A. Synopsis: How much of the nature of science is bound up with the idea of masculinity, and what would it mean for science if it were otherwise? This book is a collection of essays which explores the relationship between gender (using feminist theory) and science (using the social studies of science), both of which are socially constructed. The social studies of science draws on Kuhn and others who have argued that more than internal logic goes into choosing what is the best theory. Feminist theory explores why objectivity, reason, and mind are considered masculine and subjectivity, feeling, and nature as female.
B. Structure: The book is structured into three sections: historical, psychological, and scientific/philosophical
C. Historical couplings of mind and nature (history)
1. One of the most common metaphors in Western history is the sexual metaphor for knowledge. Knowledge is a form of consummation, a mastery over the feminine nature. This section explores two different periods in Western history each with different perspectives of nature and a science-gender system. The first is the sexual imagery of Plato’s dialogues. Plato restricts knowledge to the domain of theory and nature to the realm of forms. Thus he is able to make a path to knowledge guided by love and not aggression. Second, is the Baconian conception of the path to knowledge. His path is through experiment and the object is material, and not the world of forms. This is an aggressive way to view a feminine nature.
D. The inner world of subjects and objects (psychology)
1. This section is based upon psychoanalytic object-relations theory. This explores how our early family relations shape our conception of the world. This section explores how subjectivity was linked with femininity. When an infant is born it is a ball of subjectivity. As it develops it gains a sense of itself as separate from the world, particularly the mother, and thus the infant becomes objective. Western patterns of childrearing encourage this autonomy or objectivity more strongly in little boys than girls. She argues that science might be better if it adopted a “dynamic objectivity” or a way for the scientists to become sympathetic with their observations.
E. Theory, practice, and ideology in the making of science (science/philosophy)
1. Here she argues what the content of science might become if scientists were able to tackle problems more hermaphroditically. Her argument is not for more women to become involved in science, but for a the mental characteristics usually associated with females to become involved in all science.