You wrote - among other things for Gerwyn, which I skipOriginally Posted by Angela Kennedy
I am glad to hear it Angela, and I am interested. It has not been my privilege to meet logical and rational feminists, though - as I said - I do like what I have read of Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman and Susan Haack, without necessarily agreeing with all of it. (I have met logical and rational women and I'd say e.g. Mary Wollstonecraft was rational and quite capable logically speaking. But then she lived in the Age of Reason (insert your own smiley).)
If you have some internet references I will take a peep and find out what I think and tell you. There are two caveats for references that I am supposed to read namely (1) it should not involve postmodernist terminology (like "hegemony") and (2) incidentally like Gerwyn, I am not an admirer of the critical philosophy that is based on the Frankfurter Schule, and also not of French philosophical structuralism.
Also, there is a problem with feminism in science: Feminism seems to me to be an ethical/moral and/or political position, that is concerned with furthering the interests of women. This is problematical when combined with - real - science, for the same sort of logical reason as "christian science" and "aryan physics" are problematical: religion or politics are combined with science.
But I'm sure you have thoughts on the subject. O, and mind you: I have far fewer problems with claims like "there are - in this post-postmodernistic enlightened time - feminists who are also logical and rational scientists" then with claims like "Logical and rational feminist academic work does exist". Substitute "feminist" by "christian", "maoist" or "national socialist" and you might see my problem more clearly, which is this: Why and whence the X-ist prefix if it is real science?
Finally, personally I am most interested in "rational feminist academic work" in mathematical logic or philosophy of science, but I may be asking too much (and imagine Gerwyn might develop a real interest in feminist microbiology, if available.
O, one more thing: I am also interested in a considerably clearer definition than your "'social construction' to explain the way people define others according to BELIEFS that are socially constructed", for that is a circular definition. And one problem I have is: Is there anything human beings believe - if not raised by wolves, and even then - that is not "socially constructed" in some sort of somehow plausible sense? And if everything that humans (older than 2) believe is "socially constructed", what is the use of the notion?