Thus Spake Zuska

Mollishka writes to ask plaintively:

“Feminist theory of science”?! Other than a nice set of buzzwords, what does that even mean??

So I thought, why not go ahead and launch the Basic Concepts idea now?

On the super-secret Scienceblogs back channel, we have been discussing the idea of each doing a series of “Basic Concepts” posts on our blogs; some of my SciBlings are already doing them. You know, choose a few fundamental concepts or terms in your field, write a post describing/defining/delineating their use, label it Basic Concepts, and voila! A series is born. We thought that in addition to things that we felt were basic concepts we’d want anyone to know about our field, we might encourage readers to make suggestions for things they wanted defined or felt should be included in the Basic Concepts category.

I was planning to start out with something more basic than Feminist Theory of Science. But since Mollishka asked – even if the asking was a bit snarky – I’ve decided to elevate my answer from the comments section to a Basic Concepts post.

Please note I’ve also decided that, if someone else has already done a great job at defining a term, I’m going to feel quite free to borrow their definition (with attribution, of course).

Feminist theory of science. Well, what makes this so confusing to the novice, I think, is the following. We are used to thinking of science as the tool we use to ask questions with. Science is the method by which we investigate the world and figure things out. We are not accustomed to thinking of science as something we ask questions about. Unless we are philosophers of science, of course. But that seems easier to take – we think of philosophers of science as explaining back to us how science functions, how it achieves its mighty works.

What does feminism have to do with all that? Aren’t feminists those hairy-armpit man-hating humorless dykes? What could they possibly have to do with science? Science is objective and rational and there is nothing feminism has to say about it. Beyond, of course, the noble and worthy goal of working to get more women in science. But that has nothing to do with science itself, right?

Wrong.

Feminist theories of science seek to explain how the exclusion of certain groups from science – women, other underrepresented groups – has affected the practices and outcomes of science. How might the entry of these excluded groups into science affect scientific practices, goals, outcomes? At this point, skeptics commonly sneer, “Well, would a feminist airplane still fly?” This indicates the level at which they totally refuse to engage with what feminists are actually saying and doing with regard to their inquiries about science. Feminist airplanes would still fly. But feminist engineers, for example, might choose not to build Stealth bombers.

Feminist scientists might ask different questions. A really wonderful description of this approach to thinking about science is given in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science studies the ways in which gender does and ought to influence our conceptions of knowledge, the knowing subject, and practices of inquiry and justification. It identifies ways in which dominant conceptions and practices of knowledge attribution, acquisition, and justification systematically disadvantage women and other subordinated groups, and strives to reform these conceptions and practices so that they serve the interests of these groups. Various practitioners of feminist epistemology and philosophy of science argue that dominant knowledge practices disadvantage women by (1) excluding them from inquiry, (2) denying them epistemic authority, (3) denigrating their “feminine” cognitive styles and modes of knowledge, (4) producing theories of women that represent them as inferior, deviant, or significant only in the ways they serve male interests, (5) producing theories of social phenomena that render women’s activities and interests, or gendered power relations, invisible, and (6) producing knowledge (science and technology) that is not useful for people in subordinate positions, or that reinforces gender and other social hierarchies. Feminist epistemologists trace these failures to flawed conceptions of knowledge, knowers, objectivity, and scientific methodology. They offer diverse accounts of how to overcome these failures. They also aim to (1) explain why the entry of women and feminist scholars into different academic disciplines, especially in biology and the social sciences, has generated new questions, theories, and methods, (2) show how gender has played a causal role in these transformations, and (3) defend these changes as cognitive, not just social, advances.

The central concept of feminist epistemology is that of a situated knower, and hence of situated knowledge: knowledge that reflects the particular perspectives of the subject. Feminist philosophers are interested in how gender situates knowing subjects. They have articulated three main approaches to this question: feminist standpoint theory, feminist postmodernism, and feminist empiricism. Different conceptions of how gender situates knowers also inform feminist approaches to the central problems of the field: grounding feminist criticisms of science and feminist science, defining the proper roles of social and political values in inquiry, evaluating ideals of objectivity and rationality, and reforming structures of epistemic authority.

