For those of you that read Sheril Kirshenbaum’s “Under The Microscope: Feminism, Scientists and Sexiness,” and Alexandra Jellicoe’s response “Is Science Sexist?,” here’s a response to the response.
If there is one lesson from SexyGate (the kerfuffle following Sheril Kirshenbaum’s inclusion on a “sexy scientist” list[1]), it is that actions have consequences, long-range, important, and potentially ironic consequences, for which you shall be held responsible. Consequences like drawing the attention of the hedonistic proletariat to the “sexy scientist” list and giving many the excuse to consider the potentially related[2] question: “Is science sexist?”
The post discusses the age-old debate about whether there is a rational, masculine way of thinking, and an intuitive, feminine way of thinking, and if so, is the latter inherently incompatible with science?
To read more, head to The Finch and Pea!
Wow! Yes! I guess I’m out of the loop on SexyGate because honestly, a lot of those types of discussions are uninteresting to me – not really because of the subject matter, but more the deep, deep levels of snark that are reached during the debate.
The snark is harder to slog through than a Joseph Conrad novel. This was a well-written, well-supported response.
That’s exactly my impression of the issue; that the snark gets in the way of the conversation we could be having.
It seems like there may be some kind of basis for what we know as “women’s intuition.” It could be due to the genders finding shared patterns in their observations, or women becoming conditioned to recognize different things than men as part of our experience as being raised female. It might be possible that there’s some kind neurological difference, I suppose. Or the whole idea could be one big ball of confirmation bias. I sure as heck wouldn’t know, because if there have been studies done on this, they’ve been hidden beyond the “what a ridiculous idea” -ness.
If anyone knows of a paper or two on the topic, pass it on!