Can a feminist be a (good) researcher? Can a (good) researcher be a feminist?
Abstract
Traditionally, non-cognitive values (political, class, religious, etc.) have been considered to negatively influence science. From feminism, gender biases and prejudices have been particularly criticized. However, people engaged in science are not isolated, but develop their activity in a specific sociohistorical context. As such, they may belong to different communities: the scientific, one in whose paradigm they have been educated, but also to other communities, like religious, political, etc. In this paper I show, with three examples, how belonging to one of these communities and their non-cognitive values (in this case socio-political ones such as feminists), can contribute to re-evaluate the available evidence and improve our hypotheses and theories, challenging old — and new — prejudices.
Keywords
Social values, Gender equity, Feminism, Cognitive-behavioral differences, NeurosexismReferences
Baron-Cohen, Simon (2004). The essential Difference: The truth about the male and the female brain. Basic Books.
Bleier, Ruth (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. Pergamon Press.
Brizendine, Louann (2006). The female brain. Morgan Road/Broadway Books.
Brizendine, Louann (2010). The male brain. Random House.
de Beauvoir, Simone (1949). Le Deuxième Sexe. Gallimard.
Ellis, Havelock Henry (1894/1934). Man and Woman. A study of Secondary and Tertiary Sexual Character. Heinneman.
Fine, Cordelia (2010/2011). Cuestión de sexos. Roca Editorial.
Friedan, Betty (1963). The Feminine Mystique. W W Norton & Co Inc,
García Dauder, Dau & Pérez Sedeño, Eulalia (2017). Las ‘mentiras’ científicas sobre las mujeres. La Catarata.
Geddes, Patrick & Thomson, J. Arthur (1890/2010). The evolution of sex. Scribner and Welford.
Gómez, Amparo (2004). La estirpe maldita. La construcción científica de lo femenino. Minerva Ediciones S. L.
Haraway, Donna (1989). Primate Visions. Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (1991/1995). Ciencia, cyborg y mujeres. Cátedra.
Hubbard, Ruth (1990). The Politics of Women’s Biology. Rutgers University Press.
Hyde, Janet Shibley (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist. 60, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Hyde, Janet S.; Lindberg, Sarah M.; Lin, Marcia C.; Ellis, Marcia y Williams, Caro. (2008). Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance. Science, 321, 494-495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364
Iglesias-Aparicio, Pilar (2003). Mujer y salud: las escuelas de medicina de mujeres de Londres y Edimburgo [Tesis doctoral sin publicar]. Universidad de Málaga.
Jacobi, Mary Putnam (1876). The Question of Rest for Women during Menstruation. G. P. Putnam’s sons https://archive.org/details/questionofrestfo00jacoiala/page/n13/mode/2up?view=theater
Joel, Daphna; Berman, Zohar; Tavor, Ido & Assaf, Yaniv (2015). Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 112(50), 15468-15473. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509654112
Lewontin, Richard C.; Kamin, Leon J. & Rose, Steven (1984/1987). No está en los genes, Drakontos.
Longino, Helen E. (1990): Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton University Press.
Martin, Emily (1987/2013). El óvulo y el espermatozoide. Cómo ha construi¬do la ciencia una novela rosa basada en estereotipos de lo masculino y lo femenino. En Montserrat Cabré & Fernando Salmón (Eds.), Sexo y género en medici¬na (pp. 33-54). Editorial Universidad de Cantabria.
Maudsley, Henry (1874). Sex in Mind and Education. The Fortnightly Review, 15, 455-483. https://archivesearch.lib.cam.ac.uk/repositories/19/archival_objects/381020
McGrigor Allan, James (1869). On the Real Differences in the Minds of Men and Women. Journal of the Anthropological Society of London, 7, cxcv-ccxix. https://doi.org/10.2307/3025361
Moi, Toril (2002). While We Wait: The English Translation of The Second Sex. Signs, 27(4), 1005-1035. https://doi.org/10.1086/339635
Patou-Mathis, Marylène (2021). El hombre prehistórico es también una mujer: una historia de la invisibilidad de las mujeres. Lumen
Pérez Sedeño, Eulalia (2011). El sexo de las metáforas. Arbor, 187(747), 99- 108.
Pérez Sedeño, Eulalia (2012). Hechos, teorías e ideología: Viola Klein y la sociología del conocimiento científico. Athenea Digital, 12(2), e964. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/athenead/v12n2.964
Poldrack, Russell A. (2006) Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(2), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.004
Reverter Bañón, Sonia (2017). El neurofeminismo frente a la investigación sobre la diferencia sexual. Daimon. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, Suplemento 6, 95-110. https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon/291561
Rippon, Gena; Jordan-Young Rebecca; Kaiser, Anelise & Fine, Cordelia (2014). Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: key principles and implications for research design, analysis, and interpretation. Frontiers in Human Neurosciences, 8, Article 650, 1-13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147717/
Russett, Cynthia (1989). Sexual Science. The Victorian Construction of Woomanhood, Harvard Univ. Press.
Sala, Robert (2005). Las principales secuencias pliocuaternarias. En Eudald Carbonell (Ed.), Homínidos: las primeras ocupaciones de los continentes (pp.135-160). Editorial Ariel.
Schiebinger, Londa. (1989/2004). ¿Tiene sexo la mente? Ed. Cátedra.
Slocum, Sally L. (1965/1971). Woman the gathe¬rer: male bias in anthropology. En Sue-Ellen Jacobs (Ed.), Women in Perspective: A Guide for Cross-Cultural Studies. University of Illinois Press.
The NeuroGenderings Network (2010). https://neurogenderings.wordpress.com/the-neurogenderings-network/
Thompson Woolley, Helen (1905). The mental traits of sex: An experimental investigation of the normal mind in men and women. The University of Chicago Press.
Washburn, Sherwood L. & G. S. Lancaster (1968/1999). The Evolution of Hunting. En Shirley C. Strum, Donald G. Lindburg y David Hamburg (Eds.). The new physical anthropology: Science, Humanism and Critical Reflections (pp.244-253). Prentice Hall.
Weisberg, Deena S. (2008) Caveat lector: The presentation of neuroscience information in the popular media. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 6(1), 51-56.
Published
How to Cite
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2022 Eulalia Pérez Sedeño
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
