The Role Of Sexism In Science

Introduction

Science, according to the Oxford dictionary, is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. As plainly as anyone can see, this definition does not entail a specific gender to the field of science. Why then does it seem that gender roles and gender views of the modern day seem to lurk constantly in the shadows of the scientific word? Why are we repeatedly shown proof of how deeply rooted our gender association is in even the “objective” observations of the material world? Ultimately, for the reasons W and X, Y successfully responds to the threat posed by sexism in science.

Explanation of the Threat

Sexism

in science is not a new issue but it is new in the sense that it is finally being looked at and scrutinized by philosophers of science. Many philosophers are finally noticing this issue and actually speaking out on not only the predominance that males have in the scientific field but also how the patriarchal state of mind can affect studies and observations conducted in the scientific field. The predominance of males in science is a remnant of the earlier times in history were women had a “place” that they were expected to occupy. This ideology is simply an archaic remnant of ancient sexism that still affects us today. I believe that this is one of the major underlying factors that cause sexism to still be an issue in current day science. I also believe that this is backed by the fact that when looking at statistics of male versus female scientists in many fields, one can see a very strong dominance by males, and this is extremely troublesome in my eyes. The distress that this simple fact produces is amplified when one sees the consequences of male dominance in certain fields. Two major examples of this is the primatology example and the tool acquisition examples explained by Kathleen Okruhlik.
First, the field of primatology can be used to show an excellent example of how male dominated science isn’t always good science. Okruhlik uses Donna Haraway’s work to display this idea. According to these women, primatology used to be dominated heavily by male scientists, like many other fields of the present day. When this was the case the only acknowledged leaders and “alphas” were the large aggressive males in the group being studied. Once more females started entering the field and some males let go of some of their patriarchal and male dominant views scientists were able to observe the leadership roles of females in groups of primates and discover that a group isn’t solely dependent on a large aggressive male leader. This kind of discovery goes to show that with the extremely strong societal views that scientists often times carry accidentally can be projected upon studies that are meant to be completely objective and not based on previous experience or conceptions held by the observer.
In the same way, another great example of how sexism can affect science is the tool acquisition situation also brought up by Okruhlik.

When discussing this example in class it was brought up that many scientific historians and archaeologists would automatically assume a tool discovered from primal times to be a weapon thought of, created, and used by men to hunt and defend their people. This was followed with the fact that it has recently been found that often times, these tools were used for gathering, not hunting, and therefore used by women and not men. This automatic assumption closes the eyes of the scientists and causes a blindness of the mind to the truth and facts that are laying right in front of us. This blindness is the major issue with sexism in science. With sexism having such a strong grasp on the minds of the male, and occasionally female, scientists of the present day we are unable to see the ultimate truth and reality that is our

universe.
Response to the Threat
This threat is deeply rooted in the culture of our society. This causes issues when trying to figure out how to respond to this threat. In my opinion the best way to respond to this threat is to introduce new principles and methodologies to science and scientific method. In this response we would have to instruct new scientists in seeing all possibilities and seeing the whole picture. This could be tough but could be taught relatively quickly by showing some major examples of unintentional blinding due to theories held by scientists. This would show scientists that holding any type of theory when observing or conducting experiments can cause enormous inaccuracies that can cause horrible mistakes and a lack of knowledge that could be insurmountably useful and important to our world and the understanding of it.
The way I propose to attack this solution would be to introduce a new course mandatory of all STEM students in the country to take. This course would show how under-represented groups and theories previously held by scientists can cause problems in science and how to approach situations with a completely open mind and eyes to the world instead of to the theories that are already conceived. This class could easily be introduced and integrated into the curriculum of all certified institutes across the country. In rolling out this mandatory class we could give institutions five years to incorporate this course into their curriculum and another 2 to make it mandatory for the STEM majors. This gives each institute ample time to raise any concerns and to hire faculty to staff this course. The extra two years would be given to sharpen the curriculum and serve as a trial period in which the institute, accreditors, and the faculty would learn how to more efficiently communicate the issues and solutions of this aspect of the scientific world. In addition to this class for new scientists it would also be beneficial to host seminars and meetings for current scientists in which they could attend and learn this information as well. A great way to ensure that this message reaches more current scientists would be to have someone who is very informed on this topic to be a keynote speaker at a conference for a large number of scientists. An example of one meeting where this could work could be a meeting of the American Chemical Society or another kind of large entity present in the scientific world. This kind of speech could also be given as a TED talk and spread through the scientific community, as many of these videos so rapidly do.
Evaluation
This solution is fairly comprehensive when I look at it.

However, I do believe there are some limitation to the success of my proposal, and this limitation is twofold. The first being in regard to current scientists. Since there is no way to mandate that they go to one of these seminars or listen to the TED talk, there is no way to ensure that the message will reach them. The only way this could be fixed would be to team up with corporations and employers. In this we could them require their employees, current and new, to attend a conference or seminar or watch the TED talk, but once again this doesn’t guarantee 100% dissemination of the message. The second limitation is an internal one. By internal I mean each scientist’s own personal beliefs. This limitation is due to the fact that not everybody can be reached on the same topic by the same approach. This means our approach would have to be more varied and specifically tailored by person. This, however, would be very costly and still leave potential for people who are just unreceptive to the message in general to prevent 100%

success.
In conclusion, even with these limitations, I feel that my proposal is potentially the best option. I do not believe that any response to this issue could address every pitfall that could befall their solution or ensure 100% dissemination and integration of new principles and methods. The only perfect way to fix this issue is to completely change the culture of the modern day world and that’s not something you can implement. That is simply something you have to leave to the morals and ethical code passed on to children by their parents and shaped by the world in which we reside.