In article <1993May4.115656.7208 at mcclb0.med.nyu.edu>,
madsen at mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (LISA M. MADSEN) writes:
> The basic concept that women and men do science differently is sexist
> dogma. In my experience the only sexual dimorphism in science is not
> at the level of intrinsic characteristics but is due to the scientific
> societies' view of the role of women.
My initial reaction to this was "The assertion that there is no
difference between the way women and men do science is dogma".
Presumably it's one of those points open to investigation, rather than
an open and shut case, either way?
I do agree that a lot of the assertions about differences between men
and women scientists are made by non-scientists and smack of sexist
dogma, in the "women are better than men anyway" vein. And
traditionally there have been a lot of arguments that women are
inherently worse at science, that it was a waste to educate them in
it, and that in fact it spoiled them for their real purpose in life
(bearing children and being a good wife). There's always a danger that
any discussion of differences will lead to the popular belief that
women are just worse at science, since men by default are doing it the
_right_ way. And any such assertion is going to be unfair to some men
and women, who are unusual for their gender. There's always a danger
that people interpret overall population trends as descriptive of all
On the other hand, it seems plausible that some differences might
exist. There's lots of research into different patterns of
communication by men and women, and communication is a part of
science. Girls and boys are treated differently from birth and bathed
in different hormones; I'm not claiming nature or nurture (it's bound
to be both, anyway). The assertion that we would be indistinguishable
seems stranger to me.
And there are ways in which science done by a sub-class of people in
isolation is bound to leave out some perspectives of people outside of
that class. If nothing else, women are not male, and in that alone may
provide a different slant on scientific culture. In animal behaviour
and psychology there are obvious ways in which human perspectives
creep into research, both in the hypotheses addressed and in the
conclusions which are passed through peer review. Kohler's assertion
that women just don't reach the highest level of moral reasoning, for
example, would probably have gotten more flack (!) if there were more
powerful women in the field at the time!
Chris Hitchcock clh at vax.ox.ac.uk
EGI, Dept of Zoology
South Parks Road formerly: chris at psych.toronto.edu
Oxford OX1 3PS Still reading UseNet
ENGLAND for the signatures.