Toward a pluralistic animal science: postliberal feminist perspectives

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 protégés 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.