Women Studies: Knowledge, Science and Technology

From Ben's Writing

22/11/2006

Ever laugh at the stock photo use on corporate web-sites? The funniest, I think, are the contact pages with a woman wearing a head-set:

• www.csr-net.com
• www.appletreenet.com
• www.hanoitips.com
• www.fairinvestment.co.uk
• www.for-my-home.com
• www.sfr.com
• www.locatefinance.co.uk
• cipromo.com
• support.mentorfinancialgroup.net
• www.connect123.net
• www.actnowcornwall.co.uk

Guess men just aren't pretty enough to take your calls.

18/11/2006

I just tried Harvard's Project Implicit. I apparently think Oprah Winfrey is "bad" and that Martha Stewart is "good". However, I don't have any implicit bias as to wether men or women are better/worse at science — guess this class has worked!

30/10/2006

The captions speak for themselves:

25/10/2006

If Ursula was younger, or I was older, I'd date her (unless she is dead, and then all of this is just weird). So long as she dates men. Now isn't that typical, all feminists must be lesbians. And not just any type of lesbians, they have to be masculine lesbians; the types of lesbians that wear army pants, and get crew-cuts. Yeah, that’s right, the lesbians with no fashion sense (or interest in 90s retro styles) are the only ones who can be feminists. What's funny is that this image still pops in to my head when I hear the word feminist. Not feminism, but feminist. I guess it's like the word scientist to little kids means old man in a lab coat. It's just a stereotype. What's even funnier to me is that I consider myself a feminist. But feminism to me is synonymous with equality. It's all about equality for women: equality of opportunity, rights, privileges, etc. And it doesn't go much beyond that though. I don't need to burn my bra, or wear my military gear. But if it means I have to like women, well ... okay, I'll like women.

18/10/2006

I think we've talked about it before, but I can't remember when, or what we really got in to, so I thought I might think out-loud on the topic. As we watched the film in class today I got to wondering about the question of what happens when we do integrate women in to science (integrate is a weird word for it, I know, but I'm thinking out-loud so its bound to come out weird).

The first thing that occurred to me is what happens to this female perspective after women have been brought in to the sciences? As a woman in the film mentioned, some women take a very masculine approach to science. By this we are to understand that the way science is done today is by and large dominated by a masculine approach. Other women, she went on to say, take a feminist approach (which I'm still not clear exactly what this means). Anyway, where does this feminist approach come from? And I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but is this female perspective innate, or learnt? If it is learnt, don't we run the risk of destroying it by eliminating the contexts in which I may have arisen. More precisely, is the female perspective due in part to their exclusion the sciences and other parts of our culture? But if it is due to this exclusion, is it really fair to call it a feminist approach?

I was also thinking about the ways we go about bringing women in to the mix. And I realize that I really do question the merits of these inclusion laws and regulations. Not their underling principle, I do believe that women should have equal rights, etc., but the way we go about it enforcing them. For instance, this whole idea that we need to put quotas in place, to satisfy the statisticians in the Government, that women aren't been blocked from entry to the work force and academia. My problem with it goes back to an old falsism (made up word, I think) "I'm not a racist, I have black friends." Just because you have black friends, does not mean you are not a racists. In the same way that married men can still be sexist pigs. Similarly, an institution that has meet its quota is not necessarily a good place for women to work. Simply because they have managed to fill their quota, does not mean that they encourage any equality. I don't see that these regulations actually fix the problems they seek to address. But then again, I'm not sure how I would fix this.

4/10/2006

I was thinking about what we were talking about in class how a language or culture might shape the way we think about things and ultimately lead our thoughts astray (or box them in). I'm not sure how up on your "controversial mathematics" you are, but It occurred to me that our common understanding of cardinalities is still a debatable subject (even whether they actually exist). There is Cantor's famous diagonalization argument, which necessitated the creation another type of "infinity." What is unusual -- because we are never told this in math classes -- is that there is another argument, by Wittgenstein, who says Cantor got it all wrong: that diagonal argument does not necessitate any new type of anything, it simply shows that there are some sets for which we cannot construct rules to count them. Further, that things like recursive functions aren't a short form of writing an infinite set, rather, they are simply a set of rules, from which, if you desired, you could generate a finite sub-set of the possible solutions. In other words, there is no infinity, and that cardinality is, in a sense, an ad-hoc solution to a problem that does not exist.

