At 05:28 PM 4/28/97 -0500, Neil Rest wrote:
>Lorie G Sauble-Otto <lorie@U.ARIZONA.EDU> wrote:
>>Let's be careful in a "feminist" discussion of SF--When we start in with a
>>discourse based on "hard science" it gets sticky and sexist. We need to
>>begin--as Many Many people, especially women, already have--to realize the
>>evolution of the genre--the traditionalist approach to genre is based on a
>>masculinist construct.
>
>Excuse me? It appears that you are saying that "hard science" is sexist.
>Certainly the human conduct of the activity may be, but in the sense of
>method and results, do you mean that there is something intrinsicly sexist
>about "hard science"?
>
Well, yes, in a certain sense. Science consists of formulating a
hypothesis, then proving it. In order to prove it, you have to "establish
as true, demonstrate [it] to be a fact." A fact is "the state of things as
they are, reality, actuality, truth." As long as the feminine experience
continues to be invalidated by patriarchy, and patriarchy maintains its
stranglehold over what is truth and reality, science continues to be sexist.
The proof also has to be communicated via language. And language has its own
allegiances to patriarchy.
Note that this is argued from a fairly radical feminist stance, and this
very syllogistic answer also relies on patriarchal modes of thought. Which
may therefore invalidate it. *grins*
Heather
=)
hmaclean@kent.edu
http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:07 PDT