but stating that "qualitative" is inherently "feminine" and "quantitative" is inherently "masculine" seems like stereotyping in itself.

Uh, pointing out that stereotypes exist in socety is not stereotyping. This reminds me uncomfortably of the "argument" that goes something like, "If you see any racism in this situation, you're the racist!"

If you haven't encountered the sexual politics behind the "hard/soft" dichotomy in the sciences, fine. However, I have, and so have a great many women, in and out of the sciences (however one cares to define them). In this analysis of how Rachel Carson was treated after the publication of Silent Spring, the author notes: Reading the reviews today one even senses some reviewers implicitly drawing a line between the "hard" science of chemistry and the "soft" science of biology. I can't believe the nature of biology has changed that much in the last five decades.

As for psychiatry, I don't disagree that there are many abusive practices in the field. I've been a victim of a few myself, though not to any actionable degree. However, I am highly wary of people who wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Where, precisely, would people in psychic distress go? Many of psychology's detractors are on the religious far right (in which I include $cientologists); they're obviously eager for vulnerable and suggestible "fresh meat." Others are former psych patients who generalize from their bad experiences to everyone else. Some of them, to be blunt, ought to be under supervision, as they're dangers to themselves (and, less often, others).