Has Feminism Changed Science?

Rating:
Summary: Not the scary post-modernism monster you might think
Review: "Has Feminism Changed Science?" I think the first response to this question is How could it, followed by Why should it? Doesn't this resemble the sort of postmodernist chatter about science that led to the Alan Sokal hoax? Londa Schiebinger's book is not the most interesting in the world, which could raise inaccurate fears that it is cursed with academic jargon. However, her work is valuable in it shows that in fact feminism does have something valuable to say about the development of science. Schiebinger starts off by stating that she does not particularly believe in difference feminism. Nor does she support the idea that stereotypically feminine qualities can provide insights that are unavailable to mere mortal men. She also wisely points out that "It is not obvious that gender has a stronger influence on science than do other political and cultural divides in North American society, such as class or ethnicity." She then starts off with a history of women in science, working on her previous book "The Mind Has No Sex?" and about the somewhat unpleasant consequences of the Enlightenment in the spread of female scientists. The next chapter looks at differences and possible discrimination against women scientists, the possibility of women's indigenous knowledge (mostly in agriculture), and a nuanced and somewhat inconclusive account of publication records and citation counts.

The, more interesting, remainder of the book can be divided into two sections: features of the culture of science that unfairly hamper women, and aspects of science that could be improved by looking at gender questions. Schiebinger starts off with how children's toys at a very early age reinforce gender stereotypes, as well as educational software that emphasizes wargame elements more attractive to boys. She discusses widespread images of scientists that assume that they are male. She includes a rather pompous comment by James Watson about his colleague Rosalind Franklin whom he belittled for not being attractive, as well as the fact that F.A. Hayek excluded women from his intellectual salon. She points out that images of science have not always been masculine, while the stereotype of competitive men and cooperative women in reversed in Japan--without improving the status of women. Schiebinger discusses such facts as tone of voice, problems in raising families, the culture of modesty, personal space, as well as one geologist who found herself invited by her department to attend the showing of Sports Illustrated swimsuit video, and being criticized when she demurred.

Schiebinger then goes on to study specific studies. She points how many studies in medicine ignored women, such as a 1982 study looking at aspirin and heart disease that studied 22,071 men and 0 women. She also discusses issues in primatology and how female scientists have challenged the masculine assumptions about masculine baboon life. She points out, for instance, that we have no proof that the famed fossil "Lucy" was a woman. It was assumed that "she" was because she was small, and supposedly because her pelvis was large enough to permit the birth of larger-brained infants. Except that a) larger-brained infants didn't arise for a million or more years and b) her pelvis was not in fact large. Feminist archaeologists have pointed out that others have incorrectly assumed that tools were owned by men, and that the tools that survive were the most important in human evolution. In looking at biology she points out the problem that gendered metaphors can produce. Starting from Linnaeus' ideas of marriage in flowers, she points out why much discussion of bacterial sex is misleading (there is sexual reproduction but comparing it to our male and female genders is most unhelpful) and why walruses and stallions do not really keep "harems" of women. Finally, in looking at physics and math, she discusses how although SAT scores give men an advantage in math, if one increased the algebra questions and reduced the geometry ones, the gap would be equal. She also points out that IQ tests have been rejigged in the past when women were doing better on them. Overall, Schiebinger reminds us of a central fact of the Kuhnian revolution in the history of science. Science is our best way of learning the truth about ourselves and the world around us, but objectivity is a lot more difficult than it looks.

Rating:
Summary: Not the scary post-modernism monster you might think
Review: "Has Feminism Changed Science?" I think the first response to this question is How could it, followed by Why should it? Doesn't this resemble the sort of postmodernist chatter about science that led to the Alan Sokal hoax? Londa Schiebinger's book is not the most interesting in the world, which could raise inaccurate fears that it is cursed with academic jargon. However, her work is valuable in it shows that in fact feminism does have something valuable to say about the development of science. Schiebinger starts off by stating that she does not particularly believe in difference feminism. Nor does she support the idea that stereotypically feminine qualities can provide insights that are unavailable to mere mortal men. She also wisely points out that "It is not obvious that gender has a stronger influence on science than do other political and cultural divides in North American society, such as class or ethnicity." She then starts off with a history of women in science, working on her previous book "The Mind Has No Sex?" and about the somewhat unpleasant consequences of the Enlightenment in the spread of female scientists. The next chapter looks at differences and possible discrimination against women scientists, the possibility of women's indigenous knowledge (mostly in agriculture), and a nuanced and somewhat inconclusive account of publication records and citation counts.

The, more interesting, remainder of the book can be divided into two sections: features of the culture of science that unfairly hamper women, and aspects of science that could be improved by looking at gender questions. Schiebinger starts off with how children's toys at a very early age reinforce gender stereotypes, as well as educational software that emphasizes wargame elements more attractive to boys. She discusses widespread images of scientists that assume that they are male. She includes a rather pompous comment by James Watson about his colleague Rosalind Franklin whom he belittled for not being attractive, as well as the fact that F.A. Hayek excluded women from his intellectual salon. She points out that images of science have not always been masculine, while the stereotype of competitive men and cooperative women in reversed in Japan--without improving the status of women. Schiebinger discusses such facts as tone of voice, problems in raising families, the culture of modesty, personal space, as well as one geologist who found herself invited by her department to attend the showing of Sports Illustrated swimsuit video, and being criticized when she demurred.

Schiebinger then goes on to study specific studies. She points how many studies in medicine ignored women, such as a 1982 study looking at aspirin and heart disease that studied 22,071 men and 0 women. She also discusses issues in primatology and how female scientists have challenged the masculine assumptions about masculine baboon life. She points out, for instance, that we have no proof that the famed fossil "Lucy" was a woman. It was assumed that "she" was because she was small, and supposedly because her pelvis was large enough to permit the birth of larger-brained infants. Except that a) larger-brained infants didn't arise for a million or more years and b) her pelvis was not in fact large. Feminist archaeologists have pointed out that others have incorrectly assumed that tools were owned by men, and that the tools that survive were the most important in human evolution. In looking at biology she points out the problem that gendered metaphors can produce. Starting from Linnaeus' ideas of marriage in flowers, she points out why much discussion of bacterial sex is misleading (there is sexual reproduction but comparing it to our male and female genders is most unhelpful) and why walruses and stallions do not really keep "harems" of women. Finally, in looking at physics and math, she discusses how although SAT scores give men an advantage in math, if one increased the algebra questions and reduced the geometry ones, the gap would be equal. She also points out that IQ tests have been rejigged in the past when women were doing better on them. Overall, Schiebinger reminds us of a central fact of the Kuhnian revolution in the history of science. Science is our best way of learning the truth about ourselves and the world around us, but objectivity is a lot more difficult than it looks.

Rating:
Summary: The answer is, at best, "maybe".
Review: The author has a great topic and a great question, and does a wonderful job of not providing any straightforward substantiation for her assertions. Part ofd the problem is perhaps that "Has feminism changed science?" is not the question Schiebinger seems to be asking so much as "have *women* changed science?" By Jove, they have. But is this a new story? Save your $27.95 for later... this book offers little that is edifying or even interesting.

Rating:
Summary: An extraordinary document of women in science
Review: The book is one of the best I ever read on the subject of feminism in science. Through history and detailed references Schiebinger analyzes the progress (and the lack of in certain fields) towards a true genderless science. The lack of women in science is viewed as a reflection of not only discrimination, but also social issues, which are rarely addressed. Some of which include primary and secondary education, child rearing and values and equality between spouses at home. The book is a must for anyone interested in the topic!