IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

the feminist critique of science

Pearse Ward wardp at herald.usask.ca
Sun Sep 10 16:11:23 EST 1995

In article <v01510100ac771de3723f@[]>, mstorrie at vt.edu
(muriel lederman) wrote:

> I leave the country in 2 hr but I can't not stop and reply to several posts
> that seem to show hostility to the feminist critique. 

Hostility is much too strong a word. I merely questioned whether
"feminist" science is any different qualtiatively than "androcentric"
science. They both introduce bias rooted more in culture than in
scientific method.

In a nutshell -
> alternative perspectives, whether those of oppressed groups or other
> cultures ARE valuable. Without someone yelling, do you really think that
> NIH would now require that experimental patient groups be composed of both
> males and females? 

Ah, but this is substantially different from a "feminist" (I use the
quotation marks advisedlyas I don't think that feminist is the right term
but it is the one in common use) critique of science. In this case, a bias
in how studies were conducted was identified and attempts were made to
rectify the imbalance. The _way_ in which the science was done was not
altered. Most of the work that has been labelled a "feminist critique of
science" (at least what I have read of it) atempts to show that there is a
"male" way to do science and a "female" way to do science, and then claims
that the "female" way is inherently superior. I question why a supposedly
female set of biases would be inherently better than the equivelent male


Pearse Ward
Dep't Veterinary Microbiology
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK

---------- The road to hell is paved with good intentions ----------

More information about the Womenbio mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net