//
you're reading...
Logic & Scientific Philosophy

Feminism – Iris, Yasmeen, & Stephanie

Since the beginning of the scientific revolution, the world of knowledge, and specifically the ever-pursued “objective” knowledge, has been defined by men. Truth was declared by only a small portion of people, excluding not only people of different social and cultural classes, but women, the other half of the population. As feminists, we question this male-created objectivity. Observing from, as they say, “the view from nowhere,” is flawed, as the masculine based institutions result in a masculine bias. For example, during the 1950s and ’60s, male primatologists arrived at hypotheses about territory and aggression, while women who entered the field in the 1970s, brought aspects of primate social life to light. The old hypotheses were forced to go through revision. Science is the product of social enterprise, built upon foundations of the background society. Under the influence of privileged men, the goals and direction set for science, as well the values placed on achievement is highly biased. How can relative truth be concluded if only a piece of the human population is contributing? In order for objective truth to be discovered, the perspective in which the truth is found must be larger, and most of all, must include women.  

Science by definition means to be objective, and to make sure you have been objective, you need to make use of logic.  In a  feminists point of view, generally they are unaware of the existence of objective reality, therefore believe what they want to believe without any effort to be objective. However, they believe not all claims to objectivity are false, but conceptions of objectivity are. Feminists question the intelligibility of a “view from nowhere,” and a presupposition less, bias-free science, for both postmodernist.  Feminists want to believe that the contrary is true as this will allow them to get whatever they want. In other words, what they want is to enjoy the self-pity associated with casting oneself as the innocent victim while at the same time satisfying their desires as opposed to men.

Feminism argues that objectivity is impossible as they believe that standards in any sphere are the products of a “male power structure.” They maintain that the “class interests” of men compel them to perceive reality from a distorted, prejudiced perspective – that men, “just don’t get it.”  Feminists question the intelligibility of a “view from nowhere,” and a bias-free science, for both postmodernist and pragmatic reasons.  They rarely propose innovative ideas, rather, they would rebuttal the masculine bias of the scientific community.

So here’s a question for you: How can truth be determined if both sides of the story are not heard?

Advertisements

Discussion

2 thoughts on “Feminism – Iris, Yasmeen, & Stephanie

  1. “Science is the product of social enterprise… How can relative truth be concluded if only a piece of the human population is contributing? In order for objective truth to be discovered, the perspective in which the truth is found must be larger.”

    This is a powerful summary of the driving force in the feminist’s perspective, as is the idea that “…not all claims to objectivity are false, but conceptions of objectivity are.”

    You point (rhetorically) to a perceived flaw in the lens with your parting question, it sounds like (“…if both sides of the story aren’t heard.”). Do you feel that the story has only two sides? If you do, how does this influence your view of the feminist’s perspective?

    As in a few other posts in this round of conversation, I am also curious about how we might take on the actions suggested by these various philosophical perspectives to influence the public sphere (media, education, politics). I wonder: How do feminist’s suggest that we allow for more inclusion of female voices in the pursuit of objective truth in science and elsewhere? Also, how might we go about recalibrating the social inequality of a “male power structure”?

    These are big questions, naturally, but I think a common thread through each of the perspectives covered this week is that they all offer *an* avenue toward pursuing a shared truth, if not *the* avenue.

    Posted by bryanjack | October 21, 2012, 9:59 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Scientific Philosophy Group Headings | Philosophy 12 - September 30, 2013

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: