[PovertyRaceWomen 380] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3, Issue 32 (reply to Andrea)
Kearney Lykins
kearney_lykins at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 22 16:44:34 EST 2007
Andrea,
I'm still trying to clarify what you mean. Are you suggesting that the cause of women having been misdiagnosed (by men and women?) is a gender bias in the sciences? If it's as you say, that "women's symptoms are more diffuse," I assume this means they are more difficult to detect, by male and female practitioners.
Kearney
----- Original Message ----
From: Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net>
To: "The Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List" <povertyracewomen at nifl.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:39:20 AM
Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 376] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3, Issue 32 (reply to Andrea)
Kearney--
No problem--turns out that (some) women have been misdiagnosed due to
different physical patterns/symptoms of heart attacks. Women's
symptoms are more diffuse. Quickness in decoding symptoms is related
to increases in life expectancy after heart attacks.
Andrea
Sorry my wording is so clumsy, I'm not quite going this morning.
aw
On Jan 21, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Kearney Lykins wrote:
> Andrea,
>
> Concerning, "male/female differences in heart attack symptoms." What
> about them? Defining medical symptoms and such is part of practicing
> medicine. I think I am missing the nature of your question, and how
> it relates to the topic of supposed gender bias in the sciences.
>
> Kearney
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net>
> To: "The Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List"
> <povertyracewomen at nifl.gov>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:47:38 PM
> Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 364] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3,
> Issue 32 (reply to Andres Muro)
>
> Kearney,
>
> What about male/female differences in heart attack symptoms? The
> female symptoms have only recently been described. I don't know who
> "discovered" the difference, male or female.
>
> Social science is built on 1) description 2) prediction. That
> is,
> description in the aid of prediction. It is based on the discovery of
> patterns in data. Someone "observed/"discovered that women showed
> different symptom patterns.
>
> The same for Gilligan's work--she noticed that half the sample showed
> different patterns--women. I'm only talking about observation, here,
> not prediction.
>
> If we are trying to find "truth," the 2+2 variety, then we must keep
> on--with the scientific method, which says really that "truth" may be
> provisional, we have to keep conclusions open. the scientific method
> thus operates as a working principle.
>
> I have a favorite saying "Two Crows Denies T his." Google it.
>
> I think list servs like this have great merit in that everybody is
> given space when just a few simple rules are followed. So it is
> possible to say, Nope, I don't agree, and here is why. This is the
> Two Crows response that must be attended to if an accurate picture is
> to be drawn.
>
> Depending on some characteristic, and it may be gender, different facts
> may be spotted.
>
> Andrea
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Kearney Lykins wrote:
>
> > Concerning supposed gender bias in academia:
> >
> >
> >
> > I wrote: "None of my courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry,
> > biology, astronomy, and agronomy could be said to have had any
> gender-
> > or race-specific leanings. The subject matter simply was not amenable
> > to such predispositions."
> >
> >
> >
> > What I mean by that is that there is no such thing as a male or
> female
> > science. Sure, science is a social process that is “constructed” by
> > flesh and blood participants, and historically those participants
> have
> > been overwhelmingly male. And we are beginning to understand, to the
> > dismay of some scientists, that science is less objective than it was
> > once perceived to be; that science has a rhetorical dimension. But
> > that doesn’t make the scientific method or its findings an inherently
> > male product. It doesn’t change the shape of a galaxy or the
> molecular
> > weight of an atom. It doesn’t make 2 + 2 anything but 4.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regardless, to study the influence of female scientists vs male
> > scientists is not the domain of the pure sciences. It is the domain
> of
> > sociology, or the philosophy of science, or the history of science,
> > the rhetoric of science etc
But I do think it is interesting to
> > ponder whether science would have turned out any differently had
> women
> > been more involved in its development, and whether the essential
> taste
> > of an apple pie is dependent upon the chromosomes of the baker.
