Talk:Ruth Bleier

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mollyemm0307.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Part I. Wikipedia “Talk” Forum
Although Ruth Bleier's Wikipedia page is divided into two different sections, “Early Life and Education” and “Career”, it should be divided into more sections with more extensive, detailed information about her life. It would be much more beneficial if Bleier’s page was divided into the following sections: early life and childhood, education, career and accomplishments, her works, personal life and death, and quotes. It would greatly improve her page if there were pictures of her with basic information like the dates of her birth and death underneath so that the reader can associate what they are reading with a face.

Under quotes it would be good to include, “so far as I can tell now, I grew up not knowing girls and women were supposed to be inferior.” This is important to show her strength as a woman supporting women rights and her personal view on how the world works.

Under personal life it would be good to talk about how she came out to be a lesbian once her husband died, how she is a musician and superb athlete, had two children and where they are today, and how she died of cancer. I think it would be a good tactic to divide up her personal hobbies and family life from her career and accomplishments to help the organization and make it easier for the reader to follow. It would also be good to add certain details, such as her husband’s name, Leon Eisenberg, who was a child psychiatrist. Once she became a lesbian she met her life partner, Dr. Elizabeth Karlin, who fought with Bleier for equality for the rest of her days.

The majority of Ruth Bleier’s page is about her accomplishments and career, which would be good for that section of the page, but also means that more information needs to be expanded about her as a person. I think it would be really beneficial to add exerts for her writing and give examples of how she changed the way we look at sociobiology and science, and how science has shaped our conceptions of gender roles within society. It would be greatly constructive to add the book she published, called “Science and Gender, a Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women”, and anthology entitled “Feminist Approaches to Science”.

In the section about her works it would be good to add links that direct the reader to find her works and where they could buy them, etc. There should be a brief summary of each of her works and the importance and influence it has had on society.

Part II. Wikipedia and ES/WGS
Although Wikipedia tries to remain unbiased, some bias is always going to be inevitable. Each person has their own set of beliefs, life experiences and opinions, and due to the fact that Wikipedia is created by a number of the people in the public, these biases end up having an effect on Wikipedia. In Barbara King’s article “Promiscuous Males and Choosy Females? Challenging a Classic Experiment”, King explains how humans follow a particular trend or precedent that is set before them. The article challenges a well-known study that produced the “Bateman principle” which describes women as choosy and men more sexually promiscuous and having more sex partners than women. Studies that follow Bateman have used the Bateman principle to describe men and women sexual roles, even in society. It was not until recently that the Bateman principle was proven to be flawed and incorrect. Even though Bateman’s findings were erroneous, other scientists saw the same results in their studies: that women are choosy and men are promiscuous. King explains, “field researchers expected to see (and thus often did) male primates with highly active sex lives and females who were coy, verging on sexual passivity.” Therefore it is very common for people to see what they are expecting to see. Humans are innately biased. As a society, humans have gender biases that are deeply engrained by society, science, and life experiences. Therefore these biases can be seen in Wikipedia’s make up. In conclusion, editing and revising of Wikipedia pages is extremely important to combat human’s natural bias and to expose it to other views and opinions.

Part III. Wikipedia and Me
Wikipedia is a very controversial website and source of information. Although it provides people with a quick and easy way to get basic information, its validity and reliability is often in question. For me personally, Wikipedia is a good source when finding information fast, but because anyone can edit it whenever, revision is extremely important. Without Wikipedia editors and revisions, the validity of the website would completely fall apart. It’s important to analyze Wikipedia to find its shortcomings and areas that need improvement so that we can make a conscious effort to improve the content and bias so that it can be considered a legitimate source of information. After conducting this project, I have learned a lot about the deeply engrained bias that is projected into Wikipedia’s pages.

Part IV. Learn more about Wikipedia Debates

 * Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 18, 2014, from http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Part V: References

 * King, B. (n.d.). Promiscuous Males And Choosy Females? Challenging A Classic Experiment. Retrieved October 18, 2014, from http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/12/13/166953517/promiscuous-males-and-choosy-females-challenging-a-classic-experiment
 * Ruth Bleier. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2014, from http://womenstudies.wisc.edu/CRGW/fellowships/bleier.html
 * Ruth Bleier. (n.d.). Retrieved October 16, 2014, from http://ruthbleier.blogspot.com/

Opening the discussion of Ruth Bleier's page
The current information on Bleier’s page is need of much refinement. Besides the fact that page, currently, is not referenced anywhere else in Wikipedia and is in need of more citations to verify the current information, the article would benefit from either some restructuring or addition of new sections. Specifically, the article references Bleier’s career but seems to lack an emphasis on the contributions Bleier made in the discussion of sex and gender especially in the field of science. There is a particular absence of any mention of the work Bleier did to combat the social repercussions of the belief in biological determinism. The page takes a very documentary approach to the information listing her occupational history and achievements but lacks a dynamic discussion of how her particular stance forever changed the discussion of sociobiological theory. The article would benefit from a summation of how her feminist interpretation of the negative consequences associated with the theory of biological determination, and how it was the first step in what would become a entire movement focused on challenging the limitations of a purely biological approach to the study of sex in relation to science. The page also fails to describe her stance on the issue. There is no mention of Bleier’s strictly cultural approach to answering the same questions that biological determinism seeks to explain. Bleier forever changed the understanding of sociobiology by being the first to logically and scientifically challenge the values associated with a purely biological approach of both gender and sex and we need to document these contributions.

Ruth Bleier's career
I am very excited that more people have taken Bleier's page under their wing. One of my earlier criticisms of the page was regarding referencing Ruth Bleier as "Ruth" instead of "Bleier" like many other male scientists. I am pleased to report that someone has edited this in her page and now she is referred to as Bleier in all instances. This small change allows men and women to be referenced equally and gives a more professionalism to Bleier.

I think this page could be further expanded upon in the sections regarding Bleier's career as both a scientist and a feminist. I think Bleier serves as a unique role model to women and men in the sense that she establishes a precedent for scientists to be critical of their profession when it comes to gender biases. By expanding on her career as a neuroscientist, it adds credibility to her feminist clams that critique the way science is done. It would also be helpful to add a section on the interaction between the two fields of science and feminism since this interaction is what Bleier studies. It is also important to note the scientific analysis that Bleier arrived at these claims, she was not just some angry scientist making false claims.

A further addition could be on what Bleier's criticisms of science are. Currently, the wikipedia article takes a very bare bones approach to summarize Bleier's life. Someone who is extremely familiar with her written works and scientific criticisms should add an objective description of Bleier's beliefs since they say a great deal as to who Bleier was.

Rreth (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Rreth


 * I came across Ruth Bleier's page and am hoping to make some of these types of edits you suggested! In particular I'm going to try to separate out the different aspects of her career (scientist and feminist) and other advocacy. ProfJRL (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)