Is Primatology a Feminist Science? Essay

IS PRIMATOLOGY A FEMINIST SCIENCE?
By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State where it is located
The Date
Is Primatology a Feminist Science?
Introduction
Gender and sex have mainly remained confusing concepts among many scholars even after the clarifications between the two have been established notably by anthropologists. In anthropology, sex can be defined based on biological differences between females and their male counterparts during the period of conception and physiological development. For instance, sexual differences between males and females are portrayed by features such as genitalia, sex chromosomes, and other phenotypic characteristics particularly related to secondary sexual development (Armelagos, 1998, p. 1). Equally, many scholars agree that gender is a cultural construct where people are grouped into males and females or feminine or masculine. However, other systems of culture have recognized more than two classes of gender. While anthropologists have made efforts in differentiating the two terms, other disciplines continue to make advances in substituting the two terms. As the debate on the distinction between gender and sex continues to attract many, another important subject on the contribution of women in science, particularly paleontology, has emerged. Paleontology, as a study of the origins of humans, is a vibrant field of anthropology. However, as Addessi, Borgi and Palagi (2012) wrote, women have been misrepresented in this field, especially in holding senior academic positions compared to their male counterparts. Therefore, Primatology has been criticized as a male-dominated field even when it has been singled out as an “equal-opportunity” subject and become a victim of the phenomenon concept of glass-ceiling. Beyond the thought that Primatology is a glass ceiling for women, it has also emerged that there are many primatological societies than the total number of women in tallied professional societies such as general biological sciences (Fedigan, 2009, p. 529). Drawing from the representation of women in primatology and models outlined by Linda Marie Fedigan, such as the scientific priorities and representative sampling model, this paper argues from biological and knowledge theories that the discipline is a feminist science.
While primatology has attracted more female students in universities than males, males outnumber females as full professors in the faculty (Borgi and Palagi, 2012). Similarly, Borgi and Palagi (2012) have observed that more males publish articles at the Institute of Primatological Society (IPS). However, Borgi and Palagi’s (2012) observations seem to counter those observed earlier that women have made significant contributions to the field of Primatology. Feminist science scholars have spiraled these past arguments. For instance, Fedigan’s (2009) review on gender and science indicates that women have made a significant impact in the discipline and the betterment of their science comes from a feminist approach. Primatology seems to be singled out as a science for the praise of women. This argument is valid because many women scholars may disagree with the fact that women have always played a key role in the discipline as well as dispute the exact nature of their role in advancing Primatology (Fedigan, 2009). Fedigan asserts that Primatology is in some instances translated as a feminist science. Fedigan (2009) has attempted to deconstruct the paradox of feminist primatology or what she terms as a “Goddess’s Discipline” by presenting responses from primatologists about the feminist critique of the discipline and how they have become more gender-inclusive using gender analysis theories.
Understanding the feminist paradox is key in offering insights to scholars who want to know the changes of a discipline over time. It also helps in establishing better communication and working relationships among scientists as well as analysts. Understanding the paradox of feminist Primatology is also important in exemplifying one field’s solution to the problem of women in science. Lastly, it sheds light on the important issues, such as the changes feminism has brought to science. As primatology began to develop in North America along feminist lines in the 1970s, there was also the second wave of women’s movement in American society. However, Fedigan (2009, p. 46) argues that the discipline is known to be an empirical and quantitative science that needs the same treatment when making assertions that feminism has made great contributions to the science of primate research. There has also been an assertion that a great number of primatologists have been impacted by feminism. Although primatological arguments should be exposed to direct evidence and rigor as a science, Fedigan (2009, p. 47) has taken an indirect approach in resolving the questions such as what a feminist science looks like and how primatology is. Using models and features of a feminist science, Fedigan concludes that primate research is a feminist science. It has largely been impacted by the women’s movement that began in the 1970s in American society. Fedigan (2009, p. 48) outlined these models and features, including reflexibility, avoiding reductionism and dualism approaches, cooperative nature, humanitarian scientific applications, adopting the female’s point of view, and greater inclusiveness of hitherto marginalized groups. Rather than directly answer the question of whether primatology is a feminist science, Fedigan’s (2009) paper bypasses this most irresolvable quandary. Still, it attempts to detail some of how primatologists have, over the past, become sensitive to gender issues and embraced gender inclusivity using the tools of gender analysis.
...