You can read more at the Stanford site about Situated Knowers, Feminist Standpoint Theory, Feminist Postmodernism, Feminist Empiricism, Feminist Science Criticism and Feminist Science, Feminist Defenses of Value-Laden Inquiry, Feminist Critques and Conceptions of Objectivity, and Trends in Feminist Epistemology. There is a bibliography and links to other resources. Another extensive bibliography can be found here, along with links for various well-known feminist theorists of science.

Let’s consider some of those points in the excerpt above:

(1) excluding them from inquiry Well, I think this is quite clear. We haven’t reached anything like parity in the sciences and engineering, certainly not at the faculty level or in industry. Some undergraduate programs (biology, mathematics) have done so. But for the past millenium, women have been systematically excluded from scientific inquiry – quite formally and explicitly until only very recently.

(2) denying them epistemic authority Here I need only mention an example like Female Science Professor’s interaction – or should I say, non-interaction – with the Distinguished Schmuck the other day. He not only denied her epistemic authority, he denied her entire existence as a scientist. When women have to publish more to be considered barely as good as men; when their words are ignored in meetings; when they are not chosen to be on panels or invited to be speakers at meetings; when they are not nominated for prizes, this is denial of their epistemic authority. It comes in so many packages, big and small.

(3) denigrating their “feminine” cognitive styles and modes of knowledge For example, when I wrote my thesis, one of my committee members belittled it for being “too right-brain”. The evidence? I had a paragraph in the introduction with several long sentences. He insisted that I must develop a proper “scientific” writing style or I would never make it as a scientist. Meh.

(4) producing theories of women that represent them as inferior, deviant, or significant only in the ways they serve male interests I have two words for you: Lawrence Summers.

(5) producing theories of social phenomena that render women’s activities and interests, or gendered power relations, invisible Gender issues in science? What gender issues? Just try to talk to your male peers about harassment and discrimination; they don’t “see” it, so it doesn’t exist. Everytime we discuss something on this blog, it’s not long before some male pipes up and says, “maybe it isn’t really about gender; maybe it’s just…” There’s always some guy ready to rush into the breach with his Theory of Why It Is Never About Gender.

and

(6) producing knowledge (science and technology) that is not useful for people in subordinate positions, or that reinforces gender and other social hierarchies. This would be, in my opinion, almost anybody who’s doing evolutionary psychology and almost anybody who’s doing sex differences research. The sex differences research just always seems to come out with the men somehow being “better” on whatever the difference is. The evolutionary psychology stuff – well, it just seems like so many “just so” stories to me, and amazingly, the “just so” stories are all about Mighty Man the Hunter and his incredible need to spread his seed all over the place, which means modern man just can’t help himself from being a sexist asshole; it’s his evolutionary heritage. If I were I man, I’d be insulted by these stories but they seem to lap it up and love it.

Feminist theory gives us a way to talk about all these kinds of things more systematically than just complaining; it gives us a way to link them and make sense of them in a context, rather than being bothered by them as a never-ending stream of isolated events. It goes a lot deeper than the examples I have given above but I think those are good entry points for seeing where and why feminist theory begins the discussion about science.

Here are the things I think about: Science is exclusionary. Why? How does this operate – systematically, structually, socially? Some science is bad – oppressive. How and why does this science get done? How could we change things? Some science that should be done isn’t done. How could we change that? Would it make any difference if there were 50% women in all science fields? Or would they all just get socialized into science-as-the-way-it-is-now and nothing would change?

I don’t consider myself to be a feminist postmodernist, or a feminist empiricist, or a feminist standpoint theorist. I more consider myself to be a Longino-est, in that of all feminist theorists, the work of Helen Longino is what I have found most meaningful and useful. Oh hell, I think she’s got it right. Science As Social Knowledge is just brilliant.

Longino argues that science is not value-free; on the contrary, the inclusion of values is necessary to make science objective. What is needed is a diverse set of values applied to the interpretation of data and the object of inquiry, to assure objectivity. She argues her case very convincingly, and in the end one can only conclude that anything which increases the diversity of values and perspectives brought to bear on scientific problems will serve to strengthen scientific objectivity.

