Jane Goodall did some fascinating work, and it has been well publicized. It has been years since I studied her work and I have forgotten quite a few of the details. Fosse’s work is also fascinating, although I am less familiar with it than I am with Goodall’s. Farley Mowat did similar work with wolves. Unfortunately that kind of research requires an extremely high level of dedication on the part of the researcher and it requires large amounts of money. Those two factors make it unlikely that those kinds of projects will be repeated very often. Lack of repetition and the necessity for the researchers to include subjective judgement in reporting their observations invites caution when interpreting the results of their work.
I am well aware that some scientists are women and that women have made some important discoveries; I have not claimed otherwise. I was not previously familiar with Cecilia Payne, but now I am. Thank you.
If you are concerned about a lack of public awareness of female scientists then you are already taking the most effective steps you can by publicizing their names.
The next time I happen to be involved in a conversation about science or scientists I will mention Cecilia Payne, should the opportunity arise.
I am aware that scientists claim credit for the work of other scientists. Men claim credit for other men’s work; men claim credit for women’s work; and sometimes women claim credit for men’s work or other women’s work. Like most people, scientists like to get credit, and the less ethically minded might steal others’ credit. This occurs because credit brings material benefits.
You would consider the existence of a dominance hierarchy to be the cause of credit theft and I would consider credit theft, incentivized by the rewards associated with getting credit, to be a cause of any dominance hierarchy in science. If men claiming credit for women’s work occurs more frequently than vice versa, that could be attributed to men’s greater skill at claiming credit for others’ work.
None of this has anything to do with my observation that Feminists (not “women”) obstruct the public expression of ideas that challenge their ideology, which invites skepticism of research results that conveniently support Feminist ideology, particularly when the conclusions involve researchers’ subjective judgment and data interpretation.
I have provided a Gish Gazillion examples of Feminists obstructing the public expression of ideas that challenge their ideology.
I will provide two more for good measure:
“…an object lesson in grasping and posturing for dominance within the hierarchy and being upset when you are told you aren’t allowed to. Academia and STEM in particular are notoriously sexist, hostile, harassing and aggressive about trying to keep women in their place. The fact that they don’t like to be called out on that is irrelevant.”
I thought I was the world’s champion Gish Galloper, but this is a masterpiece. I did score two “Alexes” in this conversation though, so I still hold the Smart Alec title.
Anyway, I agree that it is irrelevant with respect to my observation that Feminists obstruct the public expression of ideas that challenge their ideology.
