Please first determine Keller’s thesis (one or two sentences, maximum, from the piece conveying the overall argument). Refer to Keller’s work assigned in our course: “The Gender/Science System: or, Is Sex To Gender As Nature Is To Science?” Evelyn Fox Keller. PDF: Keller.The Gender.Science System.or, Is Sex To Gender As Nature Is To Science.pdf Download Keller.The Gender.Science System.or, Is Sex To Gender As Nature Is To Science.pdf
2.) Do independent research to find at least two (2) examples of what Keller is discussing in her piece. The examples must come from at least two (2) different non-WST 3324 sources (beyond what is assigned in this course). You are not permitted to use life experiences. You are required to formally cite the source/s that you use (in formal APA style) and all of your sources must be academic, scholarly, and peer reviewed.
3.) Explain, in detail, how the examples you provide in your answer illustrate Keller’s overall argument. Provide details, examples, and descriptions to justify your answer. Directly quote from appropriate academic sources at least once per question response/example.
After you address all prompts, please respond to at least two (2) classmates’ posts. Interact with one another in respectful, encouraging, and professional ways. For your responses to count, your response posts to your classmates must be substantive and extend the ongoing discussion in meaningful, unique, and engaging ways. Answers like “I agree.” or “That’s interesting!” or “I like your comment.” do not qualify as substantive responses, so you will not earn points for such replies to your peers. Your reply/response post/s to peers should be interactive, should extend the conversation (not end it), and should be professional, well-worded, and considerate. Points will be deducted if you do not include at least two (2) reply/response posts to two (2) different classmates.
Post 1: The thesis Keller argues in “The Gender/Science System: or, Is Sex To Gender As Is To Science” is that the refusal of differences in both gender and science is the problem today. The power that is normalized within gender and science to deny a diverse sense of science and that of gender, limits women and therefore femininity in the realm of science. Jane Gilbert backs Keller’s argument in her article “Science and its ‘Other’: Looking underneath ‘woman’ and ‘science’ for new directions in research on gender and science education” by saying people “do not question the deeply gendered nature of scientific knowledge, or challenge the strongly masculine culture which characterises scientific and technological workplaces” (Gilbert, 292) This aligns with Keller’s thesis by which it amplifies what Keller sees as a main viewpoint of concern that masculinity is associated in different workforces, and femininity should be kept out of certain ones, like science.
Post 2: Two different examples of Keller’s work are “Better science with sex and gender: Facilitating the use of a sex and gender-based analysis in health research” written by Joy Johnson, Lorraine Greaves, and Robin Repta in 2009, and “Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering written” by Cara Tannenbaum, Robwer Ellis, Friederike Eyssel, James Zou, and Londa Schiebinger in 2019. The first example illustrates Keller’s argument because it discusses reasons that gender and sex have been excluded in scientific research and speaks on the benefits of including them. “The inclusion of sex and gender not only guarantees more comprehensive science but can result in cost savings for the health care system, more effective policies, and programs and us a matter of social justice” (Johnson et al., 2009). The article claims that recognizing this exclusion can lead us to identify knowledge gaps that were previously overlooked. The second article talks about the relationship science research has with gender and sex. It claims that across many scientific disciplines, sex-based differences were inconsistent with one another, limiting the reproducibility of experiments and limiting the further investigation. This article makes a point in saying “If results are not stratified by these variables, opportunities will be missed to provide clearer insights into their influence on human judgments and behavior” (Tannenbaum et al., 2019). All in all, both these articles provide some further examples for Keller’s claims.
0 comments