Reply to comment

  After reading some of Sherry Ortner's work, I find the shift from science to social science refreshing. As just a matter of personal preference I am, in general, turned off by the type of thinking that is done in a lot of science I have experienced. I found Mr. Grobstein's explanation of science very enlightening, and most definitely applicable to Roughgarden's exploration of biological diversity. Still I found myself yearning for something less about the behaviors of certain bugs and species of lizards (excuse the oversimplification of Roughgarden's plethora of examples of biodiversity) and more geared to the societal response to Gender and Sexuality questions. I didn't realize it at the beginning of the course, because I never consciously sat down and thought to myself "let me pontificate on gender and sexuality", but I think I have some sort of predisposed interest in the societal aspect of Gender and Sexuality. I guess I'm looking for a different question than what science seems to be asking. Roughgarden came across as explaining and at times, even justifying, the existence of biodiversity in humans in Evolution's Rainbow. Ortner appears to be working from a entirely different starting point, "okay there is this biodiversity and gender and sexuality have a whole spectrum in modern society, so in what ways does this affect human interaction (with special focus on class development)". I'm much more interested in this, what I would call more utilitarian, approach. I find it much more useful to make observations and tell stories (in the words of Mr. Grobstein) regarding what we know exists and its role in our lives rather than explain why its here. I fully acknowledge that I'm making a rather quick judgement considering I haven't spent a considerable amount of time in either science or social science prior to this year, but initially I find social science utterly enlivening.