Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction on gender stereotypes
Introduction on gender stereotypes
Introduction on gender stereotypes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction on gender stereotypes
Scientists and the products of their work are far from ‘neutral.’ Rather than embodying neutrality, scientists are inextricably connected to the existing distribution of interests and power. White, male scientists over the centuries have attempted to use science as a medium for all their findings, which inevitably support their personal beliefs. In my experience, scientists are extremely intelligent, but particularly one-sided. Hearing the words ‘scientist’ and ‘neutral’ in the same sentence disturbs me--after all, scientists have tried to ‘prove’ an unlimited amount of times that blacks are innately less intelligent then whites, and that women are innately weaker and possess less natural ability in math and science than men do .
Ruth Hubbard, in her essay “Science, Facts and Feminism,” explains that, “as scientists, our job is to generate facts that help people understand nature. ” Webster’s dictionary defines the word scientist as one who studies natural science. Scientists seek knowledge from Mother Nature, which David Barash views as sexist, to understand many things including the certain roles genders play in society. Similar to these science critics, I believe trying to figure out and define roles based on our biological make-up is immoral. It causes conflicts and biases that account for the separation between genders.
Hubbard argues that the ideology of woman’s nature that is invoked at these times would have us believe that a woman’s capacity to become pregnant leaves her always physically disabled in comparison with men. This ideology, supported by male scientists, has affected the roles of women in society and the workplace. It hinders women’s access to employment and influences some to believe that their place in society is at home (based on nature). Other scientists have also tried to prove that women’s disproportionate contributions to childcare and homecare are biologically programmed because women have a greater biological ‘investment’ in children then men do. My view on this assumption is that the cause of the disproportionate contributions is psychologically, rather than biologically, determined. Fathers might be more sensitive to their children than mothers, and vice versa, proving that scientists’ point about biological ‘investment’ is not only obscure, but also invalid. I find no neutrality in that argument, nor in most of their cases.
Scientists could be more neutral if they actually tried to provide conclusive evidence for some of their findings. Keller stated, “The net result is that scientists are probably less reflective of the ‘tacit assumption’ that guide their reasoning than any other intellectuals of the modern age.
Throughout history, women have always aimed for a recognized place in society. Centuries ago, people looked at the role of women in society as being sociologically inferior. Seeing the revival of the Feminist movement, which boldly opposes the stereotypical characteristics of women in society, on one hand, and promotes the elevation of women's status in society, on the other, one would not find it hard to believe the drastic differences in opinion of people on this issue. What is amazing is how these differences reflect upon scholarly works in science.
The word “bias” has always had a negative connotation. Although it is used synonymously with bigotry and prejudice, its meaning is actually more akin to “point of view,” “personal tendency,” or “preference.” Just as every individual has her own worldview, so she has a set of biases. These biases are often observable in a person’s habits, speech, and, perhaps most explicitly, writings. Daniel Boorstin, renowned University of Chicago professor, historian, author, and librarian of Congress, is undeniably biased towards certain cultures in The Discoverers. A book chronicling mankind’s scientific history, its first words are “My hero is Man the Discoverer.” In his telling of “man’s search to know his world and himself,” Boorstin declares that
In the first half of the book, “Half-changed world”, “Half-changed minds”, the author argues about how social and environmental factors influence the mind on the gender differences. She also includes the history and impact of the gender stereotypes we see and how science has been used to justify the use of sexism. In the first chapter in the “Half-changed world” section of the book she uses an example of if a researcher tapped you on the shoulder and asked you to write down what males and females were like if you would write down things such as compassionate for females and aggressive for males or if you would look at the researcher and tell them that every person is unique.(Fine,3) Based on the information in the book most people would pick up the pencil and write down descriptions of each gender based on the way the world perceives gender. She also talks about marriage and how “the husband is the breadwinner and works outside the home to provide financial resources for the family. In return, his wife is responsible for both the emotional and household labor created by the family…” (Fine,78)
Women's Brain When you look at the dictionary, the definition of 'Science' is "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" (Webster's dictionary). In order to make a truth, many scientists take the time to observe or test with scientific methods. In the nineteenth century, there are some incorrect truths, even if it looks like truths logically arranged by scientific method, because the scientists understood the priori that already assumed the outcome would be the same as their predictions. As I read Stephen Jay Gould's argument from "Women's Brains", he found some unequal conditions that supported scientific method for intelligence of man. Paul Broca tried to measure the inferiority of women with scientific criteria that were invidious comparisons such as races, classes, and sexes.
