turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (11/29/90)
----- Concerning the exclusion of men from a primatology conference: In article <8283@dog.ee.lbl.gov> austern@ux5.lbl.gov (Matt Austern) writes: > 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. ... > > The point ... 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. ... I have no doubt that this is true. This basic truth has been propounded at least since the Greek philosophers. (It's amazing what one can sometimes learn by reading dead, white men.) > 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. It is a given in discussions on the methodology of science, and by people who have thought about the problem in more general terms, that individuals' perceptions are biased. Many methodologies have been advanced to lessen this problem. One that has been very basic within the sciences, and the liberal arts in general, is the idea of inclusion. One listens to voices regardless of the gender, race, or class of the speaker. One pays attention to *what* is said rather than *who* says it. (Indeed, arguments that focus too much on the speaker are considered the ad hominem fallacy.) Admittedly, these methods have often been honored more in the breach than in practice. Feminism and the civil rights movement made great strides in pointing this out. I had always supposed feminism, with which I align myself, was supposed to point to where the practice was deficient, where inclusion was not permitted, and to where special attention was given to voices *because* of their gender. What was done at this conference was just the opposite. How is it supposed that bias is eliminated by having a conference whose members are presumed to exhibit the *same* bias? (Remember, women primatologists who disagreed with the premise of the organizers were also absent.) Russell