The Department of Feminist Studies enjoys an untouchable place at our university. We in the public discourse are allowed only to exalt its great virtue, and anyone who questions its necessity is immediately silenced. Some go even further: last winter, Associated Students passed, by an overwhelming majority, A Resolution Supporting the Establishment of a Gender and Sexuality GE requirement.
However, far from requiring everyone to take gender studies classes, I think we should be questioning why they are taught at all.
Consider this: University of California Regents Policy 2301 states that the Regents “are responsible to see that the University remain aloof from politics and never function as an instrument for the advance of partisan interest. Misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination … constitutes misuse of the University as an institution.”
How can an academic department which is explicitly named after a political movement possibly claim to be “aloof from politics?”
Imagine how you would feel if there was a Department of Objectivist Studies at UCSB. The department was dedicated to promoting Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. All of the professors were Objectivists, and students in the department were taught heavy doses of Objectivism without being exposed to a single dissenting opinion.
Would you consider such a department to be “an instrument for the advance of partisan interest?” You probably would.
So why is the Department of Feminist Studies not held to the same standard?
Two years ago, I took an introductory course in the Feminist Studies department. I wanted to broaden my mind and hear all sorts of diverse perspectives on gender issues.
Instead, the class’s bias was made evident early on. In the first class, we were given a series of points of feminist thought which we were expected to accept without question or debate, before promptly moving on to the content of the course. These included “Equal worth of men and women,” “Recognition of male privilege within groups” and “Commitment to social change.”
You might ask yourself: How can a field committed to social change also be committed to unbiased academic analysis?
In fact, it was made clear to us that the course was not even interested in pursuing unbiased academic analysis. One of the course objectives was “To demonstrate how feminist research and ethics question objectivity.”
Throughout the field of women’s studies, academic feminists attack objectivity with concepts like “standpoint theory” and the laughably misnamed “strong objectivity.” These concepts state that knowledge is socially situated, and therefore research should begin with the lives of marginalized women as a starting point, despite the fact that any legitimate scientific research should begin with no starting point other than an objective search for the facts.
Feminist academics justify their explicit bias by arguing that mainstream academia is also biased — toward the patriarchy — and so they are merely evening the scales. Here, they display a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy of science.
It is true that all people have some inherent biases. Scientists already recognize this. That is why the scientific method as a system is designed to encourage the greatest degree of objectivity possible, and minimize (if not completely eliminate) the influence of individual biases. Research norms such as double-blind studies, control groups, randomization, peer review, replicability and publication of data all exist within science for this very reason.
Science, with its silly, antiquated notion of “objectivity,” has brought about far more tangible improvement in the quality of life for women (and men) worldwide than academic feminism ever has.
Because of researchers who believe in objectivity, UCSB has been at the forefront of scientific advancement in many fields, and has been named the No. 7 research university in the world by Leiden University. What justification can there be for such a highly ranked research university to foster an entire academic discipline which openly denies the legitimacy of the scientific method?
If UCSB creates a Gender and Sexuality GE requirement, then we will no longer deserve to be considered one of the top research universities in the world because we will have proven that we are more committed to ideology than to unbiased academic research.
Early on in our class, we were introduced to blatantly pseudoscientific concepts. We were taught to reject “gender essentialism” (the belief that gender is a biological reality) in favor of “social constructionism” (the belief that gender is a complete social fiction).
We were told that feminists believe in social constructionism because it makes social change easier — not because it is true, but because it is desirable. Our professor freely admitted that scholars in some of the harder science fields have a different perspective.
In fact, the nature/nurture debate is one of the most contentious in biology. There is strong evidence to support the proposition that gender has a biological component as well as a social one. To give only a small sample:
- A study of monkeys, published in 2008, shows that male monkeys are more likely to play with boy-typical toys (such as toy cars) and female monkeys are more likely to play with girl-typical toys (such as dolls). Are monkeys also socialized by the patriarchy? Probably not.
- Research done by psychologist Gerianne Alexander shows that male babies with higher testosterone levels spend more time looking at boy-typical toys, as early as three months old.
