Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:02:43.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Science, Facts, and Feminism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Abstract

Feminists acknowledge that making science is a social process and that scientific laws and the “facts” of science reflect the interests of the university-educated, economically privileged, predominantly white men who have produced them. We also recognize that knowledge about nature is created by an interplay between objectivity and subjectivity, but we often do not credit sufficiently the ways women's traditional activities in home, garden, and sickroom have contributed to understanding nature.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barash, D. 1979. The whispering within. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. 1984. Science and gender. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Boston Women's Healthbook Collective 1984. The new our bodies, ourselves. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1976. The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, A. 1985. Myths of gender. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Federation of Feminist Women's Health Centers 1981. A new view of a woman's body. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Freire, P. 1985. The politics of education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goy, R.W and McEwen, B.S. 1980. Sexual differentiation of the brain. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S.B. 1981. The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S.B. 1986. Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, R., 119146. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. 1982. Have only men evolved? In Biological woman—The convenient myth, ed. Hubbard, R., Henifin, M.S. and Fried, B., 1746. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. and Lowe, M., eds. 1979. Genes and gender II: Pitfalls in research on sex and gender. Staten Island, NY: Gordian Press.Google Scholar
Kevles, B. 1986. Females of the species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J.B. 1975. Primate behavior and the emergence of human culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R.C., Rose, S. and Kamin, L.J. 1984. Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Lowe, M. and Hubbard, R., eds. 1979. Sociobiology and biosociology: Can science prove the biological basis of sex differences in behavior? In Genes and gender II: Pitfalls in research on sex and gender, ed. Hubbard, R. and Lowe, M., 91112. Staten Island, NY: Gordian Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, M. and Hubbard, R., eds. 1983. Woman's nature: Rationalizations of inequality. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Money, J. and Ehrhardt, A.A. 1972. Man & woman, boy & girl. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, L.M., ed. 1985. Men's ideas/Women's realities: Popular science, 1870–1915. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Science. 1981. pp. 12631324.Google Scholar
Stellman, J.M. and Henifin, M.S. 1982. No fertile women need apply: Employment discrimination and reproductive hazards in the workplace. In Biological woman—The convenient myth, ed. Hubbard, R., Henifin, M.S. and Fried, B., 117145. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woolf, V. 1928. Orlando. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; Harvest Paperback Edition.Google Scholar