User:Rambergj/sandbox

First Edit
Inserted the line "She is known for her writings on the impacts of feminism in the fields of science." in the Londa Schiebinger article

Second Edit
Practice with midterm

Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin in the piece "The Determined Patriarchy", offer us both an explanation of how patriarchy has become ingrained in science, and a critique of patriarchy in science. The main argument for patriarchy in science is a biological determinist model, which seeks to base the patriarchal structure of human society as based in some aspect of human biology. What exactly that aspect is, however, has changed over time as scientific knowledge has changed. However, all of these attempts hav the same pattern, they attempt to place patriarchy outside the political and into the scientific so as to free it from attack by claiming that it either cannot be changed, or that we do so at our peril. The argument used by biological determinists attempts to locate their claims that patriarchy is the only natural option for human society outside the realm of politics through a series of reductionist arguments that both attempts to use science to justify patriarchy while not actually applying scientific rigor to the arguments themselves. Often thee arguments begin with a decidedly Western view of gender and proper gender roles, which they attempt to portray as universal. Biological essentialists also seize upon any measurable differences between the genders and try to market these as differences between the sexes (132). Often evidence for the different roles that people "choose" to take, either as breadwinners or care-givers as evidence of a natural division of labor, without examining the social pressures that contribute to such divisions (140). Biological essentialists then try to show that these differences are evidence for patriarchal culture being natural to society, by explaining them through various theories that tie in evolution, genetics, and hormones. Biological essentialists frequently attempt to portray patriarchy as universal, by comparing human society to that of other animals. However, as the authors point out, this approach is inherently flawed for a few reasons. The first is that it assumes that not only the social structures of animals apply to humans, but also that the brain structure of animals are similar enough to humans to draw a valid comparison. For most animals, brain structures are hard-wired, leading to a pre-determined social structure and actions for the animal. For humans however, A vast majority of potential connections in the brain are essentially "blank" when a child is born, with the structure of the brain being largely determined as a child grows and accumulates experiences. An additional critique of this universal patriarchy argument is that it "projects human qualities onto animals", which we then use as a justification of human social structures being "natural" (159). The final end goal of biological determinism is to put together the various evidence of gender differences, along with evidence of how other animals behave, and the differences in hormone levels between males and females together into a grand theory that states that since sexual differences emerged adaptively as a part of natural selection, so to, must all of the societal traits that have come to be associated with these sexual differences. Therefore, these traits must be to the maximal advantage of the species, with the "inequalities not only being inevitable, but functional" (135). Thus, biological determinists use scientific language, even if the evidence it is drawn from falls far from meeting the standards of scientific rigor, and is mainly conjecture, as a way to shield patriarchy from critique. It is in essence, a cultural narrative by patriarchy to explain it's origin in a way that maintains hegemony of the existing institutions. The authors of "The Determind Patriarchy", Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin differ from the biological determinists in that the y encourage us to see the data and outcome as much more complicated than the biological determinist model. Biological determinism seeks to separate the different influences of biological factors, such as genetics and hormones, from cultural factors in the development of a person, as well as to compare the masculine and feminine through averages. However, the authors critique this view as a reductionist oversimplification. As a critique of the separation of biological and cultural factors, the authors point out that children begin to be socialized from the moment that they are born, and that parents, whether consciously or unconsciously, treat male and female babies differently (140). In essences, there is nor "pure" state of human in which you can study the separate influences of culture and biology. As for the second point of comparing averages, the averages compare populations, but these populations must necessarily be confined and constructed. As Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin point out, in the construction of the dichotomous populations in gender, the push to find averages to compare may ignore other data. Further as the authors point out, because of the strong influence of culture, "they run the danger of becoming self-fulfilling." (138-139).

Third Edit
Added a section to Londa Schiebinger Article

Has Feminism Changed Science?
In her book Has Feminism Changed Science?, Schiebinger breaks down her analysis of feminism in science into 'Women in Science', 'Gender in the Cultures of Science, and 'Gender in the Substance of Science'.