...or Powertech and its Colorado land and project manager, urges that its company’s proposal be judged on facts; however, does Douglas have a bias towards Powertech, Would her statement be different if she wasn’t working for them, and is she being neutral. Douglas implies the words “good science”, the word “good” is subjective, and it means different things to different people. “Good” science cannot be pure good; it always has its “bad” aspects linked to it. As a result, “good” science alone can never provide the answers wanted.
Many women scientist upheld and defended their positions as learned, scientific individuals. Marie Meurdrac, a French scientist, in a foreword to a publication stated clearly that women’s and men’s minds, if thought in the same manner would hold no difference.(Doc 2) Similarly, Dorothea Erxleben understood and explained why men and women alike look down on her for studying science because they feel that it is an insult.(Doc 9) Her experiences as a female scientist led her to truly grasp why her persecutors acted as they did towards her although this document shows no signs that she thinks the same. Maria Sibylla Merian, a German entomologist, discussed some of her scientific practices that encompass her dedication and fascination with science.(Doc 5) Another example of this whole-hearted dedication comes from Marquis...
to the conclusion at one point that the whole thing was hopeless because it is a biological fact women have babies and that is always a career breaker. I end this paper rather disappointed that now, as it was centuries ago,are allowing their lives to be run by male views and stereotypes. The world is moving forward but unless women stop allowing
Other, more surreptitious opponents of science abound as well. Ironically, one such antagonist originates from within academia itself: the postmodernists. Of this group, Bishop writes: "According to these "postmodernists," the supposedly objective truths of science are in reality all "socially constructed fictions," no more than "useful myths,...
When considering gender and sex, a layman’s idea of these terms might be very different than a sociologist’s. There is an important distinction: sex, in terms of being “male” or “female,” is purely the physical biological characteristic differences – primarily anatomical differences. (There are also rare cases of “intersexual” individuals as outlined in the Navarro article, “When Gender Isn’t a Given”.) Gender, on the other hand, is an often misconstrued concept that is commonly mistaken as synonymous with sex. A non-sociologist might surmise the following, “men act masculine and women act feminine, therefore, it must follow that gender is inherent to sex,” however, this is not necessarily the case.
In “The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over?” Deborah Blum states that “gender roles of our culture reflect an underlying biology” (Blum 679). Maasik and Solomon argue that gender codes and behavior “are not the result of some sort of natural or biological destiny, but are instead politically motivated cultural constructions,” (620) raising the question whether gender behavior begins in culture or genetics. Although one may argue that gender roles begin in either nature or nurture, many believe that both culture and biology have an influence on the behavior.
“Scientists Not Immune from Gender Bias, Yale Study Shows.” Yale News. Yale University, 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.
...g organism that evolves over time and combines various different processes (in our case ideas, beliefs, values, etc…) in an efficient manner to produce a field that effectively answers many problems that we have about the world. To me, It is a given fact that scientists are humans as well, humans who bring with them a wide range of beliefs, experiences, knowledge, etc…. and the way that science works is through a process of all of these various beliefs, experiences, knowledge, etc…. coming together to try and find a solution that in the end is void of such subjective matters. Every scientist interprets data in a different way, and for science to make progress all scientist have to agree on a common conclusion to such data. As Longino explains, after peer review, criticisms, and revision the final product is a solution that explains the world in an objective manner.
...d women’s biological purpose has provided men a source of comparative advantage in work. It is, therefore, natural for most companies to think that women cannot be as capable as men in terms of assuming strenuous or challenging positions because women, by default, become less participative and more vulnerable when they start to have family and children. Apparently, this situation has led to various gender discriminations in the labor market.
Often, scientists are tasked with the role of providing evidence to support theories or to predict future outcomes based on scientific research. This methods or research are usually accepted in natural sciences like chemistry and physics. This is because unlike social science, they usually use formulas, well laid out structures and methods (Guttin, 2012). However, when it comes to social science, researchers usually work using theories by formulating hypothesis, and researching to prove or disapprove the theories. When doing this, social science researchers usually become advocates in certain circumstances. This paper highlights some of the pros and cons of scientists becoming advocates, and gives examples of when social scientists become advocates and situations where they observe objectivity.
Cole, K. C., and Sue Giddings. "Is There Such a Thing as Scientific Objectivity?" DISCOVER Sept. 1985: 76-78. Web.