On Fri, 2 May 1997, Martha Bartter wrote:
[snip]
> Instead of "ignorance" would you substitute "empirical judgment"?
> (See, e.g., _Women's Ways of Knowing_ which does NOT downplay the
> kind of knowledge and conclusions that women operate from!)
Whoaa there! Are you suggesting that women operate from fundamentally
different kinds of knowledge and come to conclusions in fundamentally
different ways than men? You seem to make men and women two separate
species. These views that you seem to espouse (please correct me if I am
wrong) I tend to caracterize as hetero-sexist. They are in fundamental
conflict with the feminist ideals that I have embraced. So, rather than
debate the philosophical here, let me contend with your version of reality
and history as outlined below. Either I am significantly misunderstanding
it or one (or both) of us has a warped view of reality and history.
> "Science" simply refers to the operating system of current
> superstitions. It's always open to revision (or it isn't science),
> although this may come hard (see, e.g., the fuss about Einstein's
> theory of relativity in the 'teens and 'twenties of this century.)
> Perhaps a better way of speaking about that would refer to the
> contemporary mythology, which also encodes technology -- and that
> refers simply to "science worked out so we can use it" or else
> "things that work that science hasn't figured out yet" (like the
> steam engine, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution).
Science is special. It is not superstition. It is not superstition for
precisely the reason you refer to (if it isn't open to revision it isn't
science). That (and the insistance on testability) is exceedingly
important. It is really and truely special. It is also why much
psychology is not considered "true" science. Many psychological models
simply aren't testable. (And even if they are, human thought it so
complicated that there are so many other factors that it isn't even
funny.) It does not however, satisfy all of our needs. Nor is it
perfect (even by it's own standards). However, I think that those
standards and ideals are vitaly important and special in all areas of
human life.
> "Fantasy" -- GOOD fantasy -- explores psychological "reality" or
> psychological experience. Not a bad place for women, IMHO. (Men
> too often don't have the imagination to handle that well, or else
> they don't remember their own experience clearly enough. Some do,
> of course -- our excellent male fantasists.)
> Joanna Russ has discussed women's relationships to technology, and
> claims that women don't have the freedom either to "like" or to
> "reject" it, because it is not under their "control." However, a
> great deal of today's technology seems aimed at women (even if the
> designers don't realize it), because women make most of the money
> decisions now, at least in the U.S.
> Case in point: computers, "user friendly" and GUI -- when
> computers were really new, very few women used them. One spoke to
> a computer in machine language; even the most basic compilers were
> not available. But most MEN couldn't do this, either. So various
> computer "languages" have been written; if you can program your
> databse or spreadsheet, or rearrange the icons on your desktop,
> it's because more and more MEN couldn't work within the limited
> parameters of the old machine languages. Eventually, Apple came up
> with the Mac, Microsoft invented Windows, and then decided that
> users (read "women") couldn't handle that, so the put out something
> called BOB with their product. It is/was so simple (and so useless)
> that it's pretty well disappeared. WOMEN didn't want it. We know
> what something that "helpful" does to our hard disks. But this was
> a "technological fix" for those poor computer users who couldn't
> figure out how to open a file in Windows. (Meaning, women.) Think, if
> you will, about technology today. Heinlein had the right idea in
> _Door Into Summer_ -- women use most of the current technology, but
> it's not designed to make their life easier. He "invented" a device
> to wash windows, and to scrub bathtubs without leaning over. For
> once, a man really noticed what would make a woman's life easier.
> (And to my knowledge, no one has yet really put those useful devices
> on the market.)
I am reeling from (IMHO) whacked out version of computer history. Let
me mention a few things:
1) The first computer programmer was a woman, as were the first computer
operators, and many of the first computer designers.
2) Most HUMANS probably CAN "speak" with a computer in machine langauge.
However, WHY. It is a pain in the butt for all HUMANS, men and women
alike. No one wants to. In fact, jsut about ALL HUMANS have similar
needs for ease of computer use. However, early computers (and computer
sciences) weren't sophisticated enough to support such ease of use.
3) Tell me, do dishwashers, washing machines, and microwaves help make a
women's life easier? (Even the sexist BS life you envision?)
> Let me catch my breath and lower MY bloodpressure.
Maybe it was your bloodpressure, but somehow you raised mine. Also, I
aggree with waht you say from here on.
[snip]
> I HOPE I'm not reading you correctly here. Are you saying that fiction with
> believable, true-to-life characters CAN'T be "hard SF"?
> The old, knee-jerk crticism of "hard SF" always included "cardboard
> characters" but I thought a whole lot of excellent writers had dumped that
> idea. And I also hope that relating any technology/science in the story to
> well-developed characterizations and believable social situations does not
> automatically exclude the work from any consideration as "hard SF."
>
>
> Martha Bartter
> Truman State University
Where/what is truman state university anyway? I must admit a lack of
knowledge of state universities.
--Joel VanLaven
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:09 PDT