- Girls with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (a condition which causes them to have higher androgen levels than typical girls) are more likely than girls without CAH to play with boy-typical toys and engage in rough, competitive play. They are also more likely to pursue traditionally male careers and become lesbian later in life.
- David Reimer, a boy who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, repeatedly refused to accept the female role despite years of abusive “socialization” by Dr. John Money. He played with boy’s toys and his father’s tools, peed standing up, refused to wear dresses, and said that he wanted to marry a woman. When he found out the truth about his sex, he transitioned back into a man.
- What about transgender people? Such individuals consistently refuse to conform to the sex they were born as, despite being socialized into that sex. Does this not show that there is some innate, biological basis for gender identity that can never be fully socialized? (Ironically, if social constructionism were true, “gender conversion therapy” might be a legitimate solution to transgenderism. But it is not.)
Of course, we were not presented with any of this in feminist studies. Feminist scholars happily ignore any evidence which does not affirm their social agenda.
David Reimer committed suicide in 2004, after a life ruined by the practical application of feminist theory. “Social constructionism” should have died with him, but this basic denial of human nature remains a near dogma in UCSB’s feminist studies department.
If a group of climate change deniers or young earth creationists were teaching classes at UCSB, we would demand to know why they were being allowed to indoctrinate students at taxpayer expense with their unscientific worldview in clear violation of University of California Regents Policy 2301. We should ask no less of academic feminists.
It is understandable to feel that UCSB students should be educated on women’s and gender issues. However, the Department of Feminist Studies at UCSB, in its current form, does not do justice to this complex field. Rather than giving this department an exalted place in our university and dismissing all criticism as misogyny, we should be willing to question it openly and call it out for doing women (and men) a great disservice with its misinformation about science, gender and biology.
Jason would rather study quantum theory than queer theory in college.
Hysterical outcries and ad hominem attacks in 3, 2, 1 ….
The use of the word hysteria in relation to this article is absolutely mind-boggling. Like, please solidify why gender and feminist studies is important more, in just one word.
Aaaand you continue to prove my point. From noted NYU anthropologist Emily Martin: “Indeed, one of women’s common complaints is that men treat their moods casually.” (Martin, 1987: 133)
And one of men’s common complaints is that women expect them to respond like a woman to their rollercoaster emotions. That’s why new-masculinity is all about men sharing emotions that they don’t have. You say it’s ok to cry. We say why would you want to cry? Neither one of us is wrong. Men and women have been complaining about each other as long as humans have been able to speak and we’ll continue to do so until we’re all dead. There isn’t a single valid reason that men should take women’s complaints any more seriously than women take men’s.… Read more »
I wonder if the university will try to encircle isla vista after the increase in student population. They’re basically setting up residencies around the area which the university has full control over basically like a perimeter. It’s going to be harder to how make hundreds of new freshmen fit in Campbell hall!
I’m not sure how exactly this essay is oppressing womyn, but it definitely is. Just another case of male fragility that feels the need to shame womyn because white males are scared of empowered womyn who don’t need no man because he can be replaced by 7 cats.
You’re talking about male fragility but yet you spell women as womyn. I can only guess this is because your own fragility and feel threatened by the simple fact that men is the root word of women.
Feminists look like Dodoria from DBZ.
HAHA that’s grimy dawg
In b4 #PC2016 Online Social Justice Warriors launch their counterattack
So you can go shave your back now. Bye Jason.