Now, it has been a long time since I thought about all of this, so I hope I got all information right (I'd have to think really hard to find the references too, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't add them right now). I guess my question is that at what point to we become concerned with these "shaped" views? Certainly if you were working on the continuum hypothesis, you'd like to know about this debate, to make sure you weren't wasting you time looking at something that might not even be real, but in the grand scheme of things, might our efforts not be better spent on other pursuits?

I think I had a point when I started writing this, but it has since escaped me. I was regarding Keller's concerns regarding science and objectivity, and how language shapes ideas; however, I can't quite make the connection again ... so I'll leave it for now :)

26/9/2006

The Simpsons, Season 18, Episode 3: Please Homer Don't Hammer 'em

Marge gets into carpentry, but no one wants to hire a woman to do carpentry, so she gets Homer to be her front-man, as he is the cliché of what a carpenter is supposed to look like.

From IMDb

A lovely quote from Krusty the Klown, upon meeting Marge Simpson, the carpenter:

A lady carpenter! I don't know. What if you get pregnant and I'm left with half a hot tub? And don't tell me you are infertile, I ain't falling for that again.

24/9/2006

Are women less career-oriented/productive than men? Most certainly not, and I actually think this is a ridiculous question (please see 20/9/2006 for an explanation of why I say this). However, women do have different pressures on them than men, which may manifest as a reduction in productivity, or decreased (or distracted) interest in pursuing a career.

First, let's talk about careers.

The idea that women have different pressures than men is not new and, in fact, it is relatively well understood, even if still unresolved. Eisenhart and Holland list a few factors which were thought to affect women; they include: "non-supportive socialization, gender-specific motivation patterns, and subtle forms of institutional discrimination" ^[1]. But as Eisenhart and Holland argue, these ideas fail to completely explain why more women to not pursue higher education nor a career. These "mysterious" factors also render the question unapproachable by scientific means. We could never hope to control for all the possible influences on a group of women, so we could never really tell if any one factor was responsible.

What Eisenhart and Holland propose was that this disinterest might come from school-based peer groups and the cultures that surround them. As they put it, "[t]hese peer cultures encourage women to see themselves as (potential) romantic partners with men, and they are virtually silent on the subject of academic work or future careers" ^[1]. So this may distract them from their studies, and eventually following through with a career.

Personally, I'm not sure about this one. Eisenhart and Holland say that men have other domains for validation, like sports and school politics, but that women only have their romantic partnerships. Is this to suggest that these women did not play sports? Have clubs, or any other hobbies, etc? Can we be sure this was a fair representative sample? I'm not saying that these pressures aren't present; however, their position seems too conveniently clear cut.

So what about productivity?

Snehalatha Bhrijbhushan, Subramainam's wide eyed protagonist, decides she would like to pursue a life in science. She makes the long voyage over the ocean to the Land of the Blue Devils, in the Land of the King and the Gentle People, where she would learn the ways of a scientist from the White Patriarchs. She quickly realizes, much to her disappointment, that the practice of science in the Land of the King and the Gentle People is not what she had expected. She tries desperately to fit in: first, by changing her name and accent, neither of which was easily understood by her peers. Then, she dispensed with her Third World mentality, and took a lesson in First World arrogance and ego. Lastly, since all else had failed her, she made herself beautiful. Alas, none of this helped. Instead of working hard at finding Scientific Truth, she spent her time "learning to act like a scientist" (my emphasis) ^[2]. As with Eisenhart and Holland's argument, the pressure to concentrate on some other secondary task hurt the practice of what was supposedly the primary pursuit.

Another problem we face when dealing with productivity, is how exactly it is measured. For instance, Wenneras and Wold showed that "peer reviewers [in Sweden] gave female applicants lowers scores than male applicants who displayed the same level of scientific productivity" ^[3]. "[In particular,] peer reviews deemed women applicants to be ... deficient in scientific competence" ^[3]. The reviews were based on a five point scale, 0 for the worst, up to 4 for the best. On average, women, "who displayed the same level of scientific productivity," were rated a full 0.25 points lower than there male counter parts. Wenneras and Wold gave two reasons for this discrepancy. First, men received an extra 0.21 points for confidence, independent of their scientific productivity, where as women only received an extra 0.0033 points. The second reason was associated with their professional affiliations. If an applicant had a friend in the review committee, they stood to receive an extra 0.21 points, regardless of their gender. However, if a woman had no affiliations on the committee, then the spread between them a "connected" male would be twice the size as before. And this wasn't simply a clear cut case of nepotism, the old boys club wasn't the only one playing favorites, female reviewers graded female applicants lower than male ones too.

