Gender Unification in the Field of Science: A Male Feminist Perspective
Gender diversity has seemingly become a societal buzz phrase and paradoxically that can
be an issue when stressing its importance in science.1 The fashionable usage of the expression
may have rendered it marginally ineffective and in this paper I attempt to regain its effectiveness
by offering a perspective of gender ideologies that is “constructed out of gender complementarity
instead of gender opposition.”2 I suggest that this proposed viewpoint has potential value towards
rejuvenating gender diversity as a powerful concept and towards achieving gender unification in
the scientific community. A focus on gender complementarity still lends focus towards gender
differences.3 I seek to establish these differences in terms of the ability to be consciously
responsive to gender expressions in a manner that is meaningful and rewarding for both parties,
quid pro quo. Our social identities as distinctive individuals and our gender identities as feminine
or masculine4 are both mutually respected and understood within the viewpoint that I propose.
To further dissect the abilities of this stance I will muse over: the past and present historical
presence of masculinity in science, the current state of gender diversity within the discipline, the
disproportion of genders involved, and any relatable oppositions of gender unification that may
arise from the preceding matters.
Before looking forward, it is often useful to take a look back and this contemplative
journey begins with an examination of the essay entitled Aphorisms on the Interpretation of
Nature and the Empire of Man wherein Francis Bacon points out suspected flaws in the
objectivity of the scientific method:
It is vain to expect any great progress in science by the superinducing and engrafting of
new matters upon old. An instatauration must be made from the very foundations, if we
Bert (2018).
Harding (1986, 130-131).
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
1
2
do not wish to revolve forever in a circle, making only some slight and contemptible
progress.5
If what Bacon states here is relevant, then, in the case of gender unification for scientific
advancement, is it possible to instigate a paradigm shift that involves the complete restructuring
of traditional gender assumptions from the foundation upwards? Would a fundamental change to
these underlying assumptions offer opportunities to observe the natural world with a renewed
bilateral lens that is founded by inclusive gender approaches? The success of the aforementioned
restructuring process would be largely dependent on the ability of men to collectively recognize,
as well as appreciate the benefits of women in leadership roles and welcome gender differences
as symbiotic advantages.
An attempt to gain insight into the minds of men past, and to deliberate the existence of a
masculine bias in scientific practice, may be satisfied by exploring the subtleties of an allegorical
sculpture entitled Nature Unveiling Herself Before Science (1899) by Louis-Ernest Barrias. This
sculpture depicts nature as a woman baring herself by exposing her face and her breasts from
beneath a veil. The statue has been interpreted by historians as “Nature's desire to hide her
secrets, with the modern fantasy of (female) nature willingly revealing herself to the (male)
scientist, without violence or artifice.”6 In a dualistic sense, Nature (the figure representing
womankind), and nature (the phenomenon) are one in the same, and both are seemingly affected
by a masculine bias in science. The subordinative pose and blank stare on the face of Nature in
the statue appear to be indicative of a past viewpoint that the pluralistic form of Nature serves a
purpose of helpless scrutinization at the hands of science. Remnants of a dominant male view
that nature and women abide to be the subordinate figure in support of the prying hegemonic
mind, could continue to reside within the scientific disciplines and forcibly revoke beneficial
5
6
Bacon (1900, 318).
Daston & Galison (2007, 244).
feminine viewpoints. Is it probable that the usefulness of a primarily patriarchal scientific
approach has run its course? A recent book titled The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for
Men by Robert Jensen offers the following:
It may be that in the long run, patriarchy has not been a successful adaptation and will
lead to the extinction of [our] species. As we look around the world at the threats to the
ecosphere from unsustainable human systems deeply rooted in patriarchy’s
domination/subordination dynamic, that’s not only plausible but increasingly likely. That
suggests that patriarchy is at an evolutionary dead-end.7
Global awareness of patriarchy’s plausible “evolutionary dead-end”8 could be crucial to the
further adaptation of a unified gender view. This view may present the capacity to incorporate
the masculine deductive, analytic, and quantitative approach with the feminine intuitive, holistic,
and qualitative approach. This view may also provide the capability to accommodate a
“conception of objectivity constituted by critical and cooperative relations”9 within masculine
and feminine inquiries. I surmise that a framework of collective gender objectivity may present
the opportunity to transform diverse inquiry into diverse knowledge. Divergent inquiries could
theoretically allow each gender to take on the testimony of what the other can acquire through
direct experience and possibly provide an allowance to exercise imaginative projection by taking
up the perspective of the other gender.10 In this manner, men and women alike may presumably
be able to symbiotically benefit from the adaptation of a gender diverse epistemology.
