On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Heather MacLean wrote:
> 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*
Thank you for your much more eloquent conveyance of my ideas. lorie
>
> Heather
> =)
>
>
>
> hmaclean@kent.edu
> http://kent.edu/~hmaclean/
>
Lorie Sauble-Otto
Dept. of French & Italian
Mod Lang 549
The University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:07 PDT