I'm seriously coming up on my deadline, but I JUST realized that the reason feminists kvetch over the "hard"/"soft" science distinction probably has something to do with erections, and how the "hard" (or, translated for those who've never seen a sociologist in a room full of physicists: "real") sciences are associated with erections, presumably because erections are so great and by the way, don't women suck because they don't have big, hard, swingin' dicks under those skirts?
Someone please let me know if I've completely missed the point. I already feel like kind of an idiot for not realizing it before, and therefore it would be truly hilarious if I'm still getting it wrong.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
I need to finish my work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't know why the distinctions of hard and soft were made, but I don't think the penis theory is why feminists are annoyed over the words.
Women seem to have an easier time understanding people, their thought process and why they interact the way they do. These are the sciences of people -- psychology and sociology. By calling them "soft" because they don't use the Scientific Method or don't have enough graphs (seriously), it diminishes a science that women gravitate towards.
Yes.
Also, it's that objectivity is ascribed to 'hard' science and not 'soft' science - whereas feminist philosophy has argued (convincingly imo) that "objective" knowledge is often (always?) ideologically male-biased and hence subjective.
It's not that phenomena doesn't exist or is male-biased itself, rather that as soon as you begin to describe it you enter the narrative conventions of a male-dominated world. And indeed as we know, the very act of observation is subjective.
Sorry, taking off my teacher's hat now.
Emily,
See, I'm familiar with some feminist philosophy, and I don't see that. I mean, with chemistry and physics, anyway... I see a lot more potential for male-bias in social sciences. Biology is kind of on the border, though, and there are definitely issues lurking there. Of course, I've never done any feminist phil science (though I've done some general phil science.) I tend to have realist intuitions, but the anti-realists have better arguments.
And leave your teacher-hat on! Hell, mine is stapled on.
Tasha,
Are you bringing cultural feminism into my house? Please don't be bringing cultural feminism into my house. :'P
No Claire, you're not wrong. On the contrary, You've just made a really profound, original and reproducible observation: Hard, erect penises swing if you're wearing a skirt.
Well, I'm not sure if it counts as an observation... more of a thought experiment. I've never actually worn a skirt while... erm. I prefer to ignore that thing, anyhow.
Post a Comment