Feminist research: 1. Think of an idea that you’d like to be true. 2. Come up with a term for that idea that is either needlessly antagonistic toward some majority group, or is a vast exaggeration or misrepresentation of what your idea actually is. 3. Use your new term as evidence that your idea is true. Feminist peer review: 1. Post your new term to your blog and flood social media with your term along with a link to your blog post. 2. Wait for other feminist bloggers to link to your blog post. 3. Use your new network of… Read more »
“Feminist scholars happily ignore any evidence which does not affirm their social agenda.” “Our professor freely admitted that scholars in some of the harder science fields have a different perspective.” These two statements seem wildly contradictory, Jason. Additionally, your bullet points are certainly statistically insignificant, uncited, and, in the case of David Reimer, anecdotal to the point of macrosocial worthlessness. I would think someone with a background in scientific research would know better than to use them in supporting an argument. It seems ironic that your fallacy-ridden article critiques unnamed scholars and professors (concrete/objective examples obviously not included anywhere in… Read more »
1) Opinion pieces typically don’t cite sources in an academic fashion. But all the research I mentioned is legitimate scientific research that’s easily verifiable by Google, which is why I included identifying information in the bullet points. There’s actually far more evidence than this, I just restricted myself to a few examples because this is an opinion piece and not an academic dissertation. 2) If my professor had any commitment to acknowledging evidence which did not affirm her social agenda, she would have presented it in class. She did not. 3) Despite the byline of this article, I don’t have… Read more »
1) I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that citation in an op-ed piece is “typically” omitted. It is customary to source any claims/references made to the material being cited. This doesn’t require a full academic citation as expected in academic dissertation, but it should include something that allows the reader to reference for further detail. As it stands, your first, third, and fifth bullet point are entirely unsubstantiated. Again, I’m not questioning their legitimacy, but rather their relevance and statistical significance. If there is “far more evidence,” I would also suggest including it in your argument, unless you… Read more »
I agree with William this article was incredibly fallacious across the board.
I just want to say I appreciate this intellectual discussion and am having fun reading your arguments.
Thanks for addressing what I was thinking William.
All of the points I made in the bullet points are extremely easy to Google… but I’m sure if I’d written a pro-feminist article, you would have held me to the same level of scrutiny.
If you are going to call a large field of study “bullshit,” Jason, you need to understand that people will call you on your own bullshit. The existence of these studies has nothing to do with it, which you may know considering you failed to respond to even one of William’s points. I am in science myself and see good use in critiquing institutions, but there is nothing at all compelling about the way you have haphazardly thrown terminology around here evidently without understanding much of the scientific methodology or feminist theory included, making a false dichotomy between the two… Read more »
I think it’s an extremely fair point. People typically write opinion pieces in the Nexus from a leftist (often feminist) perspective and I can’t remember any one of them being held to the same level of scrutiny as me. And all of the studies I cited were completely legitimate and easily verifiable.
Actually, this isn’t a ‘field of study’ at all. It’s an estrogen sewer of evil indoctrination, specious activist-scholarship, and credulous pseudo-science. Jason did a brilliant job of dissecting the hysterically hateful Beast. If anything, he was far too gentle with the cancer that is feminism. The Dangerous Faggot will help him correct that oversight in May however.. In the meantime, Professing Feminism, Lying in a Room of One’s Own, Who Stole Feminism, Spreading Misandry, Legalizing Misandry, Sanctifying Misandry, Replacing Misandry, Undressing Feminism, Vamps and Tramps, The Woman Racket will help you see that there is nothing odd about his writing.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems more like you had a bad experience in a class and I struggle to see why you decided to generalize this to feminism in general. I can think of a lot of other disciplines (most of them, actually), in which professors tinge their classes with political biases. On the political thing, I think the whole point of feminism is to identify the hidden political biases that are always there – so, explicitly anti-political in one sense, which I think is fundamentally the political sense you identified. Of course, feminism is a political project, but… Read more »
Because he is against academic feminism you think he’s sexist? Feminism is not interchangeable with women. Actually, the majority of women are not feminists.
“but there are also serious issues in education and available opportunity which restrict women, people of color, transgender people, and so on, from even getting the chance to do research, or to take the right classes.”
Based on the bigoted, reverse-sexist, female supremacist, and fascist foolishness that FEMINIST women call ‘research’ , it’s not hard to understand why women in general might be discriminated against for the sins of the minority of female monkeys who believe they speak for all women.
Can you please explain how you managed you use Transgender people as evidence of there being a biological basis for gender? does it not like, explicitly give evidence for the opposite?
