Challenging Patriarchal Bias: The Feminist Critique of Sexism in Science
Detecting sexism in science can be like unraveling a hidden thread woven deep into the fabric of our understanding. It’s a subtle bias, often masked by the guise of objectivity, making it difficult to spot with the naked eye. Yet, throughout history, this thread has reinforced the dominance of patriarchal norms, influencing everything from research questions to the interpretation of data. Thankfully, writers like Eugenia Cheng, Angela Saini, and Judith Lorber have taken up the challenge of pulling at this thread, revealing the deeply ingrained prejudices that have long gone unquestioned. Through their meticulous analysis and powerful narratives, they expose how science, a field supposedly rooted in impartiality, has been shaped by the very biases it claims to rise above. Their work not only uncovers these injustices but also fuels the feminist movement, urging us to rethink and reshape the ways we understand and engage with the world.
In chapter 3 of her book X+Y: A Mathematician's Manifesto for Rethinking Gender, Eugenia Cheng examines terms like “masculine” and “feminine” and their social associations. On page 75, under the subheading “Gendered Words,” Cheng cites Susan Brownmiller’s book Femininity to argue that the words “masculine” and “feminine” are “prescriptive rather than descriptive” (Cheng, 75). This citation is crucial because it strengthens Cheng’s argument by showing that she is not merely inventing information; she is repurposing and distributing established knowledge to reach her audience.
Moreover, Cheng draws on personal experience to highlight gender bias in male-dominated fields. On pages 82 and 83, she recounts how men, aware of her profession, often feel threatened and are reluctant to approach her. To support this observation, Cheng cites the scholarly article “A Man’s (Precarious) Place: Men’s Experienced Threat and Self-Assertive Reactions to Female Superiors,” which provides data on how men treat female superiors differently from female subordinates. This source adds empirical weight to Cheng’s argument, demonstrating that gender bias is not only pervasive but also measurable.
Judith Lorber, in her work, delves into the social construction of gender. In Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender, she writes, “For the individual, gender construction starts with the assignment to a sex category on the basis of what the genitalia look like at birth” (Lorber, 243). Lorber’s use of her previous work as a source compels readers to explore her broader academic history, expanding their understanding of gender theory. Her analysis demonstrates how gender roles are imposed from infancy, shaping individuals' lives in profound ways. By citing her own work, Lorber not only reinforces her argument but also encourages readers to engage deeply with the ongoing discourse on gender.
Lorber’s examination of gender construction extends to how society molds individuals to fit into predefined gender roles. She highlights how children are color-coded—blue for boys and pink for girls—and how societal expectations shape their interactions, job prospects, and caretaking roles. “All of these processes constitute the social construction of gender,” Lorber concludes (Lorber, 244). Her work challenges readers to question these normalized processes and consider their impact on gender inequality.
In chapter 6 of Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong—and the New Research That’s Rewriting the Story, Angela Saini explores how scientific studies have been used to justify gender inequality. She discusses Angus J. Bateman’s 1948 study on fruit flies, which supported Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. According to this theory, males are “more promiscuous and less discriminating, while females are more pickier and more chase” (Saini, 122). This study was revived in 1972 by Robert Trivers, who argued that men’s “evolutionary urge to cheat” is biologically determined (Saini, 124). Trivers’ work, although scientifically questionable, provided a convenient excuse for male behavior, as evidenced by the phrase “boys will be boys,” used to defend President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal (Saini, 126). Saini’s analysis reveals how biased interpretations of data have been weaponized against women, reinforcing patriarchal norms.
After digesting these readings, it becomes clear that men have historically used science to oppress women, whether intentionally or not. Misogynistic scientists have often publicized only what supports their preconceived notions, a confirmation bias that feminist writers like Cheng, Saini, and Lorber are actively working to dismantle. Their theoretical frameworks and rigorous analyses have exposed the flaws in these interpretations, urging us to continue challenging the patriarchal institution for the sake of gender equality. By doing so, they remind us that we must remain vigilant in questioning the data and interpretations presented to us, ensuring that they serve the cause of equality rather than oppression.
Work Cited:
Cheng, Eugenia. 2020. X + Y: A Mathematician's Manifesto for Rethinking Gender. Basic Books.
Lorber, Judith. 2003. “‘Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender.’” Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, pp. 243–248.
Saini, Angela. 2018. Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong—and the New Research That’s Rewriting the Story (Reprint ed.). Beacon Press.
