Scientific facts are oppressing women

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Earlier this year we had feminist perspectives on glaciology. But that raises the obvious question, why haven’t we yet had a feminist perspective on syllabi in science courses? Not to fear, though. Laura Parsons, a graduate student from UND, is here to fill that void with Are STEM Syllabi Gendered? A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis.

Through a poststructuralist lens, it is possible to make a comparison between a modernist view of knowledge as based on notions of absolute truth and a single reality, which is masculine, and the social construction of knowledge, where knowledge is unstable and informed by context … The view of knowledge as socially constructed challenges the modern male concept of power

Ok, so to make sure I’ve got this right, to believe that there’s a “single reality”, and that some facts are simply true and not socially constructed, is masculine. Onwards!

The STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the student, which promotes a view of knowledge as unchanging. This is further reinforced by the use of adverbs to imply certainty such as “actually” and “in fact” which are used in syllabi to identify information as factual and beyond dispute (Biber, 2006a; 2006b). For example, “draw accurate conclusions from scientific data presented in different formats” (Lower level math). Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use to make the correct decision.

Ok, so believing in facts is not only a masculine thing to do, it also reinforces male dominance. Well, that could be slightly problematic, because as far as I know, every math, science, and engineering class in existence reinforces the belief that there are facts, and that some conclusions based on data are accurate while others are not.

Initial exploration of the STEM syllabi in this study did not reveal overt references to gender, such as through the use of gendered pronouns. However, upon deeper review, language used in the syllabi reflects institutionalized STEM teaching practices and views about knowledge that are inherently discriminatory to women and minorities by promoting a view of knowledge as static and unchanging,

I’m getting the impression that it might be a bit difficult to for any science or math class to not be inherently discriminatory to women and minorities.

2

I don’t think I’d like to cross a bridge engineered by someone that rejects the notion that correct decision should be based on knowledge and facts.

3

This crap isn’t new - I remember stuff like this from back in the 80s and 90s.

Ever wonder why so many young women refuse to call themselves feminists even though they’re in favor of gender equality? Nonsense like this has something to do with it.

4

The opinion of Laura Parsons, graduate student, is not important.

5

I bet I could find somebody else saying something dumb, and use that one person to discredit an entire movement. Like, I could find one American who says something silly, and that means America is a stupid idea and we should shut it down.

6

Not the best example.

Right now you can find tens of millions of Americans saying something dumb, and while asserting that America is a stupid idea and we should shut it down is probably wrong, it’s never been more right that it is right now.

7

Women should not be defined by the likes of Laura Parsons just as men should not be defined by the likes of the average MRA.

Side note: The average MRA is, in fact, significantly below average. Mathematically impossible but true.

8

This is an example of the horseshoe theory in action. Apparently extreme chauvinists and extreme feminists both agree that women (and minorities, apparently) are incapable of logical thought.

9

Laura Parsons certainly seems to be incapable of logical thought, but thankfully most of us are not her. I kind of feel like I dodged a bullet there, I’m feeling so relieved to be me…

10

I’m glad to hear it. I didn’t have anything to be disgruntled about today. The opinion of a college student oughta ruffle my feathers properly this morning.

11

For Crissake, science and math are masculine because they always have to be right? I suppose history is feminine because it’s always changing its mind about things.

I’m a woman and a feminist. Don’t judge me by morons.

12

The masculine/feminine thing is poorly expressed but what Howard’s actually trying to get at is that the language used in class syllabi presents knowledge as a closed set of rules to be learned as received wisdom from a powerful figure, not as a collaborative effort to achieve a better understanding of the world.

She’s not arguing against the existence of facts. She’s saying that presenting facts like Moses coming in with his divine tablets can be off-putting to students who don’t want to be lectured to. Instead, she’s saying that involving the students in a process of discovery can inspire more students to want to learn.

Furthermore, she’s saying that the language used in a syllabus can make a class sound more or less appealing, depending on one’s tolerance for rote learning.

She’s then characterizing the two learning styles as masculine or feminine, which is screwy but also kind of irrelevant. But in a “publish or perish” environment, you got to budget for screwy articles. Even if it’s stupid, it’s still a line on her CV.

