Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!ora!daemon
From: arun@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Arun Achyuthan)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Book Review-------Staying Alive by Vandana Shiva
Message-ID: <1990Aug6.004419.8001@vlsi.waterloo.edu>
Date: 6 Aug 90 00:44:19 GMT
References: <1990Jul29.125448.24229@vlsi.waterloo.edu> <12617@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1990Aug1.022559.10131@vlsi.waterloo.edu> <12704@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 105
Approved: ambar@ora.com

>In article <1990Aug1.022559.10131@vlsi.waterloo.edu> arun@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Arun Achyuthan) writes:
>>In article <12617@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> pramath@descartes.math.purdue.edu.UUCP (Pramathanath Sastry) writes:

>>A very good point. If you are a mathematician or a statistician and if you
>>see nature of things only as mere  numbers or figures, certainly it has 
>>dehumanized you. But if on the other hand, it has helped you in understanding 
>>nature subjectively, it has achieved the positive goal. Still I don't think
>>the history of mathematics is very humane. If that was so, we would have seen
>>many women mathematicians in the modern times. Moreover, most of the branches
>>of science may not have the inherent ability to make a participator undertand
>>nature and environment; rather their reductionist methods go against
>>sustenance of nature and environment.

>On the other hand there are many women mathematicians (very good ones) nowadays.
>About half the graduate students in the Math department at Purdue are
>female. 

In the past, organizations like the Royal Society had exclusively stated to
masculinize science and divert it from any feminine influence. They also
had stated captivating nature and achieving an Empire of Man over nature (and
of course women). I don't think in such a situation any women could
participate in scietific activities, other creating their own realm of activity.
Some women did that and many of them were hunted as 'witches'. Since mathematics
was also part of Royal Society, I don't think the history of mathematics is
any better. Yes, I agree that there is a beauty behind mathematics, but that
doen not imply that it was gender neutral in the past centuries. Now talking
about present times, I feel the participation of women in mathematics and
science is more due to 'catching up with men' than due to gender neutrality
of these fields, though things have improved in the recent times.

>And the point is this, Science may well be reductionist, but that in 
>itself is not terrible. It may well be that Nature is best explained by a few
>succint rules. 

How can the diversity of nature be applied by a few rules? If some aspect of
nature does not fit into any rule how do you deal with it? Create another rule,
accept it as an exception, or force it to be part of some rule? I would say
that science by itself is not reductionist; the early Indian scientists and
mathematics had holistic views. It is the people who shaped the scientific
philosophy of later days who were reductionist, because by explaining the laws
of nature in a few rules, they were able to justify its subjugation, and these
people happened to be western males.

>I know the feminist argument against this; I have heard tirades 
>against Physics ("We ought to call it the rape of Newton, and not a Science"),
>but while I understand the arguments I don't agree with them. Any effort
>of concentration (be it knitting or be it posting a well thought out article
>on this net) requires an ability to remove everything except what is in front of
>you from your mind. This is not inherently male or female. My mother, when she
>sings Carnatic Music is oblivious to her surroundings. And she remembers the
>years of hard work involved in acquiring the skill. I am talking about the
>mechanics and the craftsmanship she had to learn, just to do well, and not the
>artistry. She would expect the same concentration from me when I did 
>mathematics (she was a Physics teacher). I have seen similar things in my
>Grandmother. 

I think you are confusing concentration with divergent knowledge. I agree
with what you say about requiring concentration, but my point was that
it is not all justified when somebody says "I don't care what will be the
widespread impact of my research or discovery, all I am interested in is
the beauty behind it and the satisfaction that I derive in the execution".

>I have played carroms and cards with my female cousins, and have
>found them as aggressive, and as capable of being obssesed by the game to the
>detriment of everything else, as I (a male) am. Too much is made of the
>biological ability to give birth. To it is attributed a supposed better 
>understanding of nature. Somehow women are tied to the "Earth" (with a capital
>E) by ties of blood, and we men are dehumanized. I find all this rather
>incredible. I think, if tommorrow, by a lucky accident, all power (economic and
>political) was concentrated in the hands of women, the world would not be much
>different. I think they are capable of aggression, just as we are capable of
>tender feelings. 

Precisely my point. True, nature and women are not passive. Passivity was
attributed to nature and women by Bacon and those who followed him. The
author of 'Staying Alive' also has similar views. She says that masculine
and feminine activities may be different, but they are not divided.
She also rejects the concept of feminism, in which liberation of women 
is achieved by masculinization of the feminine.  She also rejects feminization
of the world, since these two views are gender based. What she advocates
is the process of liberation which is trans-gender. This is the principle of
activity and creativity of nature, women and men. In her own words, "Once cannot
really distinguish the masculine from the feminine, person from nature, Purusha
from Prakriti."

>social situations, does not make one right every time. I cannot believe that
>the evils of Science are inherently masculine or western. The evil is the
>human beings ability to become obsessed by one world view, to the detriment of
>everything else. This knows no boundaries.

True. The evils are sometimes non-western too. But many of the evils are
attributed to the western philosophy, because they started becoming more
apparent from the Age of Enlightenment. Also the western dichotomized
masculine from feminine and attributed every thing passive to feminine,
so that the former can subjugate the latter. Brian Easlea in "Science and
Sexual Oppression: Patriarchy's Confrontation with Women and Nature" quotes
Henry Oldenberg, who was Secretary of Royal Society in 1664, while announcing
the intention of the society, "(the intention was) to raise a masculine
philosophy..whereby the Mind of Man may be ennobled with knowledge of solid
truths'. He also quotes Glanvill, another Royal Society stalwart, as saying
that the masculine aim of science was to know "the ways of captivating Nature,
and making her subserve our purposes, thereby achieving the Empire of Man
Over Nature".

Arun