If It’s Too Good to be True, It Ain’t: On Feminist Epistemology and a Historical Myth

Abstract

According to an account popularized by Kim Wallen (and, more importantly, according to the appropriation of this story by feminist epistemologists), it was only since 1976 (via the introduction of the concept of “proceptivity”, which contrasted with that of “receptivity”) that scientific studies of animal sexuality, particularly that of primates, were able to account for behaviours of “active solicitation” of sexual intercourse displayed by females—a turn which allegedly followed decades of viewing females as passive and thus unable to initiate sexual intercourses. This alleged “turn” is commonly attributed to the influence of women’s liberation movement and of more women practising science. The whole story, alas, is a myth: despite the absence of the word “proceptivity”, this kind of “active solicitation” behaviour had been recorded as such long before the allegedly “landmark” article from 1976, as a vast number of studies show both with respect to primates and nonprimates. Consequently, contrary to what has been pointed out by several philosophers, the story does not actually contribute to justifying the claim that a greater diversity in research communities allows for better research.