On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:19:27 -0500 Neil Rest wrote:
> From: Neil Rest <NeilRest@TEZCAT.COM>
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:19:27 -0500
> Subject: Re: Science as sexist
> To: FEMINISTSF@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
>
> In response to Lorie G Sauble-Otto <lorie@U.ARIZONA.EDU>, I
wrote:
> >>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"?
>
> Heather MacLean <hmaclean@KENT.EDU> replied:
> >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*
>
> If a fascist sexist pig walks off the top of a building, he will fall with
> an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be
killed,
> splattering his DNA all over the place.
>
> If a pagan feminist, who is really really in touch with herself and
Mother
> Earth, walks off the top of a building, she will fall with an
acceleration
> of 32 feet per second per second, and probably be killed,
splattering her
> DNA all over the place.
>
> This is "the state of things as they are, reality, actuality, truth.". It
> is equally true in Chicago, Cuzco, Cairo and Lhasa.
>
> In the vitally important work of disentangling ourselves from the
> imprisonment of our assumptions, some of which are deeply
embedded in our
> culture and language, let's not be idiots.
>
>
> One of the attractions of science fiction is the seriousness with
which it
> can consider our relations with the universe at large. Certainly, sf
began
> with much more limited horizons, and, we hope, much more
constricting
> preconceptions than we have now. It is our hope that we contribute
to the
> broadining of horizons and further clarification of vision(s), but we
do
> stand on the shoulders of giants, albeit human giants.
>
>
> "Reality is what doesn't go away when you aren't looking."
> Neil
My previous reply to heather may or may not have failed to get
through (the mail server went down - a little hard fact for you) so I will
repeat my points which essentially coincide with Neil (just to add a
feminine voice here).
I too subscribe to a radical feminist understanding of the world, but it
doesn't alter the reality of science. If I thought otherwise, I would be
reading astrology not sf. The real issue is that scientists (human
beings remember) have often claimed a false objectivity, and it is
this we should be challenging -- the claim to scientific status for
spurious thinking. Such thinking should be challenged whether it is
filling human skulls with sand to test the intelligence of men and
women, blacks and whites, orusing the male body to assess the
correct dose of a medication. In science fiction, we should be
prepared to pounce on such sloppy thinking like hawks, not start
muttering that hard science is intrinsicially sexist.
There is a very nice piece by John Huntingdon in his book
Rationalizing Genius which does just this, criticizing the story The
Cold Equations for its flawed "objectivity" which actually masks acute
sexism. On another note, it is always useful to remember that
the first piece of hard sf, Frankenstein -- the extrapolation of the
logical consequences of a scientific development -- was
written by a woman.
Farah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:07 PDT