Amidst the comical shenanigans we all find amusing with social justice warriors, gender-fluidists, cultural appropriationists and other scions of an enlightened age, one stands out as particularly comical: feminist biologists.
As a former biologist myself, I find this concept fascinating. What, you may legitimately ask, is “feminist” biology? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (quoted on Wikipedia), “Feminist biology is an approach to biology that is concerned with the influence of gender values, the removal of gender bias, and the understanding of the overall role of social values in biological research and practices.”
This may be one definition dressed up in fine linen, but getting down to brass tacks, you’ll find “feminist biology” is yet another way of extracting money from the government to discover victimhood where there wasn’t any before.
I first came across this unusual approach to a formerly respected field in a 2014 Popular Science article which began, “The University of Wisconsin-Madison is looking for a particular kind of biologist: a feminist one. The university has set up a fellowship, administered by its women’s studies department, for life sciences research. While it may sound strange for a social sciences department to host a biologist, the researchers in charge of the new fellowship are hoping to make it more of a norm.”
Of course they’re “hoping to make it more of a norm.” Feminists are always looking for fresh, creative ways to scam money out of the taxpayer-funded government coffers to pay for their manufactured victimhood.
When asked specifically what feminist biology is, University of Wisconsin fellowship administrator Janet Hyde replied, “Feminist biology is a couple things. One is that it’s a critique of past gender bias in biology. So it’s pointing at the problems that have existed with the theories or the methods in traditional biology. And then the second part is that it’s creating new research, new topics, new methods, new theories that remove the gender bias and take women into account fairly. … [M]any scientists believe that science is very objective and factual. It’s a wonderful aspiration, but it’s actually not true.”
But wait a minute – I thought science was supposed to be impartial, objective and factual. Anything that “takes women into account fairly” is by definition subjective, biased and imprecise (since the highly biased feminists are defining what constitutes “fairness”).
Now keep this in mind as we skip ahead to last month. In a fascinating article by Joy Pullmann (shocking note: she’s a woman!), she wrote about a feminist Ph.D. candidate complaining, “Science is sexist because it’s not subjective.”
It seems a fragile little XX cupcake who is a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota is complaining that “College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method, which assumes people can find reliable truths about the natural world through careful and sustained experimentation.”
And how did our fragile little cupcake come to this remarkable conclusion? She “reviewed eight science class syllabi at a ‘Midwest public university’ and said she discovered in them a hidden hostility to women and minorities.”
It would be nice to say the scientific method is airtight and never leads to inconclusive results, but of course science is seldom as cut-and-dried as all that. Feminist biologists have ample opportunity to skew the results to reach whatever conclusion they choose, especially if it highlights male aggression, female submission, or other angst-ridden phenomenon in the natural world.
But our doctoral snowflake doesn’t even bother delving into actual science (since she’s in the education department, not a science field). Instead, she concluded from her (cough) exhaustive research, “College science classes are hostile to women and minorities because they use the scientific method” and concluded STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, medicine) promote “a chilly climate that marginalizes women.” [Emphasis added.]
Pullman notes, “So, in other words, using logic and the scientific method are inherently ‘male’ ways of knowing that women and minorities cannot employ. Rather than rejecting this insulting view of women and minorities’ intellectual and rational capacities, [the Ph.D. candidate] uses it as a pretext to advocate that science classes abandon the scientific method itself (which rests on the assumption that truth is unchanging and knowable) and all other ‘male’ forms of oppression, such as ‘weed-out courses, courses that grade on a curve, a competitive environment, reliance on lecture as a teaching method, an individualistic culture, and comprehensive exams.'”
Or as Vox Day so cuttingly summarizes, “Science is hard, Barbie.”
Feminists simply give a bad name to science. They want to slant science to include subjective emotions and feeelings rather than impersonal hard observations – and then wonder why their efforts are not respected by the unfair chilly patriarchy.
“The cognitive research-supported view of knowledge is not ‘male-dominant,'” notes Pullman. “It’s accurate. And it’s a pretty damn sorry form of feminism that implies only men can know truth and that insists on keeping women and minorities ignorant while pretending to do the opposite.”
Call me fussy, but I don’t want doctors, clinical scientists, engineers and other experts in STEM fields falling prey to feminist complaints about the “unfairness” of the scientific method, the fundamental technique that has refined and improved scientific knowledge literally since the days of Aristotle. I don’t want to drive across bridges held up by feeeeelings. I don’t want my surgeon taking offense at the “unfairness” of my aortic valve. I don’t want astronauts delving into the hostile environment of space with equipment designed to avoid the male patriarchy.
Look, sweetie, science is tough enough as it is. It’s also impersonal and factual (or should be). Sure, you can twist your results to support whatever feminist ideology du jour you espouse, but that doesn’t make you a scientist – it makes you a charlatan. The last thing we need is a bunch of feminists getting hold of STEM subjects, trying to turn them into a morass of feeeeelings and emotions and subjective junk.
In short, if feminists can’t cut it, they’d best stick to whatever undemanding fields their delicate little brains are capable of handling. Enough is enough. Suck it up, Barbie.
For a well-spoken view, watch the Factual Feminist’s analysis of feminist biology:
Media wishing to interview Patrice Lewis, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.