> >
> >
> > Enjoying this discussion,
> >
> >
> > Kearney Lykins
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Andrew Pleasant <andrew.pleasant at gmail.com>
> > To: "The Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List"
> > <povertyracewomen at nifl.gov>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:29:09 PM
> > Subject: [PovertyRaceWomen 336] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3,
> > Issue 32 (reply to Andres Muro)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Writing in response to the commonly encountered suggestion: "None of
> > my courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy,
> and
> > agronomy could be said to have had any gender- or race-specific
> > leanings. The subject matter simply was not amenable to such
> > predispositions."
> >
> > I have not seen the reading lists for these courses. I wonder if they
> > included writings by women like Rachel Carson, Sophia Brahe, Rosalind
> > Franklin, Jane Colden, Jane Lubchenco, Barbara McClintock, Marie
> > Curie, or Sofia Kovalevskia? I hope so, but I admit I am skeptical.
> >
> > We cannot know for certain that the western and now dominant idea of
> > 'what science is' would differ if it were more inclusive. That is an
> > experiment we cannot run.
> >
> > We do know with certainty that only white men were allowed in Robert
> > Boyle's community of peers. These men were empowered to validate
> > science by witnessing the experimental method in action. They
> > established the model for what we now call science. I'll bet Boyle
> was
> > included in the course readings, but was Hobbes (who disagreed with
> > Boyle and many suggest was actually correct)?
> >
> > We also know for certain that many female and deserving scientists
> > were and are not equally supported by the scientific community as
> > compared to their male counterparts (overall). This continues today.
> > Look at Ph.D. rates in the sciences in U.S. universities, the data
> > underpinning the U.S. National Institute of Health's need to create
> > efforts to ensure that women and minorities are included in all human
> > subject research, recent comments from the now ex-president of
> Harvard
> > University and resulting controversy, Rosalind Franklin, the
> responses
> > to Rachel Carson within and from outside of the scientific community,
> > etc.
> >
> > We may also be able to dig further into the notion that "The subject
> > matter simply was not amenable to such predispositions." That is a
> bit
> > vague. I'd ask, is this statement grounded in a view that science is
> > an unbiased route to truth? (E.g., Karl Popper, logical rationalists)
> >
> > If so, there is a large, peer-reviewed, and active research field
> that
> > seems to have quite convincingly demonstrated that science is a
> social
> > process. A social process inherently includes human self-interests,
> > personal leanings and curiosities, social disputes, power relations,
> > biases, and a host of other influences. While no one can exactly
> > demonstrate how science would be different through broader inclusion,
> > there is sound evidence that science is the result of who was and is
> > working within science as well as who controls the funding for
> > science.
> >
> > This does not necessarily weaken the validity of science (a different
> > issue altogether), but there is very strong evidence that science is
> > definitely "amenable to such predispositions".
> >
> > fwiw as always, (and apologies for not having the time to write a
> > shorter, more readable reply)
> >
> > Andrew
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > National Institute for Literacy
> > Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
> > PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
> > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
> > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
> >
> >
> > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get
> > started.----------------------------------------------------
> > National Institute for Literacy
> > Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
> > PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
> > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
> > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
> Kearney,
>
>
> What about male/female differences in heart attack symptoms? The
> female symptoms have only recently been described. I don't know who
> "discovered" the difference, male or female.
>
>
> Social science is built on 1) description 2) prediction. That
> is,
> description in the aid of prediction. It is based on the discovery of
> patterns in data. Someone "observed/"discovered that women showed
> different symptom patterns.
>
>
> The same for Gilligan's work--she noticed that half the sample showed
> different patterns--women. I'm only talking about observation, here,
> not prediction.
>
>
> If we are trying to find "truth," the 2+2 variety, then we must keep
> on--with the scientific method, which says really that "truth" may be
> provisional, we have to keep conclusions open. the scientific method
> thus operates as a working principle.
>
>
> I have a favorite saying "Two Crows Denies T his." Google it.
>
>
> I think list servs like this have great merit in that everybody is
> given space when just a few simple rules are followed. So it is
> possible to say, Nope, I don't agree, and here is why. This is the
> Two Crows response that must be attended to if an accurate picture
> is to be drawn.
