Science is sexist because it is objective, is this for real?

[Graham2001]

Courtesy of Coast 2 Coast AMs 'Science Advisor'

College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation, concludes a recent dissertation by a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota.

The source is one I find highly dubious (It's obviously right-wing.) and I am guessing the full article linked below has been exaggerated for effect, the student has not actually been given a Phd for this. I'd love to find a more unbiased account.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

 

[Mojo]

It also privileges the speed of light over other speeds.

 

[John Jones]

It sounds like third wave feminism.

 

[Puppycow]

If you want to go straight to the source and judge for yourself, here it is:

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&context=tqr

My first problem with it is the impenetrable language it uses. One might almost say it is "hostile" to people who don't understand words like "interdiscursivity"

Conceptual Framework
This study was framed through the lens of poststructuralist feminist thought to provide a lens through which I explored how power is gendered (Hesse-Biber, 2014). Poststructuralism “rejects objectivity and the notions of an absolute truth and single reality,” and “knowledge is complicated, contradictory, and contingent to a certain social context and historical context” (Hesse-Biber, 2014, p. 44). For poststructural feminists, emphasis is placed on language and discourse, “regarded as constitutive of experience and not simply representative of it” (Hesse- Biber, 2014, p. 44). As such, discourse analysis is a key tool of poststructuralist researchers because the link between power and knowledge can be seen by exploring language-in-use (Hesse-Biber, 2014; Lazar, 2005). Analysis of texts looks for practical ideologies to uncover what is framed as logical ways of thinking that, in reality, perpetuate inequality (Hesse-Biber, 2014). Since patriarchal gender ideology is structural, it is enacted in institutions and reflected in institutional texts, therefore, “The task of feminist CDA is to examine how power and dominance are discursively produced and/or resisted in a variety of ways through textual representations of gendered social practices” (Lazar, 2005, p. 10). Through a framework of poststructuralist feminist thought, this discourse analysis uncovers the ways that gendered practices that favor men are represented and replicated in the syllabus.

Bleh!

I don't have the patience for this sort of stuff. Plain English for me please!

 

[Apathia]

I've heard this before from New Age Feminists: That Science is a male paradigm that to its essence precludes having an intimate relationship with nature, and that it denies the place of feelings and intuition in life.

It's "from Mars," cold and analytic.

So the sexual stereotypes tell young women that Mathematics and Science are contrary to their feminine nature.

This kind of feminist rhetoric winds up undercutting the equality feminism says it seeks to promote.

 

[Apathia]

If you want to go straight to the source and judge for yourself, here it is:

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&context=tqr

My first problem with it is the impenetrable language it uses. One might almost say it is "hostile" to people who don't understand words like "interdiscursivity"



Bleh!

I don't have the patience for this sort of stuff. Plain English for me please!

Now that's a more nuanced philosophical approach. However all the "interdiscurvisity" sounds so patriarchal.

 

[Hokulele]

The main problem is that the approach being used (poststructuralism) is itself antithetical to the field it is studying. It would be like using a heat lamp to examine the structure of ice crystals and determining they don't actually exist!

 

[Jim_MDP]

The main problem is that the approach being used (poststructuralism) is itself antithetical to the field it is studying. It would be like using a heat lamp to examine the structure of ice crystals and determining they don't actually exist!

Sure they do... they're just ephemeral.

And you have to, you know, feel the tragedy of their passing.

 

[Dani]

I've heard similar things before.

Feminism is riddled with pseudoscience.

 

[Dani]

I don't have the patience for this sort of stuff. Plain English for me please!

But why? Don't you like colorful assertions?

Oh, this reminds me of Popper Vs Adorno and Habermas, where the former made fun of the latter's pompous and pedant discourse by "translating" their long and, for the most part, inane, propositions.

This type of "intellectualism" is like building a house with invisible bricks, where people pretend each turgid concept is a premise with a solid foundation. When you unravel what's behind those long-winded sentences and what type of evidence supports what's left of any substance, it's like the reverse of The Frog Prince tale.

 

[The Norseman]

But why? Don't you like colorful assertions?

Oh, this reminds me of Popper Vs Adorno and Habermas, where the former made fun of the latter's pompous and pedant discourse by "translating" their long and, for the most part, inane, propositions.

This type of "intellectualism" is like building a house with invisible bricks, where people pretend each turgid concept is a premise with a solid foundation. When you unravel what's behind those long-winded sentences and what type of evidence supports what's left of any substance, it's like the reverse of The Frog Prince tale.