Given even these two arguments, it is clear that men have an unfair advantage in the sciences, simply by virtue of their sex. So what do we do about it? Both authors address different problems, so it is hard to compare them directly; however, we can compare their solutions in terms of the value of the solutions they give. Subramaniam's ideas are at the same time both pessimistically black and white, and little fanatical. Either nothing happens, we encourage a mutiny, or we somehow come to realize that "[t]ruth is a myth," all worldviews are of equal value, and we all live happily ever after in a disney-postmodern world. Wenneras and Wold, on the other hand, are a little more modest in their response: they propose that we review the peer-review system in order to determine where the biases they encountered come from.

I would prefere to see Wenneras and Wold's protocol be carried out, if only because it actually proposes an immediate source of data. Subramaniam's response simply reminds us that zealotry is not solely confined to the realm of soapbox prophets.

... Sorry, I kinda lost my focus on this one.

Edit (27/09/2006): Download Slideshow

20/9/2006

On a completely separate note, I thought today's class was one of the best we've had (granted, there isn't much to compare it too). I especially liked when we were not sitting all looking towards the front of the class. It really helped with the discussion. I find that it is really hard to have a "discussion class" when every one is looking at the front of the classroom, you sometimes miss that there are other comment that might like to be made.

20/9/2006

We keep touching on the idea that women bring something to the study of science that may not have existed there before. But I’m not clear as to what this something is, or how women bring it. Are we suggesting that there is something inherent in the female sex that allows them to do this something, or is this something culturally engendered?

If it is culturally instilled, and we go ahead and try to remedy the social injustices imposed on women, would these abilities then disappear? It stands to reason: If they are a product of the roles we place upon women, then reason the female mastery of abilities would decline as female equality is raised. And if they are culturally constructed, does it mean that they could potentially be passed along to men, through some sort of training or exposure? But that raises the question of whether it is really a distinctively female perspective then; if it is really so inheritable, is it not simply a perspective, rather than a gendered one? That is, could we not simply subject men to the same circumstances, and get the same results?

If the answer is no, then we have to return to the original question of whether it is something inherent in the female sex. But this question — as we talked about in class — is an empirical one, not a philosophical one, so there is no reason to debate it until the data has been gathered: Are women more nurturing? Do they pay more attention to detail? etc. All of these can be tested, so what is the point of discussing them until then?

Let's get back to the first question. The simple answer is yes; women do bring something to the study of science: different experiences will lead to different ways of thinking. Of course they do, just like my approach to technical matters is vastly different to that of a person with formal training. After formal technical training you are likely to approach problems from a particular vantage point. Where as I might jump a few steps, or fumble through and add a few extra ones. Both of us will eventually fix the problem, it just may take more time for one of us. Similarly, the "female" perspective (whatever that is) may accelerate work in some areas; however, it is just as likely to fumble, as a "male" approach.

16/9/2006

I think I've lived in a small bubble my whole life. I’m no sure why it never occurred to me before, but I now understand why we push to have women included in science.

It wasn't until Women Studies 1000 that I really realized any of these gender issues were really still problematic. I grew up going to liberal arts like middle school, where men and women worked pretty much side by side. So, by the time we moved to Canada all of that must have been engrained, because those ideas in me still haven’t changed. My father has a Ph. D. and my mother stopped her home life and work life to complete a masters of science. Even though at the time she ran her own business, successfully. The point is, all of this seemed normal to me; until we moved here, of course. This is not to say that people are more progressive in Mexico – they most certainly aren't (in general, anyway). It's only to say that the world I grew up in is nothing like the one portrayed in the material I'm reading.

The funny thing is I was taking some of it personally. As if they were attacking my values and those I was raised with. What I didn't get, was that I saw very little of the treatment they were referring too. Even had it existed around me at the time, the shelter these private institutions provided was almost absolute, and the rest would be covered by my parents. I think that even if I had seen any of it done right in front of my face, I'd have assumed the perpetrators were the odd ones out. That somehow proper etiquette had not caught up with them yet.

