Janet Kourany Feminist

WHAT IS SCIENCE’S ROLE IN THE FEMINIST PURSUIT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE?

In “A Feminist Primer for Philosophers of Science,” philosopher Janet Kourany describes science’s ugly relationship with women. From perpetuating androcentric societal biases to neglecting women’s health needs, science, Kourany argues, has been instrumental in decelerating feminist social progress. Now, in a social rebirth of feminism, does science have the responsibility to undo its persisting harms by now taking a feminist stance and joining the feminist movement? To answer this question, I first explain how science has slowed the progress of women in the United States. Then, I define important terms in the debate, which I use to evaluate Kourany’s two arguments in favor of

First, objectivity is the absence from preconceptions. For humans, pure objectivity is nearly unattainable, though it nonetheless remains a worthwhile pursuit. How, then, do we pursue objectivity? I argue that we approach objectivity through the interplay of biases, which are predispositions engendered by experiences, worldviews, and backgrounds. To demonstrate how objectivity can arise from bias, imagine a jury adjudicating a sexual harassment case. If it were composed entirely of women, who, by statistics and logical extrapolation, harbor a more personal, emotional understanding of sexual harassment, then the jury may have a bias against the defendant and/or impose excessively harsh sanctions. Oppositely, a body of men, with a likely more detached understanding of sexual harassment, may view the perpetrator as harmless, perhaps even falsely accused, and propose an extremely light or nonexistent punishment for the guilty aggressor. The most just punishment in this sexual harassment problem, as is often the case, likely lies in the middle of these two extremes (which are admittedly exaggerated). Thus, I argue that the same balance that would be desirable in this jury is conducive to objectivity in science; science needs competing yet coexisting and coequal biases in order to approach objectivity. Given this framework, I shall now address Kourany’s arguments

However, would affirmative action, even in the scientific fields that Kourany indicts as sorely reprehensible, be productive? A 2011 New York Times Article reports that 58% of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees in biology are awarded to women. Likewise, in 2005, an astounding 72% of PhDs in psychology were awarded to women. Thus, affirmative action for women in science, perhaps palatable in theory, is not a pragmatic way to achieve our desired diversity in scientific fields, for that diversity already exists. A complement to the affirmative action proposal is that scientists should be exposed to feminist viewpoints. Theoretically, I would not reject this notion, though I would ask that, for objectivity’s sake, anti-feminist viewpoints be taught as well. Yet again, however, I predict that this “exposure” policy, in practice, is not pragmatic. First, the diversity that I claim is essential for objectivity is composed of deeply entrenched views, views established and solidified by life experiences that forever change the way individuals think about particular issues (like sexual harassment). These viewpoints are not sufficiently inculcated in a Feminism 101 class, so I doubt that mere exposure to feminist viewpoints would engender our desired objectivity. Thus, while affirmative action for women and greater