The first of the books three sections takes a look at the impacts of some of the first women to be known to have participates in science, such as Christine de Pizan and Marie Curie. The section also examines the numerical count of women in the various fields of science in academics in the late 20th century United States, as well as looking at the breakdown of other factors, such as pay rates and the level of degree held, in relation to gender. The section goes on to theorize that the cultural reinforcement of gender roles may play a factor as to why there are fewer women in science.

The second section, 'Gender in the Cultures of Science', argues that science has been gendered as being a masculine field and that women report a distaste for the excessive competition fostered by academic science. The argument is also made in this section, that the splitting of gender roles in personal life, where women still take on a majority of domestic responsibilities, may be a reason that is hindering women in scientific fields from accomplishing more.

The third section of the book, 'Gender in the substance of Science' details the perspectives that women have brought to fields such as medicine, primatology, archeology, biology, and physics. In fact, Schiebinger states that as of the writing of the book, that women earned nearly 80 percent of all Ph.D.'s in primatology, and yet, despite this, having a large number of women scientists in a field does not lead to a change in the assumptions of science, or the culture of science.

Progress
So far everything that I have put up has stayed up. I am rather excited about this, though I believe this may be a result of the pages I am editing being far less trafficked and controversial pages than some of the others in class. Regardless though, this makes me feel about accomplished, yet perpetually nervous that all that I have done will be taken down. I really dislike editing Wikipedia, though I haven't had to deal with any of this directly, it feels like an aggressive and hostile environment.

Fourth Edit
Expanded on the "Has Feminism Changed Science? section of the Londa Schiebinger article

Has Feminism Changed Science? (Book)
Londa Schiebinger splits the book into three sections: 'Women in Science', 'Gender in the Cultures of Science', and 'Gender in the Substance of Science'. Throughout the book, she describes the factors that led to the inequality between male and female in the science field. In addition, she gave examples of different types of women in the society. An important idea brought up in the book was the private versus the public, where the private sphere is seen as the domain of women and public sphere as an area refers for men. Another important point she brought up was that the idea of including women in the fields of science does not mean that the sciences will adopt a more feminist view point. A simple increase in the number of women in a given field does not change the culture of that field. The construction of gender and science is a cycle in that ideas of gender are brought to the table already when practicing science and can inform what evidence people look for or areas they choose to study, and that whatever is found then influences theories of gender. The various contradictions shown through the achievements and silencing of women in science throughout history shows how nature and the society can influence gender and science. Schiebinger not only addresses the gender in the context of science, she also describes the feminism is changed through the history and culture. It is important to note that the book is written from a Western perspective and that the culture she discusses is that of the Western World, and in many cases, more specifically, the United States.

The first of the books three sections takes a look at the impacts of some of the first women to be known to have participated in science, such as Christine de Pizan and Marie Curie. The section also examines the numerical count of women in the various fields of science in academics in the late 20th century United States, as well as looking at the breakdown of other factors, such as pay rates and the level of degree held, in relation to gender. The section goes on to theorize that the cultural reinforcement of gender roles may play a factor as to why there are fewer women in science.

The second section, 'Gender in the Cultures of Science', argues that science has been gendered as being a masculine field and that women report a distaste for the excessive competition fostered by academic science. The argument is also made in this section, that the splitting of gender roles in personal life, where women still take on a majority of domestic responsibilities, may be a reason that is hindering women in scientific fields from accomplishing more.

The third section of the book, 'Gender in the substance of Science' details the perspectives that women have brought to fields such as medicine, primatology, archeology, biology, and physics. In fact, Schiebinger states that as of the writing of the book, that women earned nearly 80 percent of all Ph.D.'s in primatology, and yet, despite this, having a large number of women scientists in a field does not necessarily lead to a change in the assumptions of science, or the culture of science.

End
Fortunately, I have managed to have enough words on Wikipedia stay up! I still have not managed to figure out how to properly create a reference list on Wikipedia, and am hoping some one else can add to the article where I cannot. I will be disappointed if someone simply removes my work rather than adding the references, as all are very clearly from the text, "Has Feminism Changed Science?" which is being discussed.