J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schillo, K. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schillo, K. K.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 76, Issue 11 2763-2770, Copyright © 1998 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Toward a pluralistic animal science: postliberal feminist perspectives

K. K. Schillo
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington 40546-0215, USA. KKSCHI1@pop.uky.edu

Women have not had the authority to define the conditions of animal agriculture or to develop strategies for addressing its problems because the field of animal science has been and remains dominated by men. Therefore, criteria for assessing the professional performance of animal scientists reflect the views of men and the experiences of masculinity. Recent attempts to improve the retention rates of women in the animal science profession have focused on socializing female proteges to the norms and expectations of the discipline. This approach is based on traditional liberal beliefs that all humans are essentially alike and that embodiment and(or) social location are irrelevant in understanding the world. Such socialization assumes that problems of gender inequity can be solved by providing opportunities for women to succeed in the existing system, with its existing norms. This approach ignores the possibility that the structure of women's lives and the normative commitments arising from women's experiences may be quite different from those of men. Professional reward structures that favor the life experiences and perspectives of men and ignore those of women coerce women into adopting values that may be incompatible with their identities. This not only devalues their perspectives and contributions, it forces them to commit self-betrayal. This is both harmful and antithetical to the idea of an empirically relevant science that blends multiple perspectives and understands diverse values. Substantive diversity in the animal science community requires standards that reflect and accommodate the pluralism in which we live.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
K. K. Schillo and P. B. Thompson
Postmodernism for animal scientists
J Anim Sci, December 1, 2003; 81(12): 2989 - 2994.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
M. M. Beck and J. C. Swanson
Value-added animal agriculture: Inclusion of race and gender in the professional formula
J Anim Sci, November 1, 2003; 81(11): 2895 - 2903.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
T. M. Casey and K. Plaut
Women and Minorities in Animal Science: Do Issues Exist?
J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2003; 86(13_suppl): E35 - 46.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J DAIRY SCIHome page
B. Alston-Mills
Profile of Uphill Battle
J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2003; 86(13_suppl): E47 - 51.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Society of Animal Science.