Re: Science as sexist

From: farah mendlesohn (fm7@YORK.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Apr 29 1997 - 10:39:52 PDT


On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:04:20 CDT Mary Ann Beavis, IUS wrote:

> From: Mary Ann Beavis, IUS <mary@CONED.UWINNIPEG.CA>
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:04:20 CDT
> Subject: Re: Science as sexist
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> Let's face it, the phrase "hard science" has a pretty macho ring to
> it! It's probably no accident that men "dominate" the "hard
> sciences," whereas women tend to be attracted to the "softer"
> disciplines and social sciences. Just an opinion.

This is a historical phenomenon not the call of biological destiny.
Women tend to have been involved in all sciences a. where the
education was available to them and b. where such activity was
considered amateur and aristocratic. When an activity is
professionalised or gains in status it usually does so by laying down
qualifications for entry, and for some reason the correct genitalia
appears to be crucial. This has applied from everything to brewing,
mathematics, medicine, teaching and English literature. After all, its
not that long ago that classicswas considered too difficult and too
prurient for girls. Only after it lost its status were girls encouraged to
do classics (girls are *so* good at languages aren't they???), or
perhaps it was their very entry which lowered the status of the
profession.

Farah



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:07 PDT