Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 15:57:20 EDT
From: gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu
Reply-To: gaynet@gallifrey.kent.edu
Subject: GayNet Digest Volume 0 Issue 4
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet

In this issue:
                          EKU and sci. method
                        Help needed in Arkansas
                        fellowship available!!!
                 Out or In Gay, Lesbian, Bi Scientists
                     GayNet Digest Volume 0 Issue 4
                            feminist science
                 whether or not to call Oregon Governor
                        G/L  Jewish bibliography
                             Phoenix Rodeo

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@GALLIFREY.KENT.edu,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@GALLIFREY.KENT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@GALLIFREY.KENT.EDU.

For those restricted to 8 characters for addresses, Requests can be sent
to GAYNETR@gallifry.kent.edu, and those who need to send anonymously may
send to GAYNETA@gallifry.kent.edu.  Please note the 8 character spelling of
GALLIFRY  (Gallifrey minus the E before the Y).

If you have problems any of these addresses, please contact me directly at:

perkins@ksuvxa.kent.edu (Internet)
ksuvxa::perkins (DECNET)
perkins@kentvms (BITNET/J-Net)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 06 Oct 1992 14:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: EKU and sci. method
From: An Anonymous Sender

Kris and Bev wrote:

>      "We want to show the heritage of African Americans. They've endured a
>great deal of hardship that needs to be shown. There are a number of very good
>black writers that people need to be aware of, a historical sensitivity that we
> need to be aware of and I hope that is demonstrated in the exhibit"
>      " Hays and Myers said they are not sure that a display on Homosexuality
>would meet the same standards."

The live homosexuals list we've been reading about on this net may be
handy.  Also, how can they say that about a group of people who include
Michelangelo?  Sigh.
Give them hell, or at least write a good letter!! :)

>From: Mathemagician <bevans@carina.unm.edu>
>Subject: Re: A point of clarification
>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 23:28:26 MDT
>
>Alas, the problem with the "Women perform two-thirds of the world's
>work" phrase is that "work" isn't well-defined.

Hmmm.  Can I help?  In every anthropological study I've ever read regarding
hunter/gatherer societies, women supplied more food to the tribe than the
men, often leaving the community just after dawn and returning around
midnight.  They collected most of the wood, carried more water and
collected medicinal plants as well.  In many agricultural societies, they
often perform more weeding,  planting and harvesting tasks then the men.
In the growing number of industrialized societies, they work as many hours
as men at "real jobs" (sometimes more)  In addtion, they perform virually
all of the child care, home-maintenence, cooking etc.  This is changing in
some industrialized countries, but it is still estimated that women perform
an additional 40 hours a week of "necessary" work (ie. laundry, shopping,
cooking) to their 40 hour a week jobs while men perform an additional 15-20
hours.  And, for those women who stay home, the work-day of an average
industrialized housewoman is 14-16 hours long.  There are exeptions of
course.  Also, I think my dictionary's definition for the noun and verb did
it justice...it is a pocket sized version though and does not contain the
whole definition.

>And just what is "feminist" science?  What is it about the Scientific
>Method that is gender-specific?  What is it about the Scientific
>Method that oppresses females?  Are these people trying to say that if
>Newton was a woman, gravity wouldn't work the way it does? that
>Calculus wouldn't exist the way it does today?  That when a woman
>observes a Quantum Mechanical effect, the wave-form would collapse
>differently than if a man observed it?

Without saying gravity would be different (I don't think it would be)  I
think most people have had experience with people of the opposite sex where
we've said "well, wo/men don't think that way" or "our (non-gender
specific) logic works differently"  There-fore, perhaps the Scientific
Method - instituted by men - does indeed repress the way in which a woman
scientist would tackle a problem.  She may be able to prove something,
however since the method of proof doesn't fit in with the Scientific
Method, it hasn't been proved at all.  Besides, "THE Scientific Method"?!?
Haven't you ever found it to be just a little stuffy and confining?  I am a
scientist, not a mathmatician, but I find "THE Method" to be a little
ridiculous sometimes.  It is a good method, but I think in fields where
discovery is what we strive for, putting rigid constraints on what real
science is is not always a plus.

>Are they talking about the way women are treated by the Scientific
>Establishment (C) or the manner in which science is carried out?

Probably both.  I don't know.

>For instance, making the claim that if there were more women in the
>medical field that more research on the biology of women would
>performed is talking about the Scientific Establishment (C), not the
>manner in which science is carried out.
>Brian Evans

Absolutely.  I do not know too much about the "femminist science movement"
but if they said Scientific Method, they probably ment Scientific Method
and Establishment is probably something else they have feelings about too.

No flames please.  I'm not trying to put you down, this is IMHO.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 10:57 CDT
From: BLACK2764@iscsvax.uni.edu
Subject: Help needed in Arkansas