Gender and Symmetry For me, the most thought provoking and universal aspect of the course content has been the failure of induction-based theory generation in archaic science and the resultant recognition of the lack of certainty associated with hypotheses in modern science. The concept of symmetry proposed in the Strong Theory is related, in a sense, to this principle by its nature: the acknowledgement of the impermanence and uncharacterizable nature of proposed scientific theories. Examining gender in the light of symmetry is an exercise that could manifest itself differently depending on the definition of symmetry that is applied. For instance, determining gender’s symmetry in a mathematical sense is different from the task at hand (the symmetry associated with the Strong Theory), but is valuable nonetheless. Anatomically and biologically the sexes are seen to be asymmetric in nature – to the point of having an entirely different chromosomal structure (XX v. XY). This type of asymmetry, while not explicitly related to the concept presented by Bloor et al., is in fact at the heart of my reasoning for the conceptually asymmetric nature of gender.
In Hallberg’s discussion of gender there is often mention of the boundaries in place for women as a result of the pre-existing social awareness of the centrality and success of men. In a symmetrical view of gender there would also be consideration of the possible positive effects of such a social construct. For instance, perhaps the scarcity of females in a certain corporation enhances the odds of selection for a management position for the few females that do work there. As a result of the possible existence of contrasting factors in the modern social network, I initially wanted to embrace gender as a concept that lends itself to symmetrical analysis. However, Hallberg discusses symmetry in gender