographies report him as disappearing for days at a time, his wife left to care for the children alone. Had she had the support of Monsieur Curie in a true partnership at work and at home, perhaps she too would have made the list. And what of DaVinci? Reported to be non-conventional in his clothing and speech survived only by the kindness of sponsors. People who paid for his services at their parties and events to be a novelty, an entertainer with his radical ideas and unusual flare. Free of the need to worry about money, he could entertain any whim he needed.
I began to wonder what societal constructs allow this distinguished term to be assigned mostly to men. If a woman was cold, ranted and disparaged staff publicly despite her creativity, would we tolerate that? Disappearing for days, having extra-marital affairs and leaving her spouse to care for the children alone would sully a woman’s reputation such that any distinguished committee selecting the genius list would not condone such behavior by including her. Finally, a kept woman paid to entertain would certainly be called by a different name, and much less celebrated.
Surly, half the population should make up half the list by natural distribution norms. Perhaps, how we define genius needs to be changed. Is genius really the ability to see an old problem in a new way; carve a different way to get to a new place; or strike a balance to one’s self, one’s family, one’s work and one’s community all at the same time such that each is maximized in a harmonious way? It is this latter definition upon which Polly’s story was built. May this book give us a moment of pause to re-think and decide upon how we define genius, and give credit to all forms of it.