Which means: science isn’t as healthy as it could be if it’s mainly practiced only by white males. So I conclude: science would be different if it were practiced by a more diverse group of individuals. The nature of that difference is something I’m less certain of.

Comments

#1 quitter
January 31, 2007

But feminist engineers, for example, might choose not to build Stealth bombers.

Only part I disagree with. Unless we want to fall into the whole “no true Scotsman” thing. Women aren’t inherently less likely to be able to distance their jobs from the moral consequences. They’re just as good at lying to themselves about things as men are.
#2 tig
January 31, 2007

I might be tempted to add another item between 4 and 6: disciplines (including the sciences) treating one group (say, men) as normative, and others (say, women) as a special case. An example might be talking data from one group (say, white, middle-class, American men), and extrapolating and universalizing what may, under closer examination, be a very special case.
#3 Greco
January 31, 2007

The sex differences research just always seems to come out with the men somehow being “better” on whatever the difference is.

What I have seen of the “science” of sex differences are assertions that men are inherently and inescapably immature, speech-impaired, borderline-autistic, simple-minded dependent brutes. I don’t know how that counts as “better”.
#4 Brian
January 31, 2007

What kind of science isn’t being done that should be done? How would a feminist approach to science change the outcomes/practices of science aside from applying a more gender-neutral environment? (well, not gender-”neutral,” per se, but less biased toward males).
#5 Ithika
January 31, 2007

How is this specific to science? What differentiates this from “feminist theory” full stop? And as for stealth bombers, would that not be politicians and the military?
#6 Zuska
January 31, 2007

Quitter, notice I did not say women might not choose to work on Stealth bombers, I said feminists, who by the way could be women or men. I agree with you that women do not have some inherent quality that makes them more moral than men – in fact, stating that women are inherently more moral than men was done in the 1800s to argue that therefore women ought to stay home and raise the children; they were responsible for the moral cultivation of the young ones. So, no, I’m not talking about an inherent quality. I am talking about a conscious, chosen approach to work that says “these are my values, these are my morals, for these particular reasons; since I hold these values, I choose not to work on certain kinds of things and to give my labor instead to other kinds of projects.”

Brian: what kind of science isn’t being done that should be done? Just consider the field of primate research, for one, which is perhaps the most famous example. When all primate researchers were male, they saw only alpha males in primate groups, and dominant male behavior. When females began to do observational work on primate groups, all kinds of behavior that had gone completely unnoticed suddenly began to be observed and reported, and the field of primate research was completely changed. All because a different perspective had been brought to bear on the same data sets.
#7 Carrie
January 31, 2007

Brian, you imply that a gender-neutral environment isn’t important. How would a feminist approach to science change the outcomes/practices of science aside from applying a more gender-neutral environment?. But it IS important. Most research into exercise physiology and hydration has been done on male athletes. It wasn’t until some athletes (most women) started DYING from overhydration that the effects of hydration during strenuous exercise on WOMEN was evaluated. Is this important science? I like to think so, since I’m one of those women trying to determine how to properly eat & drink during my long runs on really hot and humid days!
#8 Brian
January 31, 2007

I’m not implying that a gender-neutral environment is not important. But I think that a better approach than feminist-specific would be egalitarian. Of course there is a lot of research that is not being done because the field is dominated by white males, with those implicit biases. But I think that the Western bias in research by far overshadows the gender bias. Really critical diseases (like malaria) are being by and large ignored because they are not on Westerners’ radar.

I think that gender-neutrality is critically important, but not because it will affect how science is done. I think that we should be striving for an environment, instead, where the particular biases of the researcher play as minimal a role as possible in how science is done.
#9 Zuska
February 1, 2007

Thank you, Brian. I was getting bored with the spate of “there are no gender issues at all” stuff as the typical knee-jerk response to anything I posted. It’s refreshing to see the “yes there are gender issues but they aren’t as important as (fill in the blank), which I am concerned about, which shows that I have a much more global vision than you parochial feminists.” It’s a variant of the “yes, there are gender issues, but you can’t do anything about them until you first solve racial issues/class issues/religious strife etc. etc.”

