Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!fluke!tron From: tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Men barred from primatology conference Message-ID: <1990Dec7.165058.22259@tc.fluke.COM> Date: 7 Dec 90 16:50:58 GMT References: <1061@ai.cs.utexas.edu> <15147@cs.utexas.edu> <8283@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Lines: 33 In article <8283@dog.ee.lbl.gov> austern@ux5.lbl.gov (Matt Austern) writes: >There's a fairly well developed field of feminist theory of science >(Evelyn Fox-Keller is the best known author, but there are others), >which looks at the question, essentially, of how our own ideas of >gender influence what we think we see when we observe the world. >Primatology is the discipline that is most frequently used as an >example in these critiques. > Why is this a feminist theory of scince? If indeed there is gender influence (and I don't see why not) don't the women have gender influence also? Or is their bias naturally better because, after all, they're women? :-( >An all-female primatology conference still might not be a smart idea, >but there is reason for it---it wasn't just done on a whim. It sounds like the good idea is not an all-female conference but rather a conference of scientists who believe in the concept of gender influence. By having only one gender present they have could not possibly have explored the concept of gender influence, could they? According to the quotes from the Italian scientist it was the non-scientific behavior of men (posturing, etc.) that the women were trying to avoid. (by non-scientific I mean not applicable to science but rather to the operation of the conference) Labelling a group of people in this manner is clearly prejudice. It is not that it happenned that is upsetting to me. Many people practice prejudice on a daily basis. What upsets me is that, apparently, these women, specifically the organizers, were not critisized for their blatent prejudice. In fact they felt secure in proclaiming it to be a good thing, a breakthrough in their field of study. Peter B