The strongest and most convincing arguments for trans rights are based on the idea that the body they live in is different than the body that their brains expect. If your brain’s gender disagrees with your body’s sex, then your brain has chosen your gender based on its biological composition. If gender is a social construct, then trans people can just stop being trans whenever they feel like it.
Personally, I think you have to be pretty stupid to think that trans people can just stop being trans whenever they feel like it.
Any social studies cannot be objective like physics. However, through critical discourse one can pick apart cultural notions of gender and their relation to power structures and oppression. Such analysis is useless, whether one is a feminist or not, which is why gender studies is important. You can take gender studies and be a misogynist, like Garshfield, and still benefit from the analytical framework, that is present in all social studies and humanities. Also the addition of “biology” shows that the author hasn’t actually taken a course, or paid the due attention, as gender is an entirely social construct. Another… Read more »
*useful, not useless. An editing feature should be incorporated.
Ironic that I talked about feminists “dismissing all criticism as misogyny” and you came along to prove my point.
This article is a criticism of methods, not values. Misogyny has nothing to do with it.
You’ve just proven Garshfield’s point. You claim that since he doesn’t conform to the view that gender is “an entirely social construct” that he did not take a course or pay attention. In other words, the only reasonable outcome for a student taking these classes is to adopt this ideological assertion. If that’s anything but a program centered on political indoctrination, please explain how. You’ve just tried to refute Garshfield’s argument against the idea that gender is socially constructed by simply saying it is without refuting any of his sub-claims or backing up your own in any way. Go ahead… Read more »
What do you think about other departments that focus on the studies of specific ethnic groups? It seems like they all take a similar narrative of non-objective scientific approach when conducting research.
I’m not a big fan of a lot of those subjects, either, and there’s a lot of bullshit to be exposed with them (especially stuff like “Afrocentric history”), but I know more about the bullshit inside feminism and so that’s how I focused my piece.
Jason, I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of situated knowledges and why studying bias in the scientific method is important. I’m literally writing my thesis about this RIGHT NOW (as in, I should stop writing this and back to that), but articles like this just reinforce to me why feminism in ~the hard sciences~ is essential. It’s a shift in understanding as to why something as “untouchable” as the scientific method just isn’t. It was created by humans and is not separate, despite continued insistence (by, unsurprisingly, men!). As Donna Harrway reminds us: “Rational knowledge is a power-sensitive conversation.”… Read more »
So feminists don’t like science because it’s too busy talking about how things actually work to care about the narratives that can be constructed by people who don’t care about science.
i.e. Women are mad that everything isn’t always about them. What else is new?
No, not at all. Did you read what I said? Science is important and valuable- but it, like everything else, must be read contextually. For example: gynecology textbooks in the 40s, 50s, and 60s (and some even more recently) emphasize negative descriptors when discussing menstruation: “dying, losing, expelling” among the words used. The very same books do not use the same language when discussing male reproduction. Massive sperm production, for example, is seen as overwhelmingly positive. If this was unclear: menstruation is described as an egg wasted because it was unfertilized while discussion around 1 out of 1 billion sperm… Read more »
Haha that’s cute. Is this how humanities majors are trying to insert themselves into careers outside of the service industry? You need us because we have the power to analyze things that have zero relevance to your field! Seriously, male and female reproductive systems are very different. Using different words is helpful when describing things that are different. The reason scientists don’t care about this is because they have more useful and vastly more interesting things to do. Getting their point across is all that matters. If you want to gnaw on their scraps while they’re off finding more meat,… Read more »
I was just using one example. This language has consequences, such as severe under diagnoses of reproductive issues like endometriosis and pcos. Women are also far less likely to be given adequate pain medication, and even if it is administered, it is done so much later than in men. The UN showed recently that the US has fallen far behind its own previous markers and those of comparable nations in regards to livability for women. I am a scientist, doing this work that I care about. Your idea of science as a citadel far and away from these issues is… Read more »
“livability for women” ? don’t care. They get more medical spending in the U.S. than men by VERY LARGE amounts. They live longer than men. They go to the doctor so much more than men, for petty things, because they are ignorant about actual science and only care about their social status, like you.