Never, ever, ever is there a dearth of reasons why we should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
#10 Matt
February 1, 2007

Some thoughts on the list:
1. The first two topics seem to be inextricably linked. For if an individual is deemed inferior by a self reinforcing community, any counter example will more often then not be ignored. So if an individual who has been inculcated in the idea of women’s inferiority in science, it will go on being true for that person except for exceedingly rare cases. This does not mean that women are inferior in this regard, but rather shows the effect of a situation where women are denied opportunities a priori.
2. This “scientific writing style” is remeniscent of the early 20th century British complaint that the writing of German scientists like Neils Bohr is long and impenetrable. With the added bonus of gender bias (while snearing at sentance structure), one can say this individual is a small minded fool.
3. Summers sort of speaks for himself?
4. Gender and the social power structure are important subjects for the field of sociology, psychology and politics. And just like any other human endeavor, one can turn that sociological analysis onto scientific investigators to understand the community norms on which decisions are made.

I will submit to the label of the guy with the “Theory of Why It Is Never About Gender,” but I do not believe that is the case.

As a male physics student, I must say that the term “feminist philosophy of science” conjures up postmodernist intellectual fads in my head. So I am at first blush skeptical. I would be interested in seeing some responses to these various subjects we here have highlighted.
#11 Brian
February 1, 2007

Ok, seriously, I love your stuff, Zuska, but you get a little defensive at times. My point was that introducing women into science should not be based on the diversity of viewpoints that they bring to the table, as it were. Women should be in science because otherwise we’re missing a fully capable 50% of the population.

Because we are always going to be missing most, if not all of the spectrum of global viewpoints in science. Bringing in more Western women to increase the viewpoint diversity is going to do very little to change the underlying bias of Western science. Which is why my original question came up – how is a (Western) feminist outlook on science really going to change how science is done?

Instead, we should be trying to address the underlying scientific bias (which is complimentary to, but not the same thing as addressing the workplace gender bias). When you say something like “feminist scientists won’t build stealth bombers” or “women scientists bring a unique perspective to primatology,” you’re falling into the same trap that you chastized Razib about a few months back. Address the gender gap because it is inherently unfair and counterproductive. Don’t address it because science “needs” the diversity that social constructs of gender provide. Otherwise, you’re validating the ability of white male Western scientists to ignore everything but prostate cancer and impotence as legitimate fields of study.
#12 llewelly
February 1, 2007

When you say something like “feminist scientists won’t build stealth bombers” or “women scientists bring a unique perspective to primatology,” you’re falling into the same trap that you chastized Razib about a few months back.

First, be careful about quotes – what Zuska actually said was: ‘But feminist engineers, for example, might choose not to build Stealth bombers.’ (emphasis mine).
Second, your two examples are not similar – the first is a suggestion about feminists (not necessarily women), the second is an observation about women scientists.
Neither is the kind of unthinking, unqualified assumption Razib made a few months back.
#13 Thony C.
February 1, 2007

One would have to be blind, ignorant and deaf (i.e. a man) not to recognise that,in everyday life, in general women find different subjects and themes significant and worthy of note than men do. This is almost certainly also the case in all areas of science and technology. I for one find it highly significant that most of the really interesting work being done in my field, history of the mathematical sciences in the early modern period, is today being done by women and in areas that have been traditionally ignored by male researchers.

P.S. I am a man!
#14 catswym
February 1, 2007

um, brian, why is “feminist-specific” not egalitarian?
#15 jeffk
February 1, 2007

I’ve found that some feminisms are egalitarian and some are frustratingly not. I call myself one if we mean the egalitarian type.
#16 Carrie
February 1, 2007

Brian, I just don’t ‘get’ your arguement. You state: “Don’t address it because science “needs” the diversity that social constructs of gender provide. Otherwise, you’re validating the ability of white male Western scientists to ignore everything but prostate cancer and impotence as legitimate fields of study.“.

I say, if white male Western scientist want to study prostate cancer, go for it. However, ‘good science’ DOES need gender diversity. Because I, for one, am not trying to stop US and European scientists from studying what is relevant to them. However I do strongly believe that that work needs to be counterbalances ON EQUAL FOOTING with research that is relevant and interesting to women. (And in your arguement, Asian and Southern Hemisphere scientists).