>
>
> Depending on some characteristic, and it may be gender, different
> facts may be spotted.
>
>
> Andrea
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Kearney Lykins wrote:
>
>
> <excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>Concerning
> supposed gender bias in academia:</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></
> fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>I wrote: "None of my
> courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and
> agronomy could be said to have had any gender- or race-specific
> leanings. The subject matter simply was not amenable to such
> predispositions."</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></
> fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>What I mean by that is
> that there is no such thing as a male or female science. Sure, science
> is a social process that is “constructed” by flesh and blood
> participants, and historically those participants have been
> overwhelmingly male. And we are beginning to understand, to the dismay
> of some scientists, that science is less objective than it was once
> perceived to be; that science has a rhetorical dimension. But that
> doesn’t make the scientific method or its findings an inherently male
> product. It doesn’t change the shape of a galaxy or the molecular
> weight of an atom. It doesn’t make 2 + 2 anything but
> 4.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></
> fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>Regardless, to study the
> influence of female scientists vs male scientists is not the domain of
> the pure sciences. It is the domain of sociology, or the philosophy of
> science, or the history of science, the rhetoric of science etc
But I
> do think it is interesting to ponder whether science would have turned
> out any differently had women been more involved in its development,
> and whether the essential taste of an apple pie is dependent upon the
> chromosomes of the baker.</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>Enjoying this
> discussion,</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>Kearney
> Lykins</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>-----
> Original Message ----</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>From: Andrew
> Pleasant <<andrew.pleasant at gmail.com></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>To: "The
> Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List"
> <<povertyracewomen at nifl.gov></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Sent:
> Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:29:09 PM</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Subject:
> [PovertyRaceWomen 336] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3, Issue 32
> (reply to Andres Muro)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Hi,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Writing in
> response to the commonly encountered suggestion: "None
> of</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>my courses
> in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy,
> and</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>agronomy
> could be said to have had any gender- or
> race-specific</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</param><bigger><bigger>leanings. The
> subject matter simply was not amenable to
> such</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</param><bigger><bigger>predispositions."</bigger></bigger></
> fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>I have not
> seen the reading lists for these courses. I wonder if
> they</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>included
> writings by women like Rachel Carson, Sophia Brahe,
> Rosalind</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Franklin,
> Jane Colden, Jane Lubchenco, Barbara McClintock,
> Marie</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Curie, or
> Sofia Kovalevskia? I hope so, but I admit I am
> skeptical.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>We cannot
> know for certain that the western and now dominant idea
> of</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>'what
> science is' would differ if it were more inclusive. That is
> an</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>experiment
> we cannot run.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>We do know
> with certainty that only white men were allowed in
> Robert</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Boyle's
> community of peers. These men were empowered to
> validate</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>science by
> witnessing the experimental method in action.
