This might be the third rail.

Gender studies is broader than science. However, gender can be studied in a scientific way. Gender is, after all, a cultural phenomenon, and so rests in the realm of anthropology, which is a science.

I take a very scientific approach to gender, defining it in terms of "eidos." Preprint From Gender and Race to Eidos: A broader term for culturally...

But the history and politics of gender are also important areas of study, and so there's more to it than just science. There's a lot of general information. There's art related to it. So it's really a broader category. My issue with gender studies is that feminist politics holds a tight grasp on it, and I don't think a political ideology focused on a given gender should have a stranglehold on a study of gender in general.

Gender studies probably belongs under sociology, and I am not sure that sociology is a science. I may be stoned as a heretic for saying this.

Joseph Tham, your view is not uncommon though I disagree with sociology not being a science. There's a lot of overlap between sociology and anthropology, but anthropology is more holistic. So long as the field's goal is to produce falsifiable theory and test it with the goal of moving the body of theory away from false assumptions, it's a science.

Certainly, there are many aspects of gender that overlap with established social sciences' fields of interest. However, I read multiple times that experts of gender studies denied any relevance of biological results for the concept of gender and their own area of research. That is quite a bold claim. And it sounds as if this is a paradigm which cannot be falsified. Though, it's a question that could be addressed empirically, I think.

I'm not sure about those who claim there is no connection between the two, as all culture is affected by our biology. I also place gender under the broader category of eidos that I defined in the article I listed in my first post. But gender studies can be scientific, but the history, art, etc of gender is also another collection of areas of study which might fall closer to the arts.

Daniel Goldman It seems that we do agree on the definition of science. Could you give me one simple example of a falsifiable statement from sociology and one from anthropology. Thanks.

I'm pretty bad at coming up with examples. Let's see. One of my core focuses is on religion. So one statement that is falsifiable, or at least can be made falsifiable with proper definitions is "religion is less prevalent in younger generations."

The first step is to provide a robust definition of religion. Preprint A Unified Psychological and Anthropological Model of Religion

Then we construct a model for estimating religiosity from things like survey methods. And finally, we conduct the survey and compare the results to the theory's expectations.

From the beginning, empirical-experimental research had focused on research on gender-differentiated behaviour. There are textbooks, introductions, etc. on the subject. I myself felt through such a study of gender differences in the use of toys and in the preferences of games in the early seventies. Today, gender differences in education have become a central theme of educational research.

A few decades ago, socialization studies were criticized by some groups because they served as political levers - so the claim - to make education accessible to the lower classes of society. Any study can be politicized. So these are quite old hats, but the subject is always warmed up.

I cannot see any scientifically justifiable concern in this question, although I understand that the question can play a role in gender discussion.

Dear Hein Retter ,

I have no principal objections that social sciences may approach the question of gender in various ways. Of course, one finds in many disciplines individual researchers that have esoteric opinions and sometimes they follow paths that are not really scientific. I don't think that is an issue for the whole discipline, as long as we talk about a small minority without impact on the course of the discipline as such.

However, if the number practitioners that follow a paradigm, which is excluded from the scientific debate, increases beyond a certain limit - that could constitute an issue.

I admit that the notion of paradigm may invoke the question in how far other disciplines are also based on paradigms that are not exposed to scientific scrutiny - consciously or inconsciously. So this reasoning of mine could eventually be rephrased as: Are there common paradigms in gender studies that are qualitatively more critical than paradigms in other fields?

Best,

Thomas Neusius

Dear Thomas Neusius,

I shall confine my contribution to the last part of her speech, which is linked to a question. (Are there common paradigms in gender studies that are qualitatively more critical than paradigms in other fields?)

In my opinion, this question is formulated in a very factual way and allows a good discussion to be expected, also with the participation of experts to whom I do not belong. I only have experience in relation to children's games, gender roles and toy preferences (and parents who bought toys), also some experience in aspects of "Bildung". If we add to this the differences between the social classes and certain age limits of the children of the parents interviewed, e.g. 4-6 years, then at the beginning of the 1970s very interesting results were obtained which may look different today in the IT and media age.

My findings at that time (volume "Spielzeug-Sozialschichtt-Erziehung", 1974) had among other things the result that despite all progressive attitudes of middle class parents the basic result had not changed much: that quite traditional role conceptions prevailed. This means that girls of this age preferred social games (with dolls and social design elements), while boys preferred more constructive, manual and technical aspects. The furnishing of the children's rooms is accordingly.

Of course, this depends on the culture. In the GDR, things were different, supposedly. In any case, today's kindergartens are very much looking for equal rights here (the problem does not arise in the Montessori Children's House because the "material" is gender-neutral.

Today's screenplay dominance has brought a variety of video games onto the market, in the areas of aggression, war games, SF horror games, etc. However, this has not led to this area being preferred by girls, where male interest is dominant. In spite of all cultural influences, evolutionary structures will probably also be effective in us.

