world and affirms our connection tonit.”nWhat is the relevance of gender fornscience? Keller claims that greater recruitmentnof women into the scientificncommunity would play a crucial rolenin transforming the prevailing ideologynof science, since women have no emotionalninvestment in images of dominationnand manipulation. The ensuingntransformation of science wouldnsatisfy feminist demands that all aggressive,nmale ideologies need to bendestroyed but still retain “the emancipatorynforce of modern science.” Kellernurges feminists not to throw thenbaby out with the bathwater.nKeller’s comments on gender andnscience are genuinely revealing, butnshe completely ignores the fact that thencultural force science exerts upon thenmodern consciousness is inextricablynbound up with the technological goodsnand power it makes possible. A sciencenthat stood in respectful awe of thenorder and grandeur of nature wouldncommand about as much interest as anSt. Francis of Assisi. Humility is not anvirtue in the modern world, and Kellernseems unable to acknowledge that “thenemancipatory force of modern science”nto which she refers is part of thatnvery ideology she claims to be rejecting.nIn any case, it is simply false tonassert that women have no interest in anscience predicated on manipulahonnand control, given the feminist insistencenthat the control of women overntheir reproductive functions, the controlnof women over their nature, is tonbe total and unlicensed. The dominantnideology of science actually suitsnfeminism—and the rest of society—nvery well, because the real relinquishmentnof such an ideology would makennonsense of humanism and its embodimentnin liberal values.nThat the marriage between sciencenand feminism is for life is made evidentnin Maxine L. Margolis’ Mothersnand Such. Arguing from a culturalnmaterialist position, Margolis maintainsnthat changes in the role ofnwomen occurred not so much as anresult of feminist ideas but as a responsento the shift of production fromnthe home to the factory. Householdnproduction, as a way of providing fornthe needs of a family, gave the housewifena genuine role to play in societynand, with the sale of surplus goods.nguaranteed her a measure of financialnindependence. With industrialization,nhowever, the role of the home as ancenter of social and economic lifenshrank considerably, leaving womennunoccupied and economically dependentnon their husbands. The eventualnexodus of women from the home wasnnot so much a revolt against domesticitynas a necessary step towards gainingnreemployment. The antifeminist ideologynof a woman as a housewife andnhomemaker was a systematic attemptnto satisfy the myth that the homenneeded a housewife, even thoughnnearly everything needed by thenhousehold was bought from outsideninstead of being made.nMargolis offers a rich and detailedndocumentation of these changes,nwhich strongly challenges the feministnview that women have been no morenthan denizens in the home. However,nshe is much too complacent in maintainingnthat “changes in a society’snmaterial base will lead to functionallyncompatible changes in its social andnpolitical structure along with changesnin its secular and religious ideology,nchanges that enhance the continuitynand stability of the system” (my emphasis).nTo be sure, industrializationndid destroy the home-based economynand with that, it ought to be added,ndestroyed a culture and set of traditionsnwhich punctuated a form of life thatnrevolved around the cycle of the naturalnworld (agriculture) and the rhythmsnof the human condition.nNotoriously, in tearing apart communitiesnand in reducing the home tona sort of stable suitable only for factorynfodder, industrialization deprived peoplenof the very conditions in whichnstability and continuity in their livesncould be safeguarded. It made of thenhome a prison in which all those notnfit enough to compete in the rat racen—children, women, the disabled, thenelderly—felt abandoned, and robbednwomen of much that gave purpose andndignity to a life tied to things of thenprivate sphere. It is littie wonder thatnthere are a lot of angry women about.nYet Margolis, in sympathy withnfeminism, ultimately regards industrializationnas having “liberated” womennfrom the domestic sphere, giving themnan opportunity to pursue a career. Allnthis would be fine, were it not for thenfact that this ancient Greek prejudicennnin favor of the intellect and the polisnleaves the dirty work of life to a lucklessnmass of exploited men andnwomen. Under modern conditions, itnmeans, too, that those features ofnhuman life which need a privatensphere if they are to have any dignityn— birth, sex, death—will probablynsuffer ever greater degradation. Feministsnencourage the destruction of thenprivate sphere at our peril.nAll this is bound to sound a bitnjaundiced to feminist ears, particularlynin the light of Sandra Searr’s delightfulndiscussion of the needs of childrennversus the demands upon workingnmothers in Mother Care/Other Care.nChildren are flexible, creative creatures,nand working mothers, armednwith intelligence and insight, shouldnbe able to make arrangements for theirnchildren that will not harm them. But,nagainst Scarr, the fact that people arencapable of bending over backwardsnwhenever they need to does not meannthat the best social arrangements arenthose that depend on such a posture.nThere is a world of difference betweennthose situations in which childrenndecide for themselves to leavenmother’s apron strings and those innwhich mother’s absence is forced uponnthem. Certainly, young children innthe latter instance may bat their eyelidsnonly once or twice, but for the mothernit can be hell. The young infant maynnot notice who feeds and cares for it,nbut it is false to suggest, as Scarr does,nthat the infant’s mother (suffering engorgednbreasts) experiences a similarnindifference and that any pain shenexperiences in separation is just a guiltncomplex induced in her by an antifeministnsociety.nMothers need not be under anynillusion in thinking that no one cannlove their children in quite the waynthey do, particularly since—where infantsnand toddlers (to a lesser extent)nare concerned—the provision of physicalncare is the way in which mothersnrelate to their young and show theirnlove. Bathing a young baby isn’t simplyna matter of cleaning it up, just asndining with friends isn’t simply a matternof filling the belly. And if somenwomen wish to deny themselves suchnexperiences, there is no reason whynthe rest of us should be accomplices.nOn the other hand, I agree that justnas a life consisting of one continualnJUNE 1986/17n