In my feminist theory class last summer there were two or four students who would roll their eyes anytime someone asked for a little "scientific" or "empirically researched" insight into issues of gender/sex construction and its relation to the biological makeup of humans. I think the eye-rolling was an outward expression of the prevailing opinion among humanities scholars that scientific inquiry into these issues has been biased and therefore is not trustworthy. I think the suspicion is right - surely science as a discipline is subject to the same biases and patriarchal presumptions that any academic discipline is. But this outright dismissal by humanities students of scientific inquiry is a tacit affirmation that humanities scholarship tells us all we need to know about these matters. That strikes me as being the height of arrogance.
Perhaps what we need are biologists who are also feminists. Has anyone ever heard of Anne Fausto Sterling? She's a biologist at Brown, and has written a bunch of interesting things that critique the seemingly false dichotomies of nature/nurture, biology/culture, or essentialism/constructivism. Looks like fascinating stuff.
In other news, Noam Chomsky has a blog.
Also, if you ever needed proof that FOX News is basically just a totalitarian propaganda spewing machine, check this out
Perhaps what we need are biologists who are also feminists. Has anyone ever heard of Anne Fausto Sterling? She's a biologist at Brown, and has written a bunch of interesting things that critique the seemingly false dichotomies of nature/nurture, biology/culture, or essentialism/constructivism. Looks like fascinating stuff.
In other news, Noam Chomsky has a blog.
Also, if you ever needed proof that FOX News is basically just a totalitarian propaganda spewing machine, check this out