Diversity, in this sense, is best understood as the varying ideas, beliefs, and perspectives
that a team comprised of men and women are able to offer. Quantitative data provided from a
study conducted by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies of France
demonstrates that an increase of gender diversity in research teams could raise the probability
Jensen (2017, 34).
Ibid.
9 Anderson (2017).
10 Anderson (2017).
7
8
that outcomes are achieved before schedule and also the probability that actual costs are less than
anticipated.11 Although this study indicates promise, research is still limited. In addition, multiple
counterarguments towards the efficacy and practicality of this model have been posed: teams of
equal gender distribution tend to encounter higher levels of conflict than teams of unequal gender
distribution, the promotion of norms for gender collaboration may be ineffective as it provides
focus on existing conflict, and pressures to cooperate may cause an absence of mutual trust to be
more noticeable.12 Though these complications exist, is it feasible to consider that the benefits
might outweigh the drawbacks? What changes must take place for a gender diverse model to
function pragmatically? Exploring the conditions under which the negative interpersonal
dynamics associated with gender diversity can be mitigated13 could be considered as a
worthwhile endeavor. Gender diversity does seem to have a positive effect on the psychological
experience of group members, with members of heterogeneous groups reporting greater feelings
of efficacy about their tasks, and better morale than members of homogenous groups.14 Much
potential is apparent, although further explication and analysis appears to be necessary for a
thorough interpretation of the opportunities and obstacles involved.
Despite efforts of government initiatives, feminist groups, and the media, women are still
underrepresented in science, especially in leadership positions. At current rates women are a
minority in the scientific community and account for around 30% of the world's total
researchers.15 Women also earn about half the doctorates in science within the United States but
they only make up for about 20% of science professors.16 This urges the question: what is the
Turner (2009).
Nishii (2013).
13 Ibid.
14 Bear & Williams (2011).
15 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2018).
16 Shen (2013).
11
12
delay in the acceptance of a paradigm that will allow women equal opportunities in the field of
science and, more specifically, in leadership positions therein? It is supposable that the delay can
be attributed to an unconscious bias that has emerged from a social construct of scientists as
being predominantly male? These types of social constructs, which we all occupy, create implicit
norms that often go unquestioned.17 I contend that the very men who encompass this proposed
social image of scientists might also be underlining it with unintentional support through a lack
of determination to question “implicit norms.”18 Recent findings have demonstrated that men
view research confirming gender bias within the field of science as carrying less merit than
women do.19 This opinion is very likely perpetuating a barrier towards counteracting bias.
Substantial gender disparity also exists, with top level positions being held in greater proportions
by men and that group holds decision-making power.20 As highlighted by Imogen Coe, Professor
of Biochemistry and founding Dean of the Faculty of Science at Ryerson University in Toronto:
We have to acknowledge that there are issues related to who has the power and who
needs to share power, and potentially even give up power, in increasing diversity and
inclusion. There’s this sort of cognitive dissonance between realizing that it’s in your best
interest and refusing to actually participate.21
I propose a call for action by female and male feminists to recreate the structures of professional
environments and establish them with a “commitment to transparency, accountability, and the
monitoring of gender equality.”22 This restructuring process may prospectively alleviate the
aforementioned issues and possibly mediate power relinquishment by the “gender disparity at the
top.”23 Arguably though, an extension of feminist pressures might create more conflict, more
Kostenuk (2017).
Ibid.
