GENDER ISSUE IN SCIENCE:

FEMINIST FIGHT

The relationship between politics and science from a feminist perspective is complex and
polifacetic. The mutual influence between these two spheres has contributed to the creation
and maintenance of structures that exclude, discriminate and marginalize women and other
gender identities. Feminism`s aim is to challenge these dynamics, promoting more inclusive
science and politics that battles gender inequalities. Ultimately, moving into a more just
society means transforming interactions between politics and science from a perspective that
recognizes and respects the diversity of gender experiences.

“American feminists of the 1970s introduced the distinction between sex and gender,
assigning the term "gender" to the meanings of masculinity and femininity that a given
culture attaches to the categories of male and female” (Keller, 1992, page 132)

This is the first topic we have to argue about. Lately, maybe in the last 50 years, the
discussion about what is related to “men” and “women” has turned into the first line of most
political discussions. The fight that people did has to be remarkable. Feminist lens in social
issues has changed the way of how we classify the world and put the stability of the
structures we knew in place. “How do such labels affect the ways in which we structure the
world around us, assign value to its different domains, and in turn, acculturate and value
actual men and women?” (Keller, 1992, page 133).

Actually, any public sphere was focused on the figure of the man, and science was not going
to be any less. We have read in other authors like Imre Lakatos about the need for science to
be at the service of society. This is why the questions that science should answer are those
that really concern society. Taking this into account, what science cannot do is promulgate a
single answer sold as objective, this being a purely male, white, etc. objectivity.

I`ve been very critical with most of the postmodernist views and how thinkers try to fit them
like shoehorning them. I have to admit that I totally agree with the conclusions that late
feminist´s write about. Political thinkers like Kymlicka concluded, with the clear influence
of other authors, that the public sphere had to change its way of understanding the context to
which it adhered. Being a liberal thinker, he promulgated (and promulgates) the idea that we
need positive actions to try to make visible the problems that historically minoritized groups
may have due to the structural organization of society itself. Being just and relating Lakatos
and Kymlicka has, science´s base structure must change. Maybe that change has to come
from the vital inclusion of the sociology of science in the analyzing process´ about how
science is made and who is going to receive that information.

Some people think that these changes might carry relativism to the debate, that the truth can
be denied forever. But philosophers of science must work in how science is done, how
science reaches knowledge. That passes from discussing the way it is communicated, how
that information is received and what feedback can be received from the social opinion. So,
thinkers like Lloyd proposed a series of distinctive ways science could be done from a
feminist point of view. “One strand is feminist analysis in the history of ideas and the history
of science. A second is a feminist analysis of specific scientific fields and theories, especially
in social science, biology and medicine. The third is feminist epistemology, the attempt to
analyze rationality, knowledge, and other basic epistemological concepts from a feminist
point of view.” (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, pages 137-138)

She thinks that there are strong links between the concept we have about femaleness and
maleness and, for example, the relationship exercise we do with nature and femaleness.
Because of this, the links we build from that moment on are rigorously engaged with the
differentiation we do about male and female. The same happens when we talk about ethics:
we relate care, empathy, compassion, etc. with femaleness, that's why we attribute ethics of
care to femaleness. Maybe, even before restructuring science, we must check out the
structural relationship society has made between maleness and femaleness. Of course, that
passes from solving that problem in every social institution. That only can happen, in my
opinion, if the public establishment takes care about science and it is done listening to what
society needs. Feminist point of view is so important.

To sum up and conclude, we have spoken about how politics and science are related. We
have focused on the feminist issue and how to try to solve it, denying conservative science
points of view and including new ones that help reaching new scales of knowledge. If the
society changes, the establishments that must be at service of the society must also change.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003): Theory and Reality. An introduction to the philosophy of Science.

Chicago: The Chicago University Press

Keller, E.F. (1992) Gender and Science: An Update. In E.F. Keller Secrets of Life. Essays on
Life, Gender, and Science. London: Routledge. Chapter 1: pp. 15-36.