I believe that we cannot have unbiased research. I think it’s a pipe dream. But I DO think that if we have a diversity of ideas on the table, we are closer to getting a full picture of whats going on. Hence the need for equality in research and respect (and the feminist study of science too).
#17 Matt
February 1, 2007

The number of individuals in a particular discipline is not a zero sum game, so an increase in the percentage of the total S&T professionals that are women does not mean a decrease in the total number of men in S&T fields. Encouraging more women to enter the technical disciplines is a good thing, just because of the fact that there will be more talented individuals doing work in that field. This is irrespective of discipline.

Beyond the base argument of “diversity is a good thing in and of itself,” there are particular disciplines where women bring very important perspectives due to their personal experience. This is most prominent in biological, psych, and sociological studies, as one can note from the comments above.
#18 Matt
February 1, 2007

Feminist theory of Science from what I have read and studied is a condemnation of the current methodology of scientific investigation. Authors claim that the reductionist and deconstructive tendencies in science are inherently masculine, and that a new “feminine science” will right those wrongs. This is absolutely absurd.

Women, as I have said above, have much to contribute on both basic and specific levels. What these feminist authors attempt to do is to conflate the problematic gender power structure as having infested the scientific methodology to its logical core. I don’t mean that researchers fail to live up to the ideal, but that the ideal itself is flawed.

Let us speak of stamping out gender prejudice, provide adequate health care for pregnant women, and realize the crappy scientific theories for what they are. Crappy scientific theories. Clamouring for a new feminist science is just wasting our time, and we have experiments to run.
#19 Brian
February 2, 2007

Ok, apparently I wandered into a thicket here, but the thrust of my argument was that delineating certain types of research to certain types of people is dangerous. We have to get away from the mindset that it is only research topics that are immediately relevant to the researcher that are interesting. My experience with biological research has run the gamut from evolutionary to organellar to biomedical. And it was all *very* interesting. Really, one of the greatest thrills of my life has been that short period of time when I’m the only person who knows the answer to a fundamental biological question.

And that’s why most people get into science – solving problems and answering questions. To say that there are questions that are only interesting to women, or men, or Americans, or South Africans, I think defeats the point of science. If we teach scientists that they don’t have to look immediately near home, as it were, to find an interesting question to answer, then I think that we will find that we’ll get a more equitable distribution of the benefits of science.

If, however, we pigeonhole “women’s science” to women researchers, or “Sub-Saharan science” to Sub-Saharan researchers, then we will have to wait for equitable access to the workplace for equitable access to benefits from research. By all means let us free up the scientific workplace – for every underrepresented group. We need these people. But let’s also work, in tandem, for a situation in which no researcher feels that only questions that are relevant to *them* deserve to be answered.
#20 Axe
February 3, 2007

Sad . Only the troll will represent the troll , huh .

No seriously, feminist scientists would not have built the stealth plane . Wowie . On further elaboration

“I am talking about a conscious, chosen approach to work that says “these are my values, these are my morals, for these particular reasons; since I hold these values, I choose not to work on certain kinds of things and to give my labor instead to other kinds of projects.”"

So you say that feminists dont have an inherent sense of “better” morality, but they have a cultivated attitude of … hmmm .. sticking to their moral values .

Wowza .
Seriously – briallant. A very not-so-subtle-use of the differentiation between action and intent.

Ok, sorry – i got carried away . But you have to admit, that explanation of yours, further muddies water up. You are equating the term “feminist” with a mindset with which it is generally not associated.I mean feminists are traditionaly held to be fire breathing dragons who guard treasures, wait – was that Smaug ? Anyways i would be interested in ur def of a feminist – becoz ur attributing certain qualities i didnt know automatically came along with being a feminist. I wonder how being a feminist gives you a diferent viewpoint, and zen like focus. I can see how being a female would grant a different view and understanding , but just – and by just i dont mean just just – being a feminist doesnt necessarily mean a straight line between intent and action.

> End Of ramble – Apologies if any percieved insult -
#21 Ronald
February 3, 2007

4) producing theories of women that represent them as inferior, deviant, or significant only in the ways they serve male interests I have two words for you: Lawrence Summers.

