home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.harvard.edu!mcirvin
- From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: female mentors in science
- Message-ID: <mcirvin.728172535@husc.harvard.edu>
- Date: 27 Jan 93 22:08:55 GMT
- Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.728172535
- References: <1993Jan26.230411.3123@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> <1993Jan27.055231.23117@nuscc.nus.sg>
- Lines: 26
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
-
- scip2124@nusunix1.nus.sg (MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO) writes:
-
- >michael kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu) wrote:
-
- >: All this talk about "female science" looks suspiciously similar to
- >: other well known distinctions : "Ariahn" vs "Non-Ariahn", "proletarian"
- >: vs "bourgeous" science....
-
- > Are you a nut?
-
- I don't think he is. On the other hand I think he might have
- misinterpreted the original post. The poster was talking about the
- possibility of female mentors encouraging scientific participation by
- other women, and brought up the possibility (hotly debated) that
- women might have, on average, different kinds of scientific abilities
- than men. I have no strong opinion on that subject, but I think it's a
- very different proposition from the idea, championed by a tiny number
- of radical feminists, that the entire corpus of scientific knowledge
- is a patriarchal scam perpetrated by male scientists, to be toppled
- by a new "female science." The latter is just ridiculous, and
- indeed raises the specter of past efforts to ideologically drive
- scientific inquiry. The former is the subject of legitimate controversy
- over whether it's supported by the data. I don't think the original
- poster was an advocate of "female science" as a separate entity.
- --
- Matt McIrvin
-
