kylie,
i'm sorry for things i've said. i think we agree on a lot, we were
probably just in the wrong place at the wrong time. i apologize for my
condescending remarks as they were simply emotional, not logical or
applicable. as for women and science (if i have any typos, sorry, i took
the keys off of my kbd to clean it.), i totally agree with what you said,
that's exactly what i was referring to. for clarification, i wasn't saying
that the methodology behind this movement was wrong, i was using it to
validate a point i was trying to make. all in all, we agree i think.
another movement regarding science and feminism is centered (or maybe
associated would be a better word) around the 'exclusive' if you will,
nature of scientific research practices. In the early seventies, when
women were encountering situations with male researchers in academia, they
often joined with other women to cooperate on projects while the men worked
on their own - trying to earn all of the glory for themselves. (that was
just based on an anecdote i heard from one of my professors, these two
following quotes arent:
"Acker and Van Houten (1974) first demonstrated that gender was an important
variable in organization science, but "their work was buried under an avalanche
of masculinist organizational work of the period" (Mills and Tancred-Sheriff,
1992:6). A decade later, Hearn and Parkin (1983) reported that most of the
research on organizations neglected issues of gender and that the selection of
research topics was limited to male organizations or organizational situations.
Mills (1988) stated that the focus of organizational inquiry is androcentric but
went further to suggest that the entire epistemological basis of organizational
science itself is rooted in a masculine culture." *strong in 1996
"In her book Reflections on Gender and Science, Evelyn Fox Keller describes
her own work on the slime mold Dictyostelium. Her research, she says, was
thwarted by a search for a "dominant" or "male" cell responsible for the mold's
development, when it turned out that all the cells involved in the organism's
growth were equally worthy. That discovery was made possible, argues Keller,
because she ceased to seek an answer within the framework of aggressive and
passive behavior." (Goode 1995)
=========
that is what i was basing my claims on. many feminists do reject a
masculinist model of science. i think that's a good thing. i now realize
that my words made it sound like i was saying 'women dont like logic, etc.'
but i was simply repeating the above, or attempting to.
i have some more citations here too if you need them. a lot of the
research i have done was off of lexis/nexis, a full document delivery
database. if anyone wants any of the article(except those witchata state
debaters:-), i've got them on my computer. speaking of which, i just got a
book entitled 'feminism and science' for one of my courses - it looks to be
good.
i think we agree more than we think we do.
jason
-------
"Many [nuclear strategists] lost themselves in technical details, or
rationalized that weapons are necessary because it is human nature to be
cruel and warlike. Many use drugs."
- richard delgado, ucla law.
