What do you think of feminists who try to undermine science as a source for knowledge?

cuittler · 2015-02-14T22:34:30+00:00

Or is there a valid point that I'm missing here?

Did you bother to read either of the papers linked in the RP post?

The RPer who posted this originally doesn't seem to have read them either, he basically took the thesis statement of each paper and went "Science doesn't fit the narrative? It's male biased!" and that's it, no attempt at discrediting or disproving any of the assertions made within, no attempt at an alternative explanation. Incredibly lazy, and incredibly revealing...

This is not a complete summary or explanation of the two papers because they are seriously long, but below I'll highlight a few of the main points being made

The author of the first paper points out that while women have been active in scientific research for close to a century, male bias affecting how they're viewed has held many women back:

While the over whelming majority of scientists have been men, substantial numbers of women scientists have been productive throughout this century, but they faced layer upon layer of discrimination which, with few exceptions, deprived them of recognition and influence in their fields...

In fact, maintaining an army of productive women scientists at the lowest echelons of the profession has been fundamental to the advancement of men scientists, who could take advantage of women's invisibility, immobility, and expectation of self-sacrifice, to claim the research of their subordinates as their own, Thus, women came to be perceived as useful foot-soldiers in science, capable of carrying out the pedestrian laboratory routines that research requires, but lacking the creativity, insights and analytical prowess necessary for innovative research. This is how Rosalind Franklin came to have her extraordinarily fine analysis of the structure of DNA pirated and appropriated by Wilkins, Watson, and Crick, who then turned around and explained to the world that "Rosy" was really good at taking X-ray pictures but would surely not have been capable of interpreting them. Thus, it was all for the best that Wilkins, Watson, and Crick hijacked her data and claimed her discoveries as their own (Sayre, 1975; Watson, 1968)....

If you're interested in a more modern look at the issues women face in science check out Issues Affecting Women in STEM

The author goes into great detail (which i won't subject you to here) about the nature of scientific concepts and categorization themselves as male bias, an example being the tendency to ignore certain behaviors in female primates based on our own human social constructions of how women should behave:

The effect of male bias on scientific research is most dramatic in fields closely related to sex and gender. In the study of primate social behavior, for example, scientists have exaggerated the extent and importance of male dominance hierarchies and male aggression, initiative, and competition in controlling troop behavior (Haraway, Hrdy, this volume; Leibowitz, 1979; Wasser, 1983). This astigmatism has seriously compromised data collection and theory construction in animal behavior and evolution. Another example of distortion can be found in the near- obsessive focus on discovering a biological basis for small average differences between the sexes in behavior, or in the scores achieved on some kind of cognitive test (Bleier, 1984, and this volume). Thus, in areas of biological research related (sometimes subconsciously) to human sexuality or gender male bias in the scientific establishment has frequently resulted in misleading, unreliable research....

There is, at present, one area within biology where feminist pressures working alongside the creative energies of women scientists have already wrought a substantial reappraisal. This is the field of primate behavior, as noted in the introduction to this volume and described by Hrdy in Chapter 6. Assumptions about gender differences in human society had served to blind investigators to the active, diversified, individually adaptive, aggressive, dominating behaviors of female primates. Considered unacceptable and unnatural for females in human society, these behaviors were ignored, denied, and made to vanish from the data on primates. But as the feminist movement expanded our notions of women's roles and abilities, some ethologists (primarily women) became aware that the field data they were collecting about primate societies did not support the traditional notions of male dominance and control abetted by female passivity and self-sacrifice thought typical of all primate societies (Hrdy, Chapter 6). It gradually became clear that deeply held beliefs, coupled with poorly designed techniques of data collection and analysis, had led the science establishment into grave distortions in the analysis of primate sex roles and social organization, which were then used, in turn, to support sociobiological notions about the inevitability of patriarchal social organization in human society (Bleier, 1984, Chapters 2 and 5; Goldberg, 1 974; Hrdy, 1981; Wasser, 1983).

That was the first paper, here's the second:

The usual idea of a paradigm, as used in the social study of science, refers to conceptual frameworks within the ambit of the ongoing work of scientists. The influence of patriarchy is usually more general than this: it provides a social framework within which scientific developments occur.

Clear examples are found in the often closely related areas of medical and psychological research. It is here that the wider social assumptions about women's inferiority combined with male domination within these professions have led to a systematic denigration, trivialisation and lack of interest in those health problems associated with women. This is seen both at the research level and in the application of knowledge. The severe effects of hormone replacement therapy or hormonal contraception are not considered important enough to warrant investigation of alternatives.

There is also a more frequent dismissal of women's physical problems by doctors and researchers. The denigration of women's health problems becomes a vicious circle when the lack of medical understanding is then used to justify ongoing neglect. Women who are excluded from the decision-making process of what constitutes science have little control over directions of research in these areas and the application of knowledge.[25]

The search for genetic determinants also links in with male-female relations. More recently sociobiology has been used to legitimate the genetic explanation for behaviour. One example is the search for genetic factors in the measured differences between males and females in certain types of spatial ability.[26] The sociological question is, why is so much effort put into the hypothesis that males may be genetically superior in spatial ability, or mathematical abstraction, than into hypotheses based on social origins of these differences?

