Sep 15 - Sex and Scientific Inquiry

    The collection of essays that I read for this week looks at the history of women in science, also discussing the reasons for which women were kept from pursuing scientific careers. It was an interesting overview of the distorted logic used to keep women out of science.

    Schiebinger uses four approaches to present how gender maps to science. She discusses achievements of women scientists (from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) and how these women's scientific contributions were neglected in history. It was interesting to read the small blurbs about these past women scientists. Schiebinger presents several histories and encyclopedias written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that focus on women in science. It is interesting to realize that the same objections are raised about the same type of books today (that women have less contributions and that if we were to write the same type of book about men's contributions to the sciences, the book would be at least four times as large.) She also notes at this point that the "work on women scientists fits the 'history of great men' mold, with women simply substituted for men." As she points out, and I have read in other sources, this model is not a good one, for it assumes that the male mode is the "correct" one, or the "measure of excellence." And so if we look at the barriers that have faced women as they try to make scientific contributions, we see exactly why we can't directly compare contributions from men and women scientists. Schiebinger then discusses her second approach: the history of how women were excluded from institutes of learning and how this blocked access affected the role of women in science. In early times, it was rare that women were allowed access to universities, and scientific academies often completely barred women - even extremely qualified ones like Marie Curie. Even today, we note that even while women are no longer flat-out barred from universities and scientific academies, there is often a subtler type of discrimination that occurs, keeping women from equally participating. (For example, if we look at the gender discrimination that was occurring at MIT and realize that it took all the women professors in the department to form together and make a formal complaint before they were given equal treatment, we realize that the struggle for equal recognition is still continuing.) Her third approach discusses how biological theories have been used to prevent women from entering science by misrepresenting women's nature. There have been several pushes to explain differences in gender as biological differences that are inevitable. This way of thinking is quite dangerous, since it tries to use scientific "facts" to prevent women from succeeding and as these false claims perpetuate, it is harder for people to question the validity of the original assumptions. Lastly she looks at the masculine nature of science that has contributed to preventing women from equally participating in science. The gender distortions that already exist could be allowing the inequality to continue, because women who enter these typical male domains may feel uncomfortable with the current environment. If women's opinions and voices aren't heard in the scientific community, that it is more difficult for more women to want to join such an environment.

    When I choose to read McGaw's essay on women and the history of American technology, I expected something different. I was thinking about technology in it's current definition, and thus was thinking of computers and the like. So when the essay began talking about household technology (like the oven or refrigerator) and textile or metal technologies, I was not as excited. However, the article did give me a different perspective on women's contribution to household technology and how those contributions become less valued, since they were in the private sphere of the American society at the time. One of the things that McGaw mentions in her article is how the history of technology is often depicted in living historical villages and there is little published material - one such village is Old World Wisconsin which I visited several times as a child. However, I remember looking at the village and thinking of how difficult life was for the women and men of the time, and I don't think that any of my childhood visits ever had me thinking, 'look at what technological advances these women made during their lives.' But after reading this article, I understood that if we look at technology as McGaw describes it: "the system of tools, skills, and knowledge needed to make or do things," then we can see the contributions that have been made all along by women.

    Lambert's piece on biology and equality discusses how these issues can cause many problems. First of all, sex differences are not universal, and biological differences are not inevitable. If we assume otherwise, then problems arise (which we can attest to, certainly after reading Schiebinger's piece.) One example that is often cited when looking at various abilities and sex differences is that men and women seem to have gender based differences in spatial ability. Since this difference is not a trait found in young children, it is thought that sex hormones may be involved. However, Lambert points out that conclusions about this trait are contradictory and it is thus difficult to determine if differences such as this are caused by the biological nature of a person, or if, and how much nurture or environment contributes to sex differences in things like spatial ability. In the end, there is no way to completely distinguish if a difference in ability between males and females is completely biological, since socio-cultural aspects affect a person as well. As Lambert concludes, "if a particular sex difference is incompatible with important aspects of social inequality, we should argue for compensatory measures, independent of biological causation." She also notes that it is important not to say that sex differences are completely nurture either, we need to realize that nature and nurture play a part, but regardless of the cause, it is still important to work towards social equality of the sexes.

    Shields's article on the Variability Hypothesis discusses how Darwin's evolutionary theory played a large part in trying to explain how variation in genetics led to sex difference in intelligence. It was interesting to read about the history of how this happened, and to realize that something that was only tentatively proposed with no backing was adapted and modified until it transformed into this 'theory' that had social significance on sex differences. As Shields points out, some of the scientists that modified Darwin's ideas took great leaps of logic to conclude that men were the more intelligent people. If we look at how these theories then lead to mental tests that confirmed and justified inequality of women - we see just how much politics and influence affect popular opinion. I am amazed and shocked at how certain opinions and facts can be ignored or enforced regardless of the validity of them - and looking at how the variability hypothesis was used gives us a prime example to look at. Like Lambert's article, we are then presented that we have to look at both nature and nurture to understand differences but when one or the other take control of a theory, we can not be sure of its validity.

    These articles gave a good overview of the nature/nurture debate that surrounds sex differences as well as looking at the roles that women have played in science and technology. It is good to look at the broad picture and realized the difficulties faced by women in the past, as well as look at the women who have succeeded, as well as looking at factors affecting why equality is still not evident when looking at the role of women in science and technology today.