throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) (11/28/90)
A recent conference on primatology was closed to men. According to the 28Sep90 issue of Science, the conference, "Women Scientists Look at Evolution: Female Biology and Life History," was held in August at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Science writer Jennie Dusheck reports: "Two of the main organizers of the conference, Adirienne Zihlman (USCS) and Mary Ellen Morbeck (U Ariz)... insist female scientists speak more freely on such topics when males aren't around. What is more, the add, women scientists think differently about those topics thean men do - possibly even understanding them better becasuse they are women." Duscheck then quotes several male and female primatoligists who were "appalled" or otherwise objected to the exclusion. "Zihlman and Morbeeck, both physical anthropologists, say they didn't set out to exclude men when they began putting the conference together. But when they first drew up a list of potential participants, it just happened to consist entirely of women. The next step was simply deciding not to add any token males to give some semblance of balance. "Having arrived by accident at an all-female conference, the organizers rationalized the exclusion of men... "Zihlman and Morbeck also say that male posturing and filbustering slow conferences down. Without them, they say, exceptional progress was made. Glows Morbeck `At the end of the first day, we were where we'd be after 3 days of other conferences. At the endo of 2.5 days, we were miles ahead.'" The article raises the possibility that not only were men excluded, but that their research was also excluded. Some of the particpants claim that "Research done by women on females...is qualitatively different from research done by men. Silvana Tarli (U of Pisa, Italy) is an example of those who hold that point of view: `It was necsessary that the particpants be all female since [the conference] had to do with female life history strategies. Males cannot find out what is important in female reproduction. They've never experienced it. How can they judge, value, or lable things they have never experienced themselves?'" Primatology is not a field closed to women. 35% of the members of the American Society of Primatologists are women, and women's participation in the field began in the 1920s. Not covered in the article: How was the conference funded? How many participants were there in the conference? Was this conference an official function of the American Society of Primatologists? Will a proceeding be published? Are there any applicable laws prohibiting such discrimination? Sputtering with amazement, David Throop
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (11/28/90)
----- In article <1061@ai.cs.utexas.edu> throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) writes: > According to the 28Sep90 issue of Science, the conference, "Women > Scientists Look at Evolution: Female Biology and Life History," was > held in August at the University of California at Santa Cruz. > Science writer Jennie Dusheck reports: > > "Two of the main organizers of the conference, Adirienne Zihlman > (USCS) and Mary Ellen Morbeck (U Ariz) ... [say that] women > scientists think differently about those topics thean men do > - possibly even understanding them better becasuse they are > women. ... > > Without them [men], they say, exceptional progress was made. > Glows Morbeck `At the end of the first day, we were where we'd be > after 3 days of other conferences. At the endo of 2.5 days, we > were miles ahead.'" One wonders how they know that women are better at this kind of research, and how objective their appraisal of the conference was. Are there any studies of this? Perhaps a blind review of papers published by men and women? Somehow, I doubt that these claims would stand up if subjected to the same scrutiny that would be demanded for any claim that men are better in some field than women. And one can only imagine the uproar that would ensue if such a claim were used to exclude women from an academic conference! > Silvana Tarli (U of Pisa, Italy) ...: `It was necsessary > that the particpants be all female since [the conference] had > to do with female life history strategies. Males cannot find > out what is important in female reproduction. They've never > experienced it. How can they judge, value, or lable things > they have never experienced themselves?'" My understanding was that primatology covers the study of the primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas, and other species that are not human. But how can a *human* female "find out what is important in female reproduction" in these other species, seeing as how they have never had the experience of being a chimpanzee or gorilla? What rubbish! Silvana Tarli's criterion, if taken to the logical extreme, makes impossible the study of any subject other than one's solitary self. The University of Pisa has a real turkey there. Undoubtedly, raising these issues reveals my underlying patriarchal assumptions. Feh. Russell
JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) (11/29/90)
For people's information, there were two follow-up letters to _Science_, 16 November issue, page 887. The first (By Joel Shurkin) raised the same point as Russ Turpin, namely: "Imagine the publicity and outcry that would result if a group of male researchers decided to hold a meeting on, say, prostate surgery or male impotence and barred women because 'it had to do with male life histories'. Imagine that they decided to forbid women science writers....." (this latter comment refers to the original plans of the conference to also bar male journalists, a plan which later was withdrawn). But as the second writer (Jim Moore, UCSD Anthro dept) points out, "...the test of the hypothesis [that women can work better without male posturing and filibustering] will be in the publications that result, which all will have access to. The burden of proof is now on the organizers." Amen. Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900 jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu "I am the Supreme Being, you know; I'm not completely dim."
schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) (11/29/90)
See also letters on the subject in a recent issue (16 or 23 Nov) of Science.
austern@ux5.lbl.gov (Matt Austern) (11/29/90)
In article <15147@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs (Russell Turpin) writes: > >One wonders how they know that women are better at this kind of >research, and how objective their appraisal of the conference >was. Are there any studies of this? Perhaps a blind review of >papers published by men and women? I'm not particularly defending the conference organizers, but there's some context here that I haven't seen on the net. There's a fairly well developed field of feminist theory of science (Evelyn Fox-Keller is the best known author, but there are others), which looks at the question, essentially, of how our own ideas of gender influence what we think we see when we observe the world. Primatology is the discipline that is most frequently used as an example in these critiques. The point (The point of people like Fox-Keller, that is; I'm reporting the claim, not advocating it, since I lack the expertise to judge it.) is that when scientists look at social relations in non-human primates, what they see often depends on their ideology of social relations in humans. Some primatologists even claim that studying other primates has direct relevance to what is "natural" for humans; how could that fail to be influenced by ideology? In particular, it is claimed that male and female primatologists report very different patterns of behavior; men seem, for example, to be much more prone to report male dominance. An all-female primatology conference still might not be a smart idea, but there is reason for it---it wasn't just done on a whim. (Incidentally, I don't want to give the impression that feminist critiques of science are restricted to primatology: they're much more general than that. Primatology, though, is the field that these authors seem to feel is most blatently influenced by ideology.) -- Matthew Austern austern@lbl.bitnet Proverbs for paranoids, 3: If (415) 644-2618 austern@ux5.lbl.gov they can get you asking the wrong austern@lbl.gov questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (11/29/90)
It apears from what has been said that the speakers were all female because that's how the outcome of the selection turned out, not because they were deliberately selected to be female. Nothing wrong with that. What seems to be wrong is the sexist rationalizing that came later. Similarly, if speakers were selected for a conference on the basis of their qualifications, and if it just happened that they were all male, I would see nothing wrong with that. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
rwerman@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL (ROBERT WERMAN) (11/30/90)
In article <8283@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, austern@ux5.lbl.gov (Matt Austern) writes... >In particular, it is claimed that male and female primatologists >report very different patterns of behavior; men seem, for example, to >be much more prone to report male dominance. >An all-female primatology conference still might not be a smart idea, >but there is reason for it---it wasn't just done on a whim. ************************************************************************* If you are talking about a political meeting, it might be justifiable, and not done on a whim. But what sort of SCIENTIFIC [Primatology or otherwise] meeting prohibits attendance of those holding an unpolpular [or in this case, a popular] view of a particular set of phenomena? This exclusionary behavior puts the organizers of this conference outside of the realm of science. It has some of the absurdity of the memorial service in GARP. It is in fact a smart idea politically, and serves to mobilize the frustrated, create a new private in-group, and gain publicity. But science [let alone SCIENCE], no, no, no. It is not science. __Bob Werman rwerman@hujivms Jerusalem ` `