The answer is that widespread assumptions about male superiority in related socially prestigious arenas (engineering, mathematics) lead to attention to genetic explanations. Popular accounts of even tentative findings which suggest genetic components in the mathematical ability of some males often contain a clear implication: there is no need to investigate or redress biases between boys and girls in upbringing, experiences, incentives, facilities and expectations regarding mathematics and related disciplines.

The first paper went into some detail on the conceptual ideas which shape scientific research, but the second puts it more clearly imo:

The second patriarchal influence on scientific knowledge is on its content and structures. In most of the social sciences, women are invisible: their experiences are overlooked and their role is stereotyped. The traditional form of these disciplines can truly be called 'men's studies'.[27]For example, psychoanalysis denies the reality of the rape of female children by fathers or other males in the family: from Freud onwards, women's accounts of their experiences were interpreted as psychological, for example as wish-fulfilment.[28]

Though this is difficult to demonstrate, patriarchy may also play a role at a more fundamental level in knowledge construction. One possible influence is the preference for explanations involving hierarchy and competition:

taxonomy is built on assumptions of hierarchies among species; long-favoured theories of cellular organisation have been based on the assumption of hierarchy with the genetic material in the leading role[29];
evolutionary theory in its origin and development has drawn upon ideas of hierarchy and competition provided by the social and political environment in which the theory developed and prospered[30];
neo-classical economics is founded on assumptions of individualism and competition;
the mathematical theory of games is built around the idea of individual players competing for discrete rewards;
'scientific management' is founded on the fundamental distinction between the manager and the worker, as well as on the detailed division of labour.[31]

purple_lock · 2015-02-14T22:55:11+00:00

I read the first two articles and found them very insightful.

As outlined in the above post, some feminists now try to "undermine science as a method for obtaining knowledge as it is "insensitive", "patriarchal" and has "male bias"

This is not the case at all. They are not undermining science. We're talking about scientists who happen to be women, not random feminists in the street. They are not trying to say we shouldn't use science but that parts of science, including methodology and the politics employed by scientists are biased and produce biased results.

They're interested in producing better results. Most of these results will have nothing whatsoever to do with women and feminism. In the first article, the scientist gives a picture of how the obtaining of funding and the pressure to release constant articles results in a stunted progression of scientific knowledge. Also, the desire to become well-known in the field is overshadowing actual progress.

[...]because science evolved within patriarchal society, it took on a decidedly masculine tone and became burdened and distorted by a pervasive male bias. [...] It gradually became clear that deeply held beliefs, coupled with poorly designed techniques of data collection and analysis, had led the science establishment into grave distortions in the analysis of primate sex roles and social organization, which were then used, in turn, to support sociobiological notions about the inevitability of patriarchal social organization in human society. source: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mdr2/classes/76_101_D_Fall_04/readings/Namenwirth.htm

Totally agree. Very eye-opening and interesting and says to me we need far more women in science. Women will have their own biases in relation to certain fields of science - and because of this I would never want all-female scientists. The current male bias in science is clear.

Patriarchy within the scientific community is manifested through male control of elite positions and various exclusionary devices. The scientific method incorporates masculine features such as the objectification of nature. Scientific knowledge is masculine in its neglect of women's experience and its adoption of paradigms built on assumptions of competition and hierarchy. source: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/85spp.html

Totally agree. Another very interesting article.

Is e=mc2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest.

Luce Irigaray, who wrote this, is a philosopher. I don't give a rat's ass what she said. Same as I don't give a rats what harebrained ideas Nietzsche has about women, neither do I care what Luce Irigaray has to say.

[deleted] · 2015-02-14T23:28:21+00:00

Per usual, red piller fails to understand the papers he links to.

Makes crazy conclusions that have no base in what he cites.

Demonstrates a complete lack in qualities that women are supposedly biologically disadvantaged at.

Irony.

Seriously red pillers. Don't double down. Take a step back and realize the idiocy on the sub reddit.

17b29a · 2015-02-14T21:11:00+00:00

someone points out that science tends to have some obvious biases? omg feminists are trying to undermine science! the sky is falling!!! better censor them before anyone is convinced by their reasonable arguments!!!!!

squirrels33 · 2015-02-14T18:19:59+00:00

Scientific inquiry should never be halted due to some groups fear of what will be found

ECoast_Man · 2015-02-15T03:12:07+00:00

Typical.

Instead they rely on 'social science'. Which is not actually a science in my view, because 'patriarchy' cannot be a law, like say relativity. Having different hormones due to sex differences, which in turn influence behaviour, is dismissed as patriarchy.... Right...