Reminds me of Asimov in The Foundation series. Therein, some of the main characters applied symbolic logic to some flowery, absurdly lengthy treaties which, after being put through the symbolic mill, reduced to saying and promising literally nothing.

 

[Meadmaker]

This passage is interesting:

Another aspect of the chilly climate is competitiveness, and the STEM syllabi were also framed as competitive courses, exemplified by grading on a curve, “The final grading scale may be curved based on class performance” (Lower level biology). Grading on a curve is one way that the literature has found to be competitive and discouraging to women and minorities (Shapiro & Sax, 2011). Finally, the competitive, difficult chilly climate was reinforced in the syllabi through the use of unfriendly and tough language, “Do not ask me to figure out your grade standing. I’ll be glad to show you how to do it yourself, but the homepage includes that explanation already”

I think what the author is saying is that competitive classes are generally viewed as unfriendly to women.

I'm not sure what to make of that. I think it might be true, but I'm not sure what difference it makes.

Yes, science course are hard for many people, and they are harder for some poople than for others, and many women might not like that. And?

 

[Darwin123]

If you want to go straight to the source and judge for yourself, here it is:

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&context=tqr

My first problem with it is the impenetrable language it uses. One might almost say it is "hostile" to people who don't understand words like "interdiscursivity"



Bleh!

I don't have the patience for this sort of stuff. Plain English for me please!

I can't tell if the author really is a Politically Correct Activist or if he is parodying activists of this type.

This quotation illustrates the Poe effect very well. One can't tell the difference between something written by an extremist or something written to make fun of the same extremists.

In either case, I think the writer is an unreliable source. Edgar Allen Poe wrote many of his fiction stories where the reader can't rely on the narrater. The fictional character telling the story is obviously crazy, but he still may be telling part of the truth.

I hypothesize that this the origin of the phrase, 'Poe effect'.

 

[3point14]

I think what the author is saying is that competitive classes are generally viewed as unfriendly to women.

My inference can only be that the author thinks women aren't as good at the subject as men???

 

[Meadmaker]

My inference can only be that the author thinks women aren't as good at the subject as men???

No, that's not it.

I was prepared to absolutely hate the paper until I read it. I then thought the paper had some excellent points. I then paid attention and decided it was even worse than I thought. I'll try to explain some other time.

For this one, rather narrow, point, though, what the author is saying is that women don't seem to like the competition. We go to classes, at least partly, in order to learn, not necessarily to be compared to everyone else and judged against them. Women, in particular, don't seem to like the competitive aspect, regardless of whether they are winning or losing.

 

[3point14]

No, that's not it.

I was prepared to absolutely hate the paper until I read it. I then thought the paper had some excellent points. I then paid attention and decided it was even worse than I thought. I'll try to explain some other time.

For this one, rather narrow, point, though, what the author is saying is that women don't seem to like the competition. We go to classes, at least partly, in order to learn, not necessarily to be compared to everyone else and judged against them. Women, in particular, don't seem to like the competitive aspect, regardless of whether they are winning or losing.

Thanks for that.

The weak corollary would be that (all?) men enjoy academic competition?

 

[Belz...]

Courtesy of Coast 2 Coast AMs 'Science Advisor'



The source is one I find highly dubious (It's obviously right-wing.) and I am guessing the full article linked below has been exaggerated for effect, the student has not actually been given a Phd for this. I'd love to find a more unbiased account.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

Welcome to the logical end result of extreme feminism and social justice nonsense: by using feeling-based reasoning, it leads one to think that it's just as useful and reliable as fact-based reasoning. If something feels right, it must be.

 

[Belz...]

This passage is interesting:



I think what the author is saying is that competitive classes are generally viewed as unfriendly to women.

I'm not sure what to make of that. I think it might be true, but I'm not sure what difference it makes.

The difference it makes, if true, is that it would mean that women simply aren't as science-compatible, or indeed job market-compatible as men.

If that's what feminists are going for, they might as well argue for a return to the kitchen.

 

[Prism]

The thing about this article is that it actually makes a lot of interesting points, but throws in just one that's ridiculous. The whole idea of engagement vs. lecture is interesting, to me.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Science was meant for men. Women are to stay home and clean and cook. How else are scientist going to get anything done if dinner isn't served by the time they get home from the lab?