This demonstrates a problematic bias in feminist/gender/race/whatever based “science”: You can only say “good” things, if you say something “bad” you are ostracized (without (scientific) argumentation).
If gender/feminist/whatever science wants respect it may or may not deserve, it needs to grow up and address this issue.
#22 Nicole
February 3, 2007

No Ronald, if you say something stupid you are figuratively flagellated. If you read the actual transcript from the Summers speech, you will find it is worse than the media portrayed it. Mr. Larry did not suggest 3 scenarios, he said in his opinion the lack of women in science is due to, in order of importance, (paraphrased) “women don’t want to work as hard as men”, “women lack the aptitude”, and “women are discriminated against. That’s what he said. You can find it by googling “larry summers transcript”.
#23 mollishka
February 3, 2007

Well. Apparently I didn’t get the memo about this post, or I would have spoken up earlier.

Brian has already said much of what I think on the topic, so I’ll keep this short, and since it wasn’t the original topic, I’ll refrain from actively discussing “discrimmination” of women in science.

First of all, a “feminist theory of science” sounds like it is actually a theory of science, which is odd because science is inherently unaware of gender: the universe simply works however it is that it works, independent of how we may perceive or describe it. But, yes, once you get the observers into the discussion, science becomes this big social construct replete with social interactions, and since people typically have gender …

But I’ll quit bashing the bag of buzzwords, now that the phrase has been defined. What bothers me most about the definition/quoted text is the following:

(2) show how gender has played a causal role in these transformations, and (3) defend these changes as cognitive, not just social, advances.

What if gender hasn’t played a causal role in “these” transformations? (I put “these” in quotes, because it’s obvious that the transformations can be defined so as to make gender the obvious source, e.g., the dehydration of female atheletes discussed above.) What if the changes aren’t cognitive advances? What if the only real benefit of having “more women in science” is related to the fact that it is inherently wrong to tell someone they can’t/shouldn’t be a scientist because they are a specific gender?

And, by the way, no: more women in science does in fact imply fewer men. There is a limited amount of money spent on science and technology, and trying to double the number of people in a field requires doubling the amount of money that field gets–which just isn’t going to happen.

And “snarky” is such a lovely word.
#24 Lab Lemming
February 5, 2007

If feminist engineers don’t take stealth bomber jobs, then are they truly equal? What if those are the best paying jobs, or the jobs with the best maternity leave? Also, might I remind you that “fighter pilot” was one of the first combat roles in the US armed forces that women managed to break into?

As for the crusty old man factor, I think that this is one of the things that drives all people, men and women alike, away from science. As a result, science is now so uncool that the only people majoring in hard sciences in Australia are dropouts who couldn’t make the grade for fashion and physical education.
For my take on this, see http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2007/01/cant-hack-fashion-try-chemistry.html
#25 Matt
February 5, 2007

Mollishka, are we speaking in absolute numbers or what? An increase in the percentage women in the science population does not imply removing men from the system. All that is necessary is for the population of women in science to grow more rapidly then men. This rate of increase would have likely be a good order of magnitude higher then the stabilization rate, to achieve any perceivable progress in a decades time.

So how do we do this? By making the environment in science studies more enticing and comfortable for women, as well as some affirmative action. Will a number of men not get spots that they might have under the current conditions, Yes. But what I was addressing was rates of increase in percentage points by a particular segment of the population.
#26 Drekab
February 5, 2007

I think we can all agree that evolutionary psychologists are full of it, but
“…and almost anybody who’s doing sex differences research. The sex differences research just always seems to come out with the men somehow being “better” on whatever the difference is.”
That’s a little off base I think, sure the conclusions of some researchers might be bull, but there are differences between men and women and it is an important point of research, consider your example of the hydration differences between male and female atheletes.
I also disagree with the stealth bomber bit, but that was clearly a humorous aside and it seems unfair to over analyze it. But I did love your comment about primate research, I hadn’t considered that before and its an interesting viewpoint.
#27 Drekab
February 5, 2007

doh,
okay, not your example of hydration differences but Carrie’s… sorry, this is why I’m torn about whether or not I should read other comments before I post
#28 studentmedic
February 6, 2007

I think it is dangerous and sloppy to say that feminist scientists wouldn’t have built a stealth bomber. Women can be just as disgusting, violent and daft as men…

I think that the feminist theory of science is really just an extension of feminism – it doesn’t really ‘deserve’ to be a specific discipline because I don’t think it is adding anything major that hasn’t already been said.