[deleted] · 2015-02-14T22:23:39+00:00

Oh please. This mischaracterization of feminists should embarrass you. It's one feminist, taken completely out of context. Red pillers are so pathetic sometimes, christ.

fizolof · 2015-02-14T18:48:25+00:00

Science severely limits feminism's ability to make up bullshit. Therefore, the natural response is to claim that all science is biased.

[deleted] · 2015-02-14T20:14:53+00:00

Feminism is a religion. Religions go by faith not science.

denart4 · 2015-02-14T21:14:58+00:00

Not surprised, just things feminists say.

alphabetmod · 2015-02-14T18:39:25+00:00

It's not just science, and it's nothing new. It's feminist censorship, and it's what happens when someone says/does/publishes/etc something that hurts feminists feelings.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/12/5-examples-of-feminist-censorship-that-will-make-you-rethink-online-bullying/

VermiciousKnidzz · 2015-02-14T18:52:34+00:00

i always asked the same thing about red pillers

[deleted] · 2015-02-14T18:46:36+00:00

The recent post here referencing the Overton Window seems appropriate. If these idiots get shouted down, then "mainstream" feminists can disassociate from them - that's not real feminism. If these idiots are accepted or at least tolerated, then the bounds of what's acceptable get expanded. Perhaps the next idea that gets floated is the concept of charging men with the crime of pre-rape.

As feminists and non-feminists would you agree that we should collectively try to stop this movement?

This serves some people's interests, so they aren't going to speak out against it. Like I said above they won't openly support it until it's clear that it's acceptable, but they might note something about free speech. Also, getting into bed with feminists, politically speaking, is a bad idea.

YaBoiTibzz · 2015-02-14T23:52:05+00:00

Nothing new honestly, it's well documented at this point how much feminist advocacy groups have fudged statistics to support their rape-hysteria agenda. 1 in 4 women on college campuses? Sure, women at U.S. colleges are being raped at the same rate as women living in African nations where rape is employed as a tool of war. It's an absurd figure under even a little bit of scrutiny but it's been parroted in the media for years now.

namae_nanka · 2015-02-15T04:43:47+00:00

Yeah there is this Cordelia Fine who wants the differences science to be shut down. And then there is Sweden denying books to be published,

"Jens Orback, a Swedish minister, that "The government considers female and male as social constructions.that means gender patterns are created by upbringing, culture, economic conditions, power structures and political ideologies.

"Our Swedish gender equality policy is based on us being equal and socialised into different gender roles. Annica Dahlstrom is an essentialist feminist and believes that boys and girls are totally different. The county government cannot publish material with that opinion."

Also, Sweden's gender madness documentary narrated by a female mathematician,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBmeOffXxkA

stop this movement

ayy lmao, it already is deep-rooted what you mean is to deny them the satisfaction of doing it openly.

Steven Goldberg held the world record in having his book rejected 69 times from 55 publishers before it was finally published in 1973. They perhaps didn't see the use for it in such a male-dominated society. His book? The Inevitability of Patriarchy.

And since the subject of IQ keeps coming up again and again, even that has become maligned as sexist despite the fact that Terman was deeply influenced with the notions of gender-equality.

Terman made efforts to correct item bias in the Stanford Binet so that as many girls as boys would be identified, and he went so far as to obscure the drop in girls' IQ scores between 11 and 17 by collapsing their means scores with the boys, yielding a nonsignificant decline in IQ for the entire group.

And his IQ tests didn't test for spatial intelligence, the two Nobel winners Shockley and Alvarez probably would have been included in his study of gifted students.

sh1v · 2015-02-14T20:00:10+00:00

If the KKK put out a study stating that black people were inferior, would you believe it?

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2015-02-15T14:17:29+00:00

I really fucking hate any religious nut who attempts to pervert science to serve their ideology.

Scientists are trying to drag us out of the dark ages and these lunatics want to screw with that.

No one forces science in to your churches or women's studies departments. So keep your toxic ideology out of science.

gregariousnefarious · 2015-02-16T03:26:52+00:00

Wut. Yeah this post is just stupid.

winndixie · 2015-02-16T06:43:37+00:00

I think if they're hot I'll agree with them to get into their pants.

CursedLemon · 2015-02-16T17:46:48+00:00

Reacting to this kind of thing is almost as bad as propagating it.

StabbyPants · 2015-02-14T23:38:00+00:00

It's nonsense, and why i generally disregard anyone who's described as a feminist researcher. can't put ideology in front of facts.

[deleted] · 2015-02-14T21:13:43+00:00

I trust University of Toronto will be on your case soon...for attaching its name to this filfth.

Title	What do you think of feminists who try to undermine science as a source for knowledge?
Author	UniversityofToronto
Upvotes	7
Comments	137
Date	February 14, 2015 6:17 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2vw52h/what_do_you_think_of_feminists_who_try_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-you-think-of-feminists-who-try-to.283476 https://theredarchive.com/post/283476

Comments