Woman, the anthropologist, meets man, the hunter. [Review of Reiter RR, ed. Toward an anthropology of women. Review Press, 1975].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Anthropology↗
Biomedical subjects
E Fee
Publications and source records attributed to E Fee.
The Johns Hopkins University: School of Health Services. Humanistic studies in the health associate programs: revisions and new directions.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Curriculum↗
Women and health care: a comparison of theories.
There are three distinct approaches to the analysis of women's position in society, and thus of women's relation to the health care system. Liberal feminists seek equal opportunity "within the system," deman equal opportunity and employment for women in health care, and are critical of the patronizing attitudes of physicians. Radical feminists reject "the system" as one based on the oppression of women and seek to build alternative structures to better fill their needs. They see the division between man and woman as the primary contradiction in society and patriarchy as its fundamental institution. They have initiated self-help groups and women's clinics to extend the base of health care controlled by women in their own interests. Marxist-feminists see the particular oppression of women as generated by contradications within the development of capitalism. Women's unpaid labor at home and underpaid labor in the work force both serve the interests of the owners of capital. The health care system serves these same interests; it maintains and perpetuates the social class structure while becoming increasingly alienated from the health needs of the majority of the population.
Communism↗
Is feminism a threat to scientific objectivity?
Is there a conflict between women's values and the values of science? Not only do many aspects of science reproduce the ideology of gender, but science itself has been identified as "masculine." The male way of thinking is said to be rational, impersonal, and objective, while the female way of thinking is said to be emotional, personal, and subjective. This paper argues that the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is built into science at many levels, and is reproduced in the splits between the production of knowledge and its social uses, between knowledge and experience, between expert and nonexpert, between active subject and passive object, and between the forms of our knowledge and the structures of social and economic power in our society. This analysis leads to the question: is there a feminist science? It is argued that, at present, we can only begin to imagine the general form of a feminist science, which in its fully articulated form, could only be produced in a feminist society. This paper offers examples to suggest ways in which an attack on the subjective/objective distinction could lead to a radically transformed science in the future.
Gender Identity↗