19 Handley & Brown (2015).
20 Nichols (2018).
21 Gaviola (2017).
22 League of European Research Universities (2012, 16).
23 Nichols (2018, ¶6).
17
18
tension, and more refusal to participate. “Some slight”24 progress on the matter of gender
disparity is already apparent. An approximate 5% increase in the number of women participating
in science has been recorded since the early 1990’s.25 Is it necessary to press the issue of gender
disparity any further? In contemplating this argument, I find my thoughts to be echoing the
words of Francis Bacon: “an instatauration must be made from the very foundations, if we do not
wish to revolve forever in a circle, making only some slight and contemptible progress.”26
Regardless of the fashionable usage of the phrase, and any ineffectiveness this may have
caused, gender diversity does appear to have a place of importance in the field of science. A
liberal ideology of science suggests that “if we see scientific procedures as objective then we
cannot argue that women would bring anything new to the production of science.”27 However, I
challenge this liberal standpoint and ascertain that the production of science without women
creates theoretical knowledge that is incomplete as “theoretical knowledge itself must be a
construction of humanity, rather than a simple set of direct observations.”28 This is evident in the
outcome qualities that are produced as a result of collective intelligence and the responsiveness
of men and women to one another29 in a gender diverse environment. As a whole, men and
women seem to offer something special to each other, and the field of science. While this is not
yet labeled by a scientific term: I choose to define this as “energy.” This energy can facilitate
discovery that may only occur within a collective effort. A collective effort that can naturally
cause research and development teams to produce outcomes with pronounced ingenuity and at
Bacon (1900, 318).
National Science Board (2014).
26 Bacon (1900, 318).
27 Fee (1982, 5).
28 Johnston & Southerland (n.d., 1).
29 Bear & Williams (2011).
24
25
higher rates. Combined, our differences can create wonder. Imagine what else could be achieved
by simply casting traditional gender ideologies aside in an embracement of change.
Bibliography
Anderson, E. (2017). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/.
Bacon, F. (1900). Book I: Aphorisms Concerning on the Interpretation of Nature, and the Empire
of Man. In Advancement of Learning and Novum Organum. New York, NY: The
Colonial Press.
Barrias, L. (1899). Nature Unveiling Herself Before Science [Sculpture]. Musée d'Orsay, Paris,
France.
Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). The Role of Gender in Team Collaboration and
Performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,36(2), 146-153.
https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961473.
Bert, A. (2018). 3 reasons gender diversity is crucial to science. Elsevier.
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/3-reasons-gender-diversity-is-crucial-to-science.
Daston, L. & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York, NY: Zone Books.
Fee, E. (1982). A Feminist Critique of Scientific Objectivity. Science for the People,14(4), 3-5.
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/archives-a-feminist-critique-of-scientificobjectivity/.
Gaviola, A. (2017, October 14). Canada urgently needs diversity in science, tech, engineering
and math. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fighting-gender-stereotypesstem-1.4354302.
Handley, I. M. & Brown, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Smith, J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence
revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(43), 13201–13206.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629390/.
Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Johnston, A. T., & Southerland, S. A. (n.d.). The Multiple Meanings of Tentative
Science[Scholarly project]. Weber State University: Department of Physics.
https://physics.weber.edu/johnston/nos/readings/revisedSCED804.pdf.
Kostenuk, L. (2017). The Underlying Sexism in Biology. Red Deer, AB: Red Deer College.
League of European Research Universities. (2012). Women, research and universities:
excellence without gender bias. Leuven, Belgium. https://www.leru.org/files/WomenResearch-and-Universities-Excellence-without-Gender-Bias-Full-paper.pdf.
National Science Board. (2014). Has Employment of Women and Minorities in S&E Jobs
Increased? https://nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/workforce-07.html.
Nichols, G. (2018, April 2). Why Aren't There More Women Leaders in Science? Scientific
American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/why-arent-there-more-womenleaders-in-science/.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of
Management Journal,50(6), 1754-1774.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0922/5e983ef665d57b19a664f30ee06d01b1d061.pdf.
Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature News: International Weekly
Journal of Science,495(7439). https://www.nature.com/news/inequality-quantified-mindthe-gender-gap-1.12550.
Turner, L. (2009). Gender diversity and innovative performance. International Journal of
Innovation and Sustainable Development,4(2/3), 123-134. http://blogs.ischool.utexas.edu
/iwrg/files/2012/11/Turner-2009-.pdf.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2018). Fact Sheet No. 51:
Women in Science. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs51-women-inscience-2018-en.pdf.