> They</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>established
> the model for what we now call science. I'll bet Boyle
> was</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>included in
> the course readings, but was Hobbes (who disagreed
> with</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Boyle and
> many suggest was actually correct)?</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>We also know
> for certain that many female and deserving
> scientists</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>were and are
> not equally supported by the scientific community
> as</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>compared to
> their male counterparts (overall). This continues
> today.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Look at
> Ph.D. rates in the sciences in U.S. universities, the
> data</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>underpinning
> the U.S. National Institute of Health's need to
> create</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>efforts to
> ensure that women and minorities are included in all
> human</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>subject
> research, recent comments from the now ex-president of
> Harvard</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>University
> and resulting controversy, Rosalind Franklin, the
> responses</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>to Rachel
> Carson within and from outside of the scientific
> community,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</param><bigger><bigger>etc.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>We may also
> be able to dig further into the notion that "The
> subject</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>matter
> simply was not amenable to such predispositions." That is a
> bit</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>vague. I'd
> ask, is this statement grounded in a view that science
> is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>an unbiased
> route to truth? (E.g., Karl Popper, logical
> rationalists)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>If so, there
> is a large, peer-reviewed, and active research field
> that</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>seems to
> have quite convincingly demonstrated that science is a
> social</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>process. A
> social process inherently includes human
> self-interests,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>personal
> leanings and curiosities, social disputes, power
> relations,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>biases, and
> a host of other influences. While no one can
> exactly</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>demonstrate
> how science would be different through broader
> inclusion,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>there is
> sound evidence that science is the result of who was and
> is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>working
> within science as well as who controls the funding
> for</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</param><bigger><bigger>science.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>This does
> not necessarily weaken the validity of science (a
> different</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>issue
> altogether), but there is very strong evidence that science
> is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>definitely
> "amenable to such predispositions".</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>fwiw as
> always, (and apologies for not having the time to write
> a</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>shorter,
> more readable reply)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Andrew</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</
> param><bigger><bigger>-------------------------------------------------
> ---</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>National
> Institute for Literacy</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Poverty,
> Race, Women and Literacy mailing list</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New
> Roman</param><bigger><bigger>PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov</bigger></
> bigger></fontfamily>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>To
> unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
> <color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/
> listinfo/povertyracewomen</color></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
>
> No need to miss a message. <color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>Get
> email on-the-go </color>
>
> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. <color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>Get
> started.</color>----------------------------------------------------
>
> National Institute for Literacy
>
> Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
>
> PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
>
> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen</excerpt>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> National Institute for Literacy
> Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
> PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
>
>
> The fish are biting.
> Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search
> Marketing.----------------------------------------------------
> National Institute for Literacy
> Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
> PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
Kearney--
No problem--turns out that (some) women have been misdiagnosed due to
different physical patterns/symptoms of heart attacks. Women's
symptoms are more diffuse. Quickness in decoding symptoms is related
to increases in life expectancy after heart attacks.
Andrea
Sorry my wording is so clumsy, I'm not quite going this morning.
aw
On Jan 21, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Kearney Lykins wrote:
<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>Andrea,</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger>Concerning,
"male/female differences in heart attack symptoms." What about them?
Defining medical symptoms and such is part of practicing medicine. I
think I am missing the nature of your question, and how it relates to
the topic of supposed gender bias in the sciences. </x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger> Kearney</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>-----
Original Message ----</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>From: Andrea
Wilder <<andreawilder at comcast.net></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>To: "The
Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List"
<<povertyracewomen at nifl.gov></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Sent:
Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:47:38 PM</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Subject:
[PovertyRaceWomen 364] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3, Issue 32
(reply to Andres Muro)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Kearney,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>What about
male/female differences in heart attack symptoms? The </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>female
symptoms have only recently been described. I don't know who</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>"discovered"
the difference, male or female.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Social
science is built on 1) description 2) prediction. That is, </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>description
in the aid of prediction. It is based on the discovery of </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>patterns in
data. Someone "observed/"discovered that women showed </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>different
symptom patterns.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>The same for
Gilligan's work--she noticed that half the sample showed </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>different patterns--women. I'm
only talking about observation, here, </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>not
prediction.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>If we are
trying to find "truth," the 2+2 variety, then we must keep </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>on--with the
scientific method, which says really that "truth" may be </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>provisional,
we have to keep conclusions open. the scientific method </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>thus
operates as a working principle.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>I have a
favorite saying "Two Crows Denies T his." Google it.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>I think list
servs like this have great merit in that everybody is </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>given space
when just a few simple rules are followed. So it is </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>possible to
say, Nope, I don't agree, and here is why. This is the </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Two Crows
response that must be attended to if an accurate picture is </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>to be drawn.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Depending on
some characteristic, and it may be gender, different facts </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>may be
spotted.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Andrea</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>On Jan 20,
2007, at 1:04 PM, Kearney Lykins wrote:</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Concerning
supposed gender bias in academia:</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> I wrote:
"None of my courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry, </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> biology,
astronomy, and agronomy could be said to have had any gender- </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> or
race-specific leanings. The subject matter simply was not amenable </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> to such
predispositions."</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> What I
mean by that is that there is no such thing as a male or female </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> science.
