Woman: The most evolved species? - (Mar/14/2007 )

Science might be neutral, but it's done by scientists, grants are approved by scientists, turned into business ideas or medical procedures by business people and reported by journalists (thereby removing any fiction of neutrality).

---

I still believe that "pure" science is neutral in gender e.g. what's gender specific in a solution of a mathematical problem or in sequencing a bacterial gene? The way to get the sequence or the results may differ, because genders are approaching the problems different.
But I guess not neutral are the more human related (or misleadingly considered as gender related) sciences, e.g. social sciences, ethology, social biology, even evolutionary biology. Here one problem is that the researcher tends towards an interpretation of his/her results (unintentional or not) that uses preset paradigms and patterns that fit e.g. to normal life and own experience, comes from prejudice and finally is not neutral. But a good researcher has to compensate (at least he/she has to try). This is difficult, because you're not always see that you interpret or ask gender specific, often it is a stealthy process.
One clear example: Anatomists found out that brains of female humans on average are smaller, and then they interpreted that females are less intelligent: Correct results (simple measure), bad interpretation.
But it is a rather idealistic view on science

---

There goes scientific objectivity/neutrality stripped down to its barest essence i.e. fiction. And I was itching to present the historical/philosophical front of the radical feminists -let’s say the use of sexist metaphors and symbolic language in illustrating the pervasive androcentricity of science. A very controversial example is Sandra Harding’s criticism (Whose science? Whose knowledge? 1991) of Francis Bacon’s use of the rape metaphor:
“For you have to but hound nature in her wanderings, and you will be able when you like to lead and drive her afterwards to the same place again. Neither ought a man to make a scruple of entering and penetrating into those holes and corners when the inquisition of truth is his whole object.”

Donna Haraway, on the other hand attacks scientific objectivity for “the only position from which objectivity could not possibly be practiced and honored is the standpoint of the master, the Man, the One God, whose Eye produces, appropriates and orders all difference…”, then she continues “…histories of science may be powerfully told as histories of technologies…technologies are skilled practices. How to see? What to see? Where to see from? What limits to vision? Who gets to have more than one point of view? Who gets blinded? Who interprets the visual field”…? For this “vision” to be totally unbiased there is a need for different perspectives, hence a diversity of scientists- that’s a no-brainer there. But as you have cleverly pointed out, the waters are muddied further by the granting agencies, the business people and the paparazzis so I guess anything goes.

---

This is a very classic feminist humor:
A man is out shopping for a brain (duh) and he asks the shopkeeper why a woman's brain is really small and the shopkeeper replied " of course, there's no doubt about it. It's really tiny compared to a man's because it has been well and truly used. It's a real bargain."

---

---

it just occured to me that evolution is not always a case of improving the self for the selfs sake.
you could just as easily evolve back to a slug type state.

still think women are more evolved?

---

Good point, in all this bashing here we forget often that evolution has no direction and that biological and abiological factors are only favouring genotypes over other genotypes, that are adopted (at the moment) better. So more evolved is a very relative term. And if the environment favours stupid/insane genotypes we're evolving this way Often one can assume that is is really the way it works, kind of negative selection. Luckily the slug state will need some time .
"Are women adopted better to our times/environment?" is perhaps the question.

---

Not exactly nitpicking here but it’s probably better if you first define “our times/environment” and what exactly is so special about “these times” that a woman has to be better adapted to it and as implied, a man doesn't need to be? Or have I completely misunderstood your question? We can have a serious philosophical discussion about this but frankly, I prefer the bashing...it's more fun. Not that I'm implying that you're no fun- your latin is... sometimes...

casandra

---

Isn't human MORE evolved than Chimp?
Isn't Chimp more evolved than monkey?
Isn't monkey more evolved than dog (and within dogs St Bernard and pug looks LESS evolved to me!)
Isn't within different species of cats some are selectively evolved stronger and cunny?
Does more complicated means more evolved?
If answers for above Q's are YES then indeed woman is MORE evolved than man!

---

I can't be sure. Are adoption rates for girls better then boys in 2000s better then say in the 1970s?

---