Oh yeah? What kind of scientist?
Also your use of “that’s cute” is severely belittling– if you’d like to have a conversation like educated folks that kind of language is unnecessary at best and offensive at worst. If you’re wondering why this work is important, look no further than your dismissive attitude.
You can’t say that my dismissive attitude is evidence for why it’s important. I have a dismissive attitude because I’m not convinced that this work is important. You can’t cite the fact that you haven’t convinced me as evidence that I should be convinced.
Very well said, A. I can appreciate that Jason’s not familiar with Feminist studies and the lens through which Feminist studies have examined fallacious past presentations of the “facts” — just as you’re referencing the gynecology textbooks of the 40s-60s. I mean no disrespect, Jason, but I do hope you continue to learn about Feminist ideas and that this one class is not your only exposure to it. I consider (most) Feminists to be humanists and we do not arbitrarily knock science, if anything they seek to get a better understanding of the context in which historical events, scientific evidence,… Read more »
I don’t have any right to tell you what you believe, and so when you say that your brand of feminism is a moderate movement that simply wants equality for men and women, I respect your sincerity. But you know what? I KNOW that’s not the type of feminism that’s being taught in taxpayer-funded classes at UCSB and other major universities. Like I articulated in this article, the feminism I was taught at UCSB made logical leaps that go far, far beyond merely fighting for equal rights for women. This is a clear and flagrant violation of UC Regents Policy… Read more »
This is a classic “motte-and-bailey doctrine,” where feminism in practice (the “bailey”) is this wide expanse of ideological mandates and policy prescriptions, but if you ever challenge anyone on it they retreat to the “motte” and say “feminism just means equality between men and women.”
Well of course we can all agree with that! But that’s not really what feminism means in practice.
See more here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-words-words-words/
I’d prefer to see Daphne (Professing Feminism) Patia , Camille Paglia, GirlWritesWhat, or Janice Fiamengo come to campus. But, of course, since the Dangerous Faggot is already on his way in May with Feminism is Cancer looks like all the bases are already covered.
Eggs are described as ‘wasted’ or ‘lost’ because they are finite. That’s why you “lose” teeth. When your eggs (or teeth, or hair) are gone, they’re gone.
Sperm is not described as ‘wasted’ because like many things it is constantly produced and available. And there is no physiological consequence (and arguably a benefit) to frequently giving it up, which is why we don’t “lose” sperm any more than we “lose” sweat or urine. (We do “lose blood,” but blood is, ya know, sort of extra-important.)
This sort of malarkey is why people hate feminism.
May I suggest you read The Woman Racket (Moxon) so you can get a clue about the realities of reproduction, their impacts on sex and gender and about which sex is really disposable.
So when feminist scholars use this logic to say that Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica is a “rape manual” and E=MC2 is a “sexed equation” that “privileges the speed of light over other necessary speeds,” do you agree with them?
I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking. If you’re not, I’m whole-heartedly convinced that you’re picking and choosing a likely out-there example to make your point. Making science feminist, especially the biological sciences that affect all humans daily lives, is not only valuable but necessary. Even a shift in language can have consequences on the ways that women are treated by doctors, superiors, and peers. Understand the consistent place of oppression women have been subjected to is paramount to a full and well-rounded conception of academia. The academic world was created by and for white, wealthy men. By shifting focus… Read more »
Oppression… Women have more money spent on them in all medical fields across the board, than men. How is that oppression? There are more free/discounted clinics that cater specifically to women. How is that oppression? There are a few thousand times more shelters and programs for abused women than men. How is that oppression? Most medical fields are dominated by women, there were more female nurses graduating college the year I did than ANY OTHER DEGREE COMBINED. How is that oppression?
