Part One: Identifications. 10 pts. x 3 IDs = 30 pts.For each of the three concepts below, please provide a brief definition explaining the meaning of the concept. For each concept, please provide an example from our course materials that helps to illustrate what the term means/why it is significant. Readings, lectures, slides, clips/documentaries are all fair game for use as examples.1.) Dualisms/Binary Schemas2.) Intersectionality3.) EpistemologyPart Two: Short Answer. 45 pts.After taking time to reflect upon our course materials and discussions so far, please compose a critical response to one of the following two prompts. Please be sure to address all portions of the prompt you choose to respond to. In responding, please include at least two examples from our course materials that help elaborate, explain or otherwise illustrate the answer you are providing.Approximate Length: 3-5 Paragraphs In-text citations/quotations are not required, but are you are welcome to use them.If direct quotes or paraphrases are included, please include brief citation information(e.g. last name, page number). A separate works cited page is not required.Please use 12pt. Times New Roman font and double-spacedparagraphs.Please remember to insert page numbers and a header with full name.Thank you!! Happy Writing!!
2Payne WMSNT 382 Summer 2021 Assignment #1 – Due Friday July 16th (75 pts total)Reminder – Please Only Choose One of the Following Prompts. ?Prompt #1:We have begun our exploration of feminist science and technology studies by discussing some of the traditional approaches to studying science and technology. Following this, we’ve reflected on the challenges posed to these traditional studies of science by those whose approach we term ‘social construction.’ First, please identify and describe the general characteristics and assumptions of traditional approaches (positivism, falsificationism, functionalism) to the study of science.Next, please identify and describe some of the critiques that subsequent social constructionists posed to traditional approaches.Finally, flip the tables once more: what are potential critiques of the social constructionist approaches to the study of science?(Please remember to include at least two examples when answering. Thanks!)Prompt # 2:Both feminist equity studies and feminist analyses of the uses of language/rhetoric and imagery identify gendered disparities in science. In their own ways, both equity studies and studies of language and imagery contend that science has been, and continues to be, gendered.First, please describe the field of feminist equity studies in relation to STEM. What does feminist equity studies, well, study? That is, what are the points of interest and objects of analysis in equity studies? What are some of the typical findings of feminist equity studies in general and with respect to STEM specifically? That is, what are some of the historical and ongoing patterns identified in feminist equity studies? What are some of the potential sources/reasons that might explain the patterns of findings in feminist equity studies with respect to STEM?
3Payne WMSNT 382 Summer 2021 Assignment #1 – Due Friday July 16th (75 pts total)Next, please describe the role (historically and/or currently) of gendered language and imagery in relation to science, technology, and medicine. When analysts of language and imagery contend that ‘science is gendered,’ what does this mean? How is science gendered in terms of language and imagery?(Please remember to include at least two examples when answering. Thanks!)
reply to this student please
Hey class!
There’s a bigger picture at hand. The psychical body has distinct differences between sex’s, and genes, and chemical makeup, but there is also a differences within the human mind. As far as I can remember, there have always been two biological sex’s. Male/female. I have come to learn, and quite recently, that there is a big difference in gender identities. Many have misunderstood this concept and still think that our characteristics are defined by our sexual reproductive organs. What it means when an individual says they are determined by their biology is just that. They think that their reproductive organs are supposed to be an identifier that an individual is either male/female, or that they are only supposed to be with the opposite sex, but really it isn’t and life isn’t meant to be restricted like that. We are all here in the world trying to make a difference, and we deserve the human right to have our own individual feelings. A critique of using a biological determinist approach to understanding people is to have people learn this stuff, and learn psychology earlier in life. Lets make what is learned in life and college, taught in our elementary, middle, and high schools. What it means to suggest that gender is socially constructed, is that well it’s true. Everything in our world is made up by us. We have created this culture and defined it, restricted it, oppressed it, and for what? So that humanity is controlled to the point where you can’t have your own identity without being criticized? Or be the one criticizing because you just misunderstand? Even race to an extent is socially constructed. People come from all walks of life, and all around the world. People have acknowledged this and have put races, countries, cultures to terms that are understandable, but take a look at the tribes that satellite is just now finding in forests all over the world. Look at their culture and their livelihoods and think of life in a more naturalist way. One isn’t necessarily better than the other, from an outside perspective, but if you ask individuals from a hidden tribe, or from a big city, both would probably tell you that their own way is preferable. This just goes to confirm that feelings of life have now grown into a subjective perspective. Do forms of classification based on gender or race serve beneficial ends? Harmful ends? Both? Neither? It depends? If you look at things through a specific scale (or smaller than the bigger picture in life) then yes, these classifications do have both harm and good. Some harms are that people don’t want to be labeled anything, and that has a huge influence in the chain reaction events. I can think of so many. Some goods are that these people in their fields of study (STEM, whichever) are finding the specifics based on individual characteristics, and they are trying to make their own difference, and essentially they are trying to help people.
0 comments