Sure, science is a social process that is “constructed” by </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> flesh and
blood participants, and historically those participants have </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> been
overwhelmingly male. And we are beginning to understand, to the </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> dismay of
some scientists, that science is less objective than it was</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> once
perceived to be; that science has a rhetorical dimension. But </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> that
doesn’t make the scientific method or its findings an inherently </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> male
product. It doesn’t change the shape of a galaxy or the molecular </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> weight of
an atom. It doesn’t make 2 + 2 anything but 4.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
Regardless, to study the influence of female scientists vs male </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> scientists
is not the domain of the pure sciences. It is the domain of </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> sociology,
or the philosophy of science, or the history of science, </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> the
rhetoric of science etc
But I do think it is interesting to </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> ponder
whether science would have turned out any differently had women </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> been more
involved in its development, and whether the essential taste </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> of an
apple pie is dependent upon the chromosomes of the baker.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Enjoying
this discussion,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Kearney
Lykins</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> -----
Original Message ----</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> From:
Andrew Pleasant <<andrew.pleasant at gmail.com></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> To: "The
Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List" </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
<<povertyracewomen at nifl.gov></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Sent:
Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:29:09 PM</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Subject:
[PovertyRaceWomen 336] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3, </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Issue 32
(reply to Andres Muro)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Hi,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Writing in
response to the commonly encountered suggestion: "None of</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> my courses
in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> agronomy
could be said to have had any gender- or race-specific</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
leanings. The subject matter simply was not amenable to such</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
predispositions."</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> I have not
seen the reading lists for these courses. I wonder if they</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> included
writings by women like Rachel Carson, Sophia Brahe, Rosalind</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Franklin,
Jane Colden, Jane Lubchenco, Barbara McClintock, Marie</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Curie, or
Sofia Kovalevskia? I hope so, but I admit I am skeptical.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> We cannot
know for certain that the western and now dominant idea of</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> 'what
science is' would differ if it were more inclusive. That is an</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> experiment
we cannot run.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> We do know
with certainty that only white men were allowed in Robert</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Boyle's
community of peers. These men were empowered to validate</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> science by
witnessing the experimental method in action. They</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
established the model for what we now call science. I'll bet Boyle was</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> included
in the course readings, but was Hobbes (who disagreed with</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Boyle and
many suggest was actually correct)?</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> We also
know for certain that many female and deserving scientists</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> were and
are not equally supported by the scientific community as</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> compared
to their male counterparts (overall). This continues today.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Look at
Ph.D. rates in the sciences in U.S. universities, the data</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
underpinning the U.S. National Institute of Health's need to create</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> efforts to
ensure that women and minorities are included in all human</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> subject
research, recent comments from the now ex-president of Harvard</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> University
and resulting controversy, Rosalind Franklin, the responses</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> to Rachel
Carson within and from outside of the scientific community,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> etc.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> We may
also be able to dig further into the notion that "The subject</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> matter
simply was not amenable to such predispositions." That is a bit</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> vague. I'd
ask, is this statement grounded in a view that science is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> an
unbiased route to truth? (E.g., Karl Popper, logical rationalists)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> If so,
there is a large, peer-reviewed, and active research field that</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> seems to
have quite convincingly demonstrated that science is a social</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> process. A
social process inherently includes human self-interests,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> personal
leanings and curiosities, social disputes, power relations,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
biases, and a host of other influences. While no one can exactly</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
demonstrate how science would be different through broader inclusion,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> there is
sound evidence that science is the result of who was and is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> working
within science as well as who controls the funding for</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> science.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> This does
not necessarily weaken the validity of science (a different</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> issue
altogether), but there is very strong evidence that science is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> definitely
"amenable to such predispositions".</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> fwiw as
always, (and apologies for not having the time to write a</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> shorter,
more readable reply)</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Andrew</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
----------------------------------------------------</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> National
Institute for Literacy</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Poverty,
Race, Women and Literacy mailing list</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> To
unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
<color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen</color></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> No need to
miss a message. Get email on-the-go</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> with
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
started.----------------------------------------------------</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> National
Institute for Literacy</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> Poverty,
Race, Women and Literacy mailing list</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>> To
unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>>
<color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen</color></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Kearney,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>What about