Sandra Harding referred to the Principia Mathematica as a “rape manual.” Luce Irigaray referred to E=MC2 as a “sexed equation.” In a similar vein, Susan McClary referred to Beethoven’s Ninth as portraying “the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release.” None of these women have been widely condemned by feminism. All of them are respected feminist scholars. Sandra Harding, in fact, is a contributor to the U.N. Development Fund for Women and the U.N. Commission for Science and Technology for Development. Scared yet? Meanwhile, feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers who criticize the extremists in their own movement… Read more »
And you’re completely wrong when you say that the academic world was created by and for wealthy white men. The idea of the university goes back to the ancient Greeks (who were admittedly white, unless you believe Afrocentric history) and it was developed, in part, to challenge the ruling order and ask questions no one else dared ask. That’s what Socrates died for. The academy is based on the central assumption that human beings are somewhat rational, and capable of understanding reason. We invite different groups into the university on the implicit assumption that those groups can communicate with each… Read more »
In the scientific system, it doesn’t matter who brings an idea forward. It matters what the idea is. Of course, the system is imperfect and there are some biases (such as a major bias against conservatives in fields like psychology) but it works pretty well most of the time.
People who accuse the scientific method of being biased typically have an axe to grind. Perhaps the best example of this is the Nazis purging the university of “Jewish physics.”
Let me ask you, how can a meritocratic system be misogynist unless you believe women are inferior?
Feminism is an ideology of hate and should have nothing to do with the sciences or their interpretation. Just from your first paragraph you blame men. This is the crux of all feminism and feminist dogma — blame men. Without science we would be no where near as advanced socially, medically, or technologically as we are today. Feminism’s hate for empiricism, logic, and reason is clear thought it ethos: listen and believe, feelings are more important that facts, “women’s way of knowing”, etc… The idea that feminism could infect actual science with its lack of forethought, its narcissism, and reliance… Read more »
Ok then propose a solution to add your precious scientific objectivity, which I might add, is imperfect in and of itself, to analysis of gender studies. Hell, why don’t we do this as we apply these principles to critical race studies? Why do we even have people and politicians write laws when we can just have our robot overlords do it? oh I remember why. Because humanities is not as cut and dry as your oversimplified, “took an introductory class and now I like to pretend I’m woke as to the academic field’s problems,” perspective would have us believe. Painting… Read more »
He’s a social science major. Ain’t nothin’ STEM about it
I’m sorry, but I reject the idea that I need to get a PhD in the subject before realizing that it’s bullshit.
Let it be known that this article is posted under the OPINION section. So you don’t need to bother attempting to make it factual with horribly cited, completely essentialist, and straight up sexist (for so many different reasons) “studies”. Also if you really paid attention to the ONE feminist studies course you took, or all the biology you have clearly learned, you wouldn’t be using the word ‘gender’ as a scientific term, and constantly associating it with biology. People with vaginas aren’t born loving dolls, or the color pink, and people with penises aren’t born loving trucks, or the color… Read more »
Studies that don’t validate my preexisting opinion are *ist
Excellent response, you really understood that the studies cited do not prove any of Jason’s points and obviously took the time to read them and their methods. You also are a brilliant scientist who understands that singular studies do not validate or invalidate anything except for perhaps correlations within specific situations and contexts and that it would be unscientific to ascribe personal causes to the results taken down. You obviously have no agenda of your own that causes you to post irrelevant comments.
It sounds like you didn’t read them yourself. I never said that singular studies validate anything. Just that their validity doesn’t rely on what your already believe. My only agenda is to get humanities majors to stop behaving like idiots in public because we have the same goals and they tend to hurt the narrative much more than they help. These are the people who throw a tantrum any time anyone even suggests performing research on biological sex and gender differences. Not because they actually understand biology, but because they don’t want to learn that what they believe is wrong.… Read more »
“My only agenda is to get humanities majors to stop behaving like idiots in public because we have the same goals and they tend to hurt the narrative much more than they help. These are the people who throw a tantrum any time anyone even suggests performing research on biological sex and gender differences. Not because they actually understand biology, but because they don’t want to learn that what they believe is wrong. Dog forbid they have to come up with a new argument instead of just repeating what their fem studies 1 professor told them.” Hey list one example… Read more »
I never said anything about academia. How else can I help you today?