11/9/2006

I wrote this after having a discussion with someone about homosexuality. The idea came from someone else, I've only taken artistic liberties with the wording. I'll add a reference in later, once I find the book. Anyway, I just found it interesting how it relates to the post on 6/9/2006.

I was thinking about what you told ..., that homosexuality is an imbalance of hormones. I think that the repercussions of this as bad as simply saying that homosexuality is wrong. By suggesting that there a chemical imbalance causing it, you are almost saying that biologically this person is in error — let alone socially — giving homophobic rhetoric, like ...'s, more ammunition.

I wonder if it might be better to say that there is some upper-level process for attraction, that does not correspond directly with variances in hormone production. This system need not even be a binary one, like our intuition might imagine, but rather a range of possibilities, such that a person could like men a certain percentage of it and women the remaining (or even include many more variables, such as youthful appearance, smell, or no interest in either sex at all). This does not rule out the effect hormone levels have on your taste, or even that this system may influence the levels of hormone, but what it does do is abstract the problem away from a purely one-to-one relation with some lower level biological phenomena. Otherwise, we might run the risk of having a new set of wonder drugs for the newly chemically imbalanced — wouldn't that make the Victory Church happy.

So, I know it wasn't directly relevant, but it seemed like a nice connection to me.

Edit (20/09/2006): I wonder if this argument legitimizes pedophilia, bestiality, etc.? If it is just an attraction system, then these might be possibilities too. I'll have to think on this a little.

11/9/2006

Alfred Tarski, a well noted Polish logician and mathematician, was known to encourage women in science:

Tarski had intimidatingly high standards for students, but at the same time he could be very encouraging, and particularly so to women - in contrast to the general trend.

See Alfred Tarski on Wikipedia.

6/9/2006

Previously I wrote about what I thought were the dangers associated with relying on the out-right rejection of ties between gender and biology in Ignoring Biology in the Feminist Argument. One of my points was that if we were to find role that is biologically tied, then it would call in to question the entire framework which relied on this assumption: that no part of gender is determined by one's sex.

Anyway, it was a minor point, but in class we happened upon a small note that made me think back to this idea: that men have better night vision than women. It made me wonder there might be something wrong with my original thinking.

At first glance this seems to be a good rebuttal to my argument: if men do have better night vision than women, then maybe there are roles that men should fill and women shouldn't (and vice versa). Further, having women fill these particular roles might, in fact, be perceived as irresponsible, since they are biologically not as well equipped to fulfill them. Yet, truly, this is rubbish. That fact that is probable that a man will have better night vision than a woman does not necessarily mean that he will — and this is really what the above is saying: men only have a statistically higher likelihood of having better night vision, but there still may be men with poorer night vision than the average woman, and there may be a woman with better night vision that the man with the best night vision. Also, with the conveniences of modern (western) living, this adapted for trait hardly seems incredibly beneficial. We have street lights, for one, and lets be honest, we hardly need good night vision for watching TV, getting groceries, washing the bathtub, or any of other mundane day-to-day tasks. It really does not help out so much in one particular task that we could not see women doing it too.

The only important point is that we might run into problems when a situation is encountered that has been artificially made to favor one sex over the other, by simulating the environment from which the need for the trait arose. For instance, better night vision may be an asset in war-time, during night battles where no infrared equipment is available. However, this concern is minor. And as the example articulates, there exists equipment that levels the playing-field when it comes to good night vision: infrared equipment is gender and sex neutral, thus women can see night scenes through them just as well as men.

Notes

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Margaret A. Eisenhart and Dorothy C. Holland, "Gender Constructs and Career Commitment: The influence of Peer Culture on Women in College." (pp. 26-25), In Wyer, et. al., A Reader in Feminist Science Studies.
2. ↑ Banu Subramaniam, "Snow Brown and The Seven Detergents: A Metanarrative on Science and the Scientific Method", (pp. 36-41), In Wyer, et. al., A Reader in Feminist Science Studies.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Christine Wenneras and Agnes Wold, "Nepotism and Sexism in Perr-Review", (pp. 46-52), In Wyer, et. al., A Reader in Feminist Science Studies.