male/female differences in heart attack symptoms? The</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>female
symptoms have only recently been described. I don't know who</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>"discovered"
the difference, male or female.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Social
science is built on 1) description 2) prediction. That is,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>description
in the aid of prediction. It is based on the discovery of</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>patterns in
data. Someone "observed/"discovered that women showed</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>different
symptom patterns.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>The same for
Gilligan's work--she noticed that half the sample showed</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>different patterns--women. I'm
only talking about observation, here,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>not
prediction.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>If we are
trying to find "truth," the 2+2 variety, then we must keep</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>on--with the
scientific method, which says really that "truth" may be</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>provisional,
we have to keep conclusions open. the scientific method</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>thus
operates as a working principle.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>I have a
favorite saying "Two Crows Denies T his." Google it. </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>I think list
servs like this have great merit in that everybody is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>given space
when just a few simple rules are followed. So it is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>possible to
say, Nope, I don't agree, and here is why. This is the</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Two Crows
response that must be attended to if an accurate picture</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>is to be
drawn. </bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Depending on
some characteristic, and it may be gender, different</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>facts may be
spotted.</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Andrea</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>On Jan 20,
2007, at 1:04 PM, Kearney Lykins wrote:</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<excerpt><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger>Concerning</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>supposed
gender bias in academia:<</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger> <</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger>I
wrote: "None of my</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>courses in
mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>agronomy
could be said to have had any gender- or race-specific</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>leanings. The
subject matter simply was not amenable to such</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>predispositions."<</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger> <</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger>What
I mean by that is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>that there
is no such thing as a male or female science. Sure, science</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>is a social
process that is “constructed” by flesh and blood</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>participants,
and historically those participants have been</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>overwhelmingly
male. And we are beginning to understand, to the dismay</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>of some
scientists, that science is less objective than it was once</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>perceived to
be; that science has a rhetorical dimension. But that</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>doesn’t make
the scientific method or its findings an inherently male</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>product. It
doesn’t change the shape of a galaxy or the molecular</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>weight of an
atom. It doesn’t make 2 + 2 anything but
4.<</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger> <</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger>Regardless,
to study the</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>influence of
female scientists vs male scientists is not the domain of</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>the pure
sciences. It is the domain of sociology, or the philosophy of</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>science, or
the history of science, the rhetoric of science etc
But I</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>do think it
is interesting to ponder whether science would have turned</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>out any
differently had women been more involved in its development,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>and whether
the essential taste of an apple pie is dependent upon the</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>chromosomes
of the baker.<</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger>Enjoying
this discussion,<</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Arial<</param><<x-tad-bigger>Kearney
Lykins<</x-tad-bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>-----</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Original
Message ----<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>From: Andrew</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Pleasant
<<<<andrew.pleasant at gmail.com><</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>To: "The</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Poverty,
Race, Women and Literacy Discussion List"</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<<<povertyracewomen at nifl.gov><</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Sent:</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Wednesday,
January 17, 2007 11:29:09 PM<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Subject:</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>[PovertyRaceWomen
336] Re: PovertyRaceWomen Digest, Vol 3, Issue 32</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>(reply to
Andres Muro)<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New
Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Hi,<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Writing in</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>response to
the commonly encountered suggestion: "None
of<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>my courses</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>in
mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy,
and<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>agronomy</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>could be
said to have had any gender- or
race-specific<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>leanings. The</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>subject
matter simply was not amenable to
such<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New
Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>predispositions."<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>I have not</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>seen the
reading lists for these courses. I wonder if
they<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>included</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>writings by
women like Rachel Carson, Sophia Brahe,
Rosalind<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Franklin,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Jane Colden,
Jane Lubchenco, Barbara McClintock,
Marie<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Curie, or</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Sofia
Kovalevskia? I hope so, but I admit I am
skeptical.<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>We cannot</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>know for
certain that the western and now dominant idea
of<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>'what</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>science is'
would differ if it were more inclusive. That is
an<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>experiment</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>we cannot
run.<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>We do know</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>with
certainty that only white men were allowed in
Robert<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Boyle's</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>community of
peers. These men were empowered to
validate<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>science by</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>witnessing
the experimental method in action.