I am completely for positive discrimination in science, I think it is gross that women are so unrepresented – but I don’t agree that science itself would be fundamentally different if women had a more active role (the fact that discrimination is fundamentally opposed to the idea of rational science comes to mind). I don’t care if some talented male scientists loose out here, the other choice is that some talented female scientists loose out (unless someone can show me proof that men are somehow more gifted at science (!), the fact that women are underrepresented shows that we are actually preventing some of the best people from pursuing careers).

The biggest difference might be that a little bit more research would be done into areas directly affecting women (although there is no lack of research into ‘female cancers’)… The fundamental ideology would remain the same.

That’s my 2 cents anyway.
#29 Kristin
February 7, 2007

Discrimination may be fundamentally opposed to the idea of rational science—but that doesn’t mean that the culture of rational science is opposed to discrimination. In fact, by disallowing political discussion, the founding tenets of Britain’s Royal Society very much discriminated in favor of the class in power in 1660.

http://www.shessuchageek.com/2007/02/03/a-peoples-history-of-science/
#30 Zuska
February 7, 2007

Studentmedic…I think this has been said before above, but “feminists” and “women” are NOT the same thing. Women, as a group, on average, are capable of just as much stupid and/or malignant behavior as men (albeit such behavior may take different forms). Feminists however, represent a different category than women in general. Feminists, I argue, might not choose to work on a Stealth bomber because to do so would clash with their consciously chosen value system.

Please note also the language that I used regarding choice: feminists might not choose to work on a Stealth bomber. This does not imply in any way that there is something inherent in feminists, something in their biological makeup, that renders them inherently morally superior to men, or to all other groups of human beings. All I am saying is that, upon conscious reflection, a person (male or female) who ascribes to a feminist worldview, may come to the conclusion that working on Stealth bombers is something that is in direct conflict with that feminist worldview, and so would choose to lend their talents to other sorts of work that does not clash with their worldview.

People make these kinds of choices all the time. Deeply religious women don’t often choose to work in strip clubs, even if they like to perform in public. Atheists don’t often choose to work in Christian bookstores, no matter how much they love books. It’s not a huge leap to imagine that a feminist might not choose to work on a Stealth bomber.
#31 Helen
February 8, 2007

So what’s with the outbreak of raging illiteracy on this thread?
#32 James Steinberg
March 7, 2007

Could you please go into a little more depth explaining the distinctions between the empiricists, postmodernists, and standpoint-ists as they pertain to the feminist theory of science? That was the first question that popped into my mind while reading your post, and judging by the comments, it seems I’m the only one that doesn’t know.
#33 Zuska
March 12, 2007

James, please note in the post I said:

You can read more at the Stanford site about Situated Knowers, Feminist Standpoint Theory, Feminist Postmodernism, Feminist Empiricism, Feminist Science Criticism and Feminist Science, Feminist Defenses of Value-Laden Inquiry, Feminist Critques and Conceptions of Objectivity, and Trends in Feminist Epistemology. There is a bibliography and links to other resources. Another extensive bibliography can be found here, along with links for various well-known feminist theorists of science.

Just follow the link in the post text and you will get plenty of information on the topics you ask about.
#34 Ilya
April 6, 2007

What if the feminist engineer were assured that the Stealth bomber would be used to hit Taliban positions?
#35 Vinchuco
April 4, 2008

Three things:
science has no gender.
science is subject to history.
both feminism and it�s causes must be erradicated for the good of society.
that�s all i have to say.
#36 Zuska
April 5, 2008

yeah, well, vinchuco, you’ve just come out as a moron on this blog.
#37 Vinchuco
April 6, 2008

you too have. thanks for the consideration.
#38 Zuska
April 7, 2008

Nice try, but it doesn’t work in reverse. Commenting on a blog that deals specifically and centrally with science and gender in the manner you did is exposing one’s self as a moron. Saying nyah, nyah, you too is hardly redeeming, or demonstrative of any ability to understand what this blog is about.

