Modern science is far from perfect. Despite the efforts of many to present it as an ideal panacea, truth is scientific production is entirely dependent on its creator.
The greatest method humanity has invented to understand the universe is devoid of character and only serves the interests of who uses its power. Whether it is used to improve the lives of others or to fulfill defined purposes, science reflects the consciousness of the society pursuing it. In the case of Western world, it’s far from the ideal conveyed to the masses.
The article “Here’s Why There Ought to Be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths” is a shortsighted limited argument in favor of chauvinism and misogyny in the world of science, brought to us by the Breitbart website.
The piece written by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British man famous for his conservative and intolerant view of feminism, picks off where Tim Hunt, left off. During a speech in South Korea in 2015, the winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Medicine suggested implementing sexual segregation in science labs. And what was the scientist’s case for keeping women away from men? “Three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.”
After underestimating the intellectual abilities of women by placing them beneath that of men, and clearly showing scientific and social ignorance, Milo ends with a pseudo-argument explaining the female sex’s alleged tendency of dropping out of hard science studies. The writer gives a sublime example of how to manipulate data through the use of nonsensical scientism, reaching the conclusion that so-called “female-friendly” countries have a low index of female students since:
“Given every opportunity to choose, women stubbornly refuse to study the subjects feminists would like them to.”
Milo continues to describe women as a gross expense to university budgets, claiming that in a highly competitive environment such as hard sciences, women “can’t cut it in highly competitive environments or they simply change their minds about what they want from life,” considering the “competitive nature of these subjects too uninviting” for them, since most feel the classes are “too hard”.
Until last August the site providing this kind of content was under the supervision of Steve Bannon. It was then when he devoted himself entirely to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. After the winning the election in November, Bannon was named as part of the Republican’s White House cabinet. It seems that this ultraconservative news outlet played its part in the tycoon’s campaign.
From the moment Trump became the Republican Party’s Breitbart went from being a sounding board for ultra-rightwing America to turning into a lead source of opinion with headlines such as “Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?” Despite its ideas, it found an audience in the same people who helped the unlikely triumph possible.
The problem is that this opinion is not an isolate case amongst those dedicated to studying and teaching science. It’s easy for those hiding behind intellect, books, classrooms, diplomas, and an entirely academic life that is loosely tethered to reality to judge others from their privileged place in the system. However, to truly understand the underlying reasons why there’s not more women in science, means to actually take an unbiased closer look.
There’s no point in having brilliant scientists or researchers who remain ignorant to social justice. It’s ironic how the same people who mock creationism can actually believe there is some truth to the arguments of superiority between sexes or races. Or that they can make baseless claims such as social sciences not being as important or transcendent as natural sciences based on the lack of numbers or advanced math.
That is the mindset shared by the lobby of scientists, politicians, and specialists that will be part of Trump’s cabinet for the next four years. Perhaps the best answer on the subject is that of Neil Degrasse Tyson after Lawrence Summers (politician and former chief economist for the World Bank) asked him about women’s role in science:
“My life’s experiences tell me that when you don’t find blacks or women in the sciences, I know that these forces are real. And I had to survive them in order to get where I am today. Before we start talking about genetic differences, you got to come up with a system that’s equal opportunity to have that kind of conversation.”
From social Darwinism to outdated comments like Summers’ or Hunt’s, without social character science is worthless. It becomes a reflection of who produces it to find arguments to legitimize racial, sexual, or preferential superiority among humanity.
Degrasse Tyson’s answer might be uncomfortable for think tanks, politicians, scientists, and institutions that control the purpose and choose the people who work in science around the world. Yet our current society who poses these sorts of questions needs to hear these hard truths as difficult as they might be to swallow. The lack of women in science is not for a lack of ability; there’s enough data to prove that. It’s because most scientific clusters, which are a reflection of modern society, have a deep rooted chauvinist tradition that relegates women to a secondary role in activities deemed as male by default. However, it becomes quite decadent when they attempt to legitimize their prejudice by a pseudo-scientific theory.
Translated by María Suárez