They<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>established</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>the model
for what we now call science. I'll bet Boyle
was<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>included in</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>the course
readings, but was Hobbes (who disagreed
with<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Boyle and</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>many suggest
was actually correct)?<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>We also know</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>for certain
that many female and deserving
scientists<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>were and are</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>not equally
supported by the scientific community
as<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>compared to</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>their male
counterparts (overall). This continues
today.<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Look at</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Ph.D. rates
in the sciences in U.S. universities, the
data<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>underpinning</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>the U.S.
National Institute of Health's need to
create<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>efforts to</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>ensure that
women and minorities are included in all
human<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>subject</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>research,
recent comments from the now ex-president of
Harvard<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>University</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>and
resulting controversy, Rosalind Franklin, the
responses<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>to Rachel</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Carson
within and from outside of the scientific
community,<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New
Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>etc.<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>We may also</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>be able to
dig further into the notion that "The
subject<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>matter</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>simply was
not amenable to such predispositions." That is a
bit<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>vague. I'd</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>ask, is this
statement grounded in a view that science
is<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>an unbiased</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>route to
truth? (E.g., Karl Popper, logical
rationalists)<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>If so, there</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>is a large,
peer-reviewed, and active research field
that<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>seems to</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>have quite
convincingly demonstrated that science is a
social<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>process. A</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>social
process inherently includes human
self-interests,<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>personal</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>leanings and
curiosities, social disputes, power
relations,<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>biases, and</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>a host of
other influences. While no one can
exactly<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>demonstrate</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>how science
would be different through broader
inclusion,<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>there is</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>sound
evidence that science is the result of who was and
is<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>working</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>within
science as well as who controls the funding
for<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New
Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>science.<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>This does</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>not
necessarily weaken the validity of science (a
different<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>issue</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>altogether),
but there is very strong evidence that science
is<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>definitely</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>"amenable to
such predispositions".<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>fwiw as</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>always, (and
apologies for not having the time to write
a<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>shorter,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>more
readable reply)<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New
Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Andrew<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New
Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>----------------------------------------------------<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>National</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Institute
for Literacy<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>Poverty,</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Race, Women
and Literacy mailing list<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New
Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov<</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<fontfamily><<param>Times
New Roman<</param><<bigger><<bigger>To</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>unsubscribe
or change your subscription settings, please go to</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger><<color><<param>0000,0000,EEEE<</param><color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen<</color><</bigger><</bigger><</fontfamily</color>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>No need to
miss a message. <<color><<param>0000,0000,EEEE<</param>Get</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>email
on-the-go <</color></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>with Yahoo!
Mail for Mobile. <<color><<param>0000,0000,EEEE<</param>Get</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>started.<</color>----------------------------------------------------</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>National
Institute for Literacy</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Poverty,
Race, Women and Literacy mailing list</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>To
unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param><bigger><bigger>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen<</excerpt</bigger></bigger></color><bigger><bigger>></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>----------------------------------------------------</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>National
Institute for Literacy</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>Poverty,
Race, Women and Literacy mailing list</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
<fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>To
unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
<color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen</color></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
The fish are biting.
<color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param> Get more visitors</color> on your
site using <color><param>0000,0000,EEEE</param>Yahoo! Search
Marketing.</color>----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen</excerpt>
----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Poverty, Race, Women and Literacy mailing list
PovertyRaceWomen at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/povertyracewomen
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/povertyracewomen/attachments/20070122/df71637d/attachment.html
More information about the PovertyRaceWomen
mailing list