Or maybe you do understand, and it threatens you so much that you feel compelled to post moronic comments. Whatever.
#39 penguindreams
August 22, 2008

Very late days now, but I only now saw the link from Wilkins’ basics listing.

After reading through the full original post and all comments, I’m left with my original questions and maybe a few extra.

What is a feminist? In commentary, it was clarified that women may not be feminists, and men may be. But how I should recognize one never did get mentioned. This was further muddied by the example of feminists (male or female) might choose not to build stealth bombers. Or they may choose to do so. Ok. But then, does that mean that no non-feminist would refuse to build stealth bombers? If both feminists and non-feminists may choose to build, or not build, stealth bombers, what has been gained by dividing the world in the first place? (I’m a lumper rather than a splitter in classifying things — I like to see some strong reason that the extra class actually adds to our understanding.) The original is an old question of mine, going back to the 80s, when I started hearing from people who said that they were feminists, that men could not be feminists, nor be good parents, and especially not good parents to their daughters. My daughter (now pursuing a degree in physics) and I disagree with them. Perhaps, indeed, that means that neither of us are feminists. If so, then I’m not sorry to not be one, and wonder why anyone would want to be. Trashing half the population, regardless of which half, seems a bad idea.

‘Feminist science’ has all the problems with what is a feminist, and then some. The first thing that comes to my mind in that formulation are things like computer science, political science, environmental science, social science — studies of the things in the prefix. But feminist science is not about studying feminists, near as I can make out from the original encyclopedia quote. Next to mind would be something like American Science, European Science, Norwegian Science — science as done by the named group as distinct from people not in the named group. Given the mobility of scientists these days, it strikes me as questionable that such a distinction is meaningful. But this, too doesn’t seem to be what is meant anyhow.

‘Feminist Philosophy of Science’ is a rather different beast entirely, to my ear. I can see, there, how philosophy of science could be done differently by feminists vs. marxists vs. capitalists vs. … But it seemed that there’s been an assumption that everyone knows that Feminist Science == Feminist Philosophy of Science, and failure to do so means they’re not listening. Strike me more as poor communication.

But the encyclopedia continues:

It identifies ways in which dominant conceptions and practices of knowledge attribution, acquisition, and justification systematically disadvantage women and other subordinated groups, and strives to reform these conceptions and practices so that they serve the interests of these groups.

Now this is putting on blinders, which bothers me. It is presuming that women (and others, but others never includes white men) are always and only disadvantaged. Or at least that the area will only study such cases. There’s certainly plenty to study. As I came through the Math/Physical Science/Engineering (all three) realm in school, and have continued in physical science, I have witnessed (often not quietly) many examples for such study. But. There are also areas in which women have become, at the very least among students and recent graduates, the overwhelming majority. Sociology and social work, for instance. Feminist science (or feminist philosophy of science) seems to be telling me that it simply will not examine even the possibility that a field with an overwhelming majority of women (or others) would act in ways that disadvantage men (or different ‘others’). If so, it strikes me more as a political advocacy program than an effort to understand the world around us (science). Recognizing that we can never be perfectly objective does not mean that we should voluntarily choose blinders.

It would also be a great help if someone would come up with a real example of feminist science that was from math/physical science/
engineering. More specifically, my field — physical oceanography. For example, what would a ‘feminist scientist’ have done differently about the Gulf Stream than Henry Stommel and Walter Munk did? (In coming up with explanations for why it existed.) Or would they have ignored explaining it in favor of something else? (What?, Why? Why would this other thing/way have been good?) Or were they both doing feminist science? How can I tell?
#40 D. C. Sessions
January 4, 2009

A bit of a labeling problem, it seems. None of the topics under discussion are actually “epistemology” or “philosophy” of science, but rather sociology of science.

I’ll preempt the inevitable reply by asserting that categorizing them as “sociology” does not in any way belittle them. Then again, since my daughter’s research is in gender sociology, I would think so, wouldn’t I?