And that’s ok, too. Sometimes, people have ideas that sound interesting at first, like the language used in syllabi, but it ends up going nowhere special. Academics need to be free to pursue ideas even if they don’t work out.

13

No, it’s not irrelevant. It’s manicheism painted over as feminism, and the paint has flaked before it’s even dried. There are a million other labels she could have chosen, or she could have invented some, but she chose to use pseudofeminism instead.

14

I don’t necessarily disagree that science - particularly medicine - is constantly changing as we learn more, and the “facts” of yesteryear (stomach ulcers are caused by stress and bad food, burning herbs will prevent the plague, epileptics are possessed by demons, etc.) are supplanted with today’s facts that may or may not end up being true in 20 years when we know even more.

But what I don’t get is how that is “feminine”.

15

La donna e mobile.

16

More accurately: no more important than any other random grad.

But unlike 30 years ago when only the relative handful of people actually reading the print copy of her paper, and those discussing it in person, would even know of it, now it can be – and we at SDMB are an example – disseminated worldwide instantly by multiple channels and on top of it quickly distorted in the retelling of TL/DR versions, in order to make a point both for and against (and not just pro/con her theory about science education, but feministic academics in general, publishing review standards … any number of other things you could attach to the article).

And yes, science should be taught as the approach that leads to better understanding, through questioning and testing the ruling theory, rather than as a set relation of data to memorize. BUT if you “don’t want to be lectured”, well, too bad, some classes ARE lectures. And some of the observations, conclusions and findings ARE “facts” and are “actual” because they are, not because some old white man said so.

17

Knowledge is the fruit of that scientific discovery process. The problem is that when it comes to STEM classes, there’s so much of that knowledge that there’s not enough time for students to engage in a science-museum style voyage of discovery. Want a mechanical engineering degree? Among other things, you’ve got a year of calculus and a year of thermodynamics to get through. Unlike Moses, your instructors should not be seen as simple mouthpieces spouting off received divine wisdom; they are learned experts, and the knowledge they are passing on has been tested and probed (and successfully used) by generations of scientists and engineers. It’s backed up by years of scientific research and use, and that research is all available for your review, just over there in the library, for anyone who wants to spend their own time digging further back into history to see how the voyage of discovery unfolded over time. Some of it is truly interesting and worthy of review, e.g. Leviathan and the Air Pump- but if you’re trying to become an engineer who can design airplanes or refineries, your bachelor’s degree will take eight years if you try to add that sort of thing to the formal curriculum; interested students can pursue that sort of thing on their own time.

TL,DR: STEM curricula eschew holding students hands through “a process of discovery” because there isn’t enough time for it. In addition to a fundamental aptitude, incoming STEM students need to arrive with a built-in interest for the subject matter.

18

She isn’t saying the science is gendered…she is saying the way it is taught favors men. That isn’t even new news. As we continue to try and figure out why women don’t tend to go into STEM fields, study after study shows similar bias.

http://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-1-6817-4277-9

19

And challenging existing knowledge through meticulous research has long been central to the process, which is way different from this pseudointellectual gobble:

That sounds like someone trying to establish a safe space for not learning the basics in their field. Students don’t get to “construct” knowledge without following rules that have nothing to do with gender, something acknowledged by the many excellent female scientists who have distinguished themselves in their fields of study.

This particular nimrod sounds like the alt med advocates who engage in special pleading, arguing that “your evil reductionist science can’t explain my woo.”

20

Contra to the author, scientific fact is in actually socially constructed and subject to change. Scientists don’t use those squishy terms, but most would agree that they create knowledge through social collaboration. Feminist academics seem to have a gripe that facts can’t be challenged and this favors men somehow, but scientists cheerfully love to challenge and destroy establish facts if new information warrants it. I’m not sure why they feel the need to clash with the scientific process.

One thing I do think is wrongheaded is the desired to universally treat all knowledge as constructed by the individual. That’s a good idea at higher levels of learning. But if a student has to construct every single fact, and then recheck that fact when other facts are encountered, it will take forever to navigate the fundamental material. There simply won’t be time to reach the more powerful level of knowledge without taking the lower levels as axiomatic.