🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8283@dog.ee.lbl.gov> austern@ux5.lbl.gov (Matt Austern) writes:
>The point (The point of people like Fox-Keller, that is; I'm reporting
>the claim, not advocating it, since I lack the expertise to judge it.)
>is that when scientists look at social relations in non-human
>primates, what they see often depends on their ideology of social
>relations in humans.  Some primatologists even claim that studying
>other primates has direct relevance to what is "natural" for humans;
>how could that fail to be influenced by ideology?

No, this doesn't wash.  

Even if we accept the entire feminist/constructivist argument, even if we 
assume that personal characteristics determine scientific observations,
it does not follow that an all-woman conference is a good idea.

The only rational conclusion that one could make is that a conference with
as many different kinds of people as possible, with some rules to ensure 
that every kind gets an opportunity to contribute.

The original assertion was that women were, in of and by themselves, 
inherently superior than men in such work.

(Note: I am not defending the feminist/constructivist argument, just taking
it to its logical conclusions.)

In any event, the idea that women are at a significant disadvantage when it
comes to primatology is ludicrous.  Name a recent big-time Hollywood movie 
about a primatologist.  Now count the penises.

-EMP