At that time in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when West Germany tried to create a uniform structure for public education in West Germany in the West-Eastern educational race through the "Structure Plan for Education" (1970), after the Education Act of the GDR of 1965 perceived the educational progress of the East with a certain longing (and in the background the Sputnik-Shock!") The promotion of the social underclass played a role in the public discussion, the demand for female equality in education, economy, society, was not completely ignored; but feminism in Germany began with American female authors - such as Kate Millett - being relevant, so that at the beginning of the seventies the (criticized precarious) social situation of the female sex was discussed primarily in three areas: The woman as (a) sexual object of the mane, (b) the woman fostered only to live with the tree K (Kinder, Küche Kirche), in the traditional social role of to ber house wife, serving the husband and raising children (for which the secondary school leaving certificate was regarded as completely sufficient for girls) , (c) the woman as disadvantaged in the higher educational qualifications.

This was the first time a relatively independent, public culture of women had been created, who were quite "ruthlessly open" with men, at least critically. The poorer pay of women in the economy for the same overall performance has remained an issue to this day. This is different in the case of universities, since the law makes the preference of women in the case of equal qualifications the norm and the "women's representatives" (die "Gleichstellungsbeauftragte") - as you yourself know - can overturn any appointment list and influence any minister of education and cultural affairs in the granting of a call, even if the appointment process in the university senate has already been completed, if the "equal opportunities representative" complains about something.

Of course, it is interesting to note the change in our language through the introduction of nouns with female endings where the female gender has been subsumed under the male gender. Feminist theologians have also done this to the horror of both great churches with "God" and with the "Holy Spirit" - whether successful, I do not know.

It is difficult for me to decide whether in one area of scientific discussion, such as gender research, there is more criticism and controversy than in other areas. I believe there are always only certain questions that are discussed particularly emotionally in the media.

As far as the equalisation of educational qualifications is concerned, the situation has reversed: in absolute terms, we have had more female than male school-leavers. Women will not be able to resolve their fundamental conflict between children/family on the one hand and professional careers on the other, but it is a real pleasure today to promote opportunities to combine the two.

Thomas Neusius

I think most of the serious scientists who work within the field of gender studies (GS) wouldn't deny aspects of biology regarding gender, but what is largely criticised are biologistic/deterministic or essentialistic views on the topos of gender, sexuality and gender-identiy etc..

One has also to keep in mind, that "Gender Studies" (at least in Germany) terms an inter- and transdisciplinary University-Major, which centers around 'gender' as a main focus. It's not a homogenous field and you can study courses from a social science, cultural studies and/or MINT-spectrum etc. and combine.

Since Gender Studies is such a heterogenous field, the epistemological perspectives, methodologies, methods etc. differ greatly, too. I guess it's like everywhere else in science, but GS are especially critical (reflexive) regarding the productiveness of scientific constructions (like empirical research, theories that exclude e.g. the societal role of women (or certain kinds of groups), like in the theories of Karl Marx or Max Weber). Criticism of Science is often an important and integral aspect of GS, because of the situated knowledge (Donna Haraway) one has to deal with in research.

The German debate about GS is IMO a debate about fundamental understandings of and how science can (and should) function or be practiced.

Dear Benjamin Neumann ,

thank you for your reply.

Best,

I find the question interesting, but - since I am not an expert in gender studies - I have no particular position to take. I think that discussing the question should be a need of the people concerned themselves, the gender researchers. In the sixties and seventies, partly as a student, I became acquainted with gender-specific studies from the field of psychology (as a subject area of differential psychology), but in the studies on social anthropology (which I was always surrounded by a touch of myth when it came to the Arapesh, Trobrianders and other ethnic groups far away"), which only came to Germany late in the day. But in the course of "emancipation pedagogy", completely different (new) normative claims appeared in Germany from the 1970s onwards, mostly demanded by women, in which equal rights and the fight against male dominance in society were at stake. I assume that this normative view has today receded somewhat into the background again, in favour of broader and more complex issues. In this respect, such a discussion can be stimulating.

Dear Hein Retter ,

I do not fully agree that the above question can be left to the practitioners of the field. Generally, my question explicitly points at how others - in particular other scientist - see gender studies.

Naturally, practitioners of a field claim to be doing science - but that doesn't mean that others accept such a claim. I acknowledge that in case of GS there is not even a common paradigm, and the field and its practitioners cover too broad a range to allow general characterizations. However, I came across statements of established proponents of GS being ideological and free of objective facts. Such a clear ignorance against scientific standards would hardly be acceptable in the other disciplines I'm familiar with.

Best,

Dear Thomas Neusius,

I have no problem saying that I'm not oriented about aims, methods, self-image of GS-esearchers that I would place within the social sciences. But perhaps at the moment there is a discussion among those concerned who would like the research area to be more strongly contoured as an independent subject or who have fundamental differences of opinion, about how they see themselves, the nature of science, the relationship between the natural sciences and the humanities, etc.

I could imagine the discussion more purposefully if someone were to put forward one to three "edgy" theses against which one could argue if one did not agree with them. But I don't know whether such a discussion exists, which could be taken up in RG.

Kind regards, H.