the feminist critique of science

[Joy Frestedt]

In response to Pearse's comments to Muriel...

Au contraire, I think this is EXACTLY the point.  In the example you use, 
the "way" in which science was done has been changed completely.  In the 
record, the "male" way to DO science was to study only MEN...the "female" 
way to DO science is to study BOTH men and women (all ages I hope).  I 
hope this means that the way we DO science has been changed DRASTICALLY 
from now on! (Admitedly, the feminist critique of science is much broader 
than this simple diatribe).  I leave all claims of superiority in this 
example to the minds of our gentle readers.
Joy Frestedt
=======forwarded posts below=========
On Sun, 10 Sep 1995 14:11:23 -0700, 
Pearse Ward  <wardp at herald.usask.ca> wrote:
>Ah, but this is substantially different from a "feminist"... critique of 
science. In this case, a bias in how studies were conducted was identified 
and attempts were made to
>rectify the imbalance. The _way_ in which the science was done was not
>altered. Most of the work that has been labelled a "feminist critique of
>science" (at least what I have read of it) atempts to show that there is a
>"male" way to do science and a "female" way to do science, and then claims
>that the "female" way is inherently superior. I question why a supposedly
>female set of biases would be inherently better than the equivelent male
>set.
>Pearse Ward

============
>In article <v01510100ac771de3723f@[128.173.187.13]>, mstorrie at vt.edu
>(muriel lederman) wrote:
>In a nutshell -
>> alternative perspectives, whether those of oppressed groups or other
>> cultures ARE valuable. Without someone yelling, do you really think that
>> NIH would now require that experimental patient groups be composed of both
>> males and females? 
===========

Joy L Frestedt, PhD candidate
Pathobiology program, Lab Med and Path
University of Minnesota Medical School
Box 86 UMHC
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612)625-5676
frest001 at maroon.tc.umn.edu