Stop the male-bashing

In her viewpoint last week ("George Bush: war criminal, Fares lecturer," Jan. 21, 2003), Emily Good made a completely uncalled-for, sexist generalization when she wrote: "It isn't terribly surprising that this year's Fares lecturer is a warmonger; I've come to expect that from male politicians." I find such ideas sadistic, offensive, and unjust; based on nothing more than an apparent agenda against men. Unsubstantiated and sexist generalizations should not be tolerated on this campus, and are most certainly not what I would expect from students in the Peace and Justice Studies program.

I believe that belittling, stereotyping, and generalizing while using scare-tactics will not succeed in gaining support for an idea. The very first line of the recent viewpoint is a generalized attack on the audience, you, a Daily reader. "Perhaps on a campus where every other student drives an SUV, it is appropriate to honor George H.W. Bush."

I imagine that I am not alone when I feel that my intelligence and character are under attack when I read such a generalization, rather than feeling that I am being enlightened and informed. The tone of superiority throughout the viewpoint doesn't sit well with me and is certainly no way to gain my support. An unwavering sexist view is duly noted, with comments such as, "...ambitious young capitalists eager to... assume their places in the violent patriarchal world order" and, "Bush succeeded in squashing a popular revolution that prioritized... women's empowerment."

This week's male-bashing got me thinking about a similarly contrived viewpoint by the same author published last spring ("Be GE free," Feb. 27, 2002) that said:

"My theory is that the scientists who developed genetically-engineered plants were terribly jealous of the good life that natural seeds have. Seeds live in complete freedom, and they represent the wonders of Mother Nature. In the laboratory that I imagine, the scientists are nearly all men, and they search for ways to harness and control this miracle of nature primarily because they cannot give birth themselves. Their desire to dominate manifests itself in their exploitation of nature and reproduction, which are symbolically female realms. Genetic engineering (GE) is therefore an extreme example of patriarchy.

The creation of mutant seeds is driven not only by the male desire to conquer nature, but also by the longing to make money."

What femi-Nazism is being taught in the Peace and Justice Studies and Community Health programs at Tufts? Are students actually taught to imagine made-up laboratories of men who are out to destroy the world, one engineered seed at a time? This seems nothing more than a male-bashing agenda disguised in leftist, holier-than-thou viewpoint. All of this comes with no basis in fact, just simply a bigoted delusion. I guess the Tufts community either agrees with or doesn't pay any mind to this blather.

The original viewpoint is severely lacking factual information, so I did some research. A 1999 survey by the National Science Foundation, a US Government agency, showed that of 230,733 "female graduate students in science, engineering, and health fields in all institutions", 29,760 (12.9 percent) were in biological science fields, and of those, 1,007 (0.4 percent) were in genetics. Of 262,692 in science, engineering and health fields, 27,560 (10.5 percent) studied biological science and 760 (0.3 percent) were in genetics.

Am I to believe that these females aim to propagate an "extreme example of patriarchy"? Are they fueling the big, bad patriarchal fire?

When I read this next quote, I almost thought the entire viewpoint was a humorist piece. "[Seeds are] remarkably promiscuous _ reproducing anywhere they feel like it, and among whatever neighboring species happen to exist in that space...Terminating technology has not yet gone commercial, but when it does, it could cross-pollinate and sterilize other plants. Without taking extreme precaution, Monsanto could unleash a monster that wipes out a significant portion of plant life on Earth."

I am not a biologist, but I know that these scare-tactic claims are scientifically false. First, remember from biology class that not all plants cross-pollinate; many are self-pollinating, such as soybean plants. Second, plants cannot cross-pollinate with whatever species exist; the process is intraspecific. Humans cannot "cross-pollinate" with squirrels, for example. If the viewpoint's claims were true, we would have a veritable version of The Wuzzles on every street in America. Third, if a plant does happen to cross-pollinate with another of the same species, then the resulting seed (singular because one pollen grain pollinates only one ovule) will not grow. A dead seed cannot reproduce, so nothing will become rampant nor cause all plant life to cease. If the seed were to magically grow, the resulting sterile plant would last for only one generation, by definition ("failing to produce or incapable of producing offspring").

An equivalent example of what would have to occur for this sort of sterility to wipe out plant life on Earth would be for every horse on the planet to mate with a donkey, and only a donkey (and vise versa). All of the offspring would be mules, which are sterile. The horses and donkeys would die off leaving no fertile offspring. I think you will agree that the probability of the millions of horses in the world mating only with donkeys is pretty low. To consider that a similar occurrence would take place among a "significant portion of plant life on Earth" is preposterous considering that there are probably tens of millions of plant ovules on Tufts' campus alone.

You may ask yourself, "What does this have to do with the so-called patriarchal schemes of biotech companies?" I'll tell you the answer: absolutely nothing.

The viewpoint contends that "...Terminator technology allows seeds to grow only in the presence of certain chemicals." I see nothing wrong with engineering seeds this way. Apple engineers their software to be used only in the presence of an Apple operating system, Ford engines aren't compatible with Hondas, square pegs don't fit in round holes, and the list goes on. Simply put, this is smart business and the real world. Monsanto isn't set up as a charitable organization; it is in business to make money. No matter how ideal and happy the world might be in imaginary laboratories, there is no moral imperative for anyone to develop a free seed to feed the universe. This is not my opinion, but rather just the way the world is.

The viewpoint ends by saying, "Four hundred years ago Francis Bacon said, 'Science and technology do not merely exert a gentle guidance over nature's course; they have the power to conquer and subdue her; to shake her to her foundations.' It is amazing how true this has proven to be, but there is still time to change our course. Of course, technology can be beneficial. But one should always be suspicious of technology that is employed solely for financial gain."

The impressiveness of this point is seriously lacking. Almost all technology is employed solely for financial gain, neither because men have a desire to conquer nature nor because men can't give childbirth. Altruism is a rare commodity in the real world. Furthermore, what was the life expectancy in Bacon's time? Thirty or forty years, tops? If we all were so averse to technology, human life expectancy would be the same today as it was four hundred years ago. We have a better quality of life because technology is pursued for profit. Jonas Salk may very well have discovered the polio vaccine if he wasn't thinking about profits, but would anyone have manufactured it for free?

When someone discovers the cure for cancer or AIDS, manufactures it in their basement, and sets up a free worldwide distribution, I will listen to their rants. Until then, students should take a few science and technology electives, loosen up a bit, and talk with some real, live-and-in-person men before continuing with prejudiced, stereotyped, and misguided agendas.

Darrell Interess is a senior majoring in Engineering and Geology.