Lol how predictable. You can stop being an idiot.
Predictable that I won’t defend an argument that I never made? You got me.
I find it so humorous that Jason Garshfield is the first one to begin trolling anytime something feminist pops up, and when somebody calls him out he states that he simply wants logical debate and discussion. Yet when he writes a fallacious article and people are academically critiquing it he says “oh well if it was an article on feminism you all would agree with it” please practice what you preach.
I like your Rainbow profile filter, Jason.
Yeah, I guess someone can question certain aspects of feminist studies while still supporting gay marriage. Surprising, huh?
You had me until the very end with “climate change denier”. There are thousands of highly reputable scientists who completely disagree with the whole hypothesis of global warming. Environmentalists use many of the same tactics which the feminists use.
Remember, I’m writing for a left-wing audience and I felt this was a small concession to make in this instance. I do accept the science behind climate change but I also acknowledge that there is a disturbing socialist agenda being pushed by some in the field. Read the article on eco-socialism I wrote at the beginning of the year – I believe that we can deal with legitimate environmental issues without resorting to massive government control of the market.
Hal Lewis, UCSB emeritus physics professor and founding member of the American Physical Society, was a skeptic who resigned from APS with this letter:
You can find a longer list here. Whether you find them prominent or not is up to you.
Oh come on Jason! Youre here to fall on the sword for the “silent majority” and defend these views, but instead of addressing this rationally you’ve taken one class and some extreme examples and broadcast them to include millions of people’s point of view. Feminists disagree and debate each other all the time so it’s foolish to just toss all this out there and address it as if every feminist has the same exact views. You’d be pissed if someone wrote an article like this about all men or all libertarians. In fact, you often condemn this kind of intellectual… Read more »
If I hadn’t used my own experience with the department, I’m sure there would have been outraged cries of “Have you ever actually TAKEN a feminist studies class?!?!?!” Clearly, there’s no winning unless I go on and get a PhD in feminist studies; then I can criticize it. No, I think my criticisms were fair because this was an introductory class that’s representative of the fundamentals of the entire field of study – and it wasn’t just a few offhand comments the professor made that were untoward, it was the central points of the class. And I didn’t even get… Read more »
Your article argues that that the department of feminist studies is bias after taking one introductory feminist class- perhaps you are the bias one? I understand what you’re saying about gender having a biological component but one of the purposes of feminism is how we can overcome those biological components, if one wants. To clarify, what I mean is it is fine for males and females to naturally incline towards those biological tendencies you cited, however that shouldn’t mean they are restricted to those roles- which is what society does nowadays. Therefore, I can accept the idea of “gender essentialism”,… Read more »
Well, I would agree with you on the issue of equal rights. This was another point I wanted to make in my article but didn’t have the space to do so. Even if men and women are different, they should have the exact same rights and opportunities. Even if only a minority of women choose to work outside the home, that minority should have the right to do so. Our system of equality under the law is based on giving people equal rights despite them being different. I think a lot of feminists are afraid (perhaps even reasonably) that if… Read more »
Oh no. Equal rights may work well for a mixed race men who do equal dying in combat for same BUT when men ‘enjoy’ 98% of the combat mortality then women have no right to enjoy 50% ot the rights so earned. This is particularly the case for feminist gender bigots who abuse those rights to lie about men and and to shut down men’s free speech rights. That’s the problem with female suffrage. Women got the vote but were allowed to be entitled infants rather than forced to fight and die on the beaches of Normandy or wherever. Gonna… Read more »
Isn’t it crazy that Jason knows all there is to feminism from taking an intro class. I guess I’m a goddamn physicist then.
Katelyn would rather eat her own shit then listen to Jason speak.
Do the higher level classes teach sick burns?
Katelyn would rather read real stories then ones like this.
Katelyn thinks Jason has never gotten laid. LOL ok ill stop now
Katelyn has been taught by her humanities professors that she is special enough to refer to herself in the third person.
Science used to believe that women’s brains were literally inferior to men’s. Science particularly described women of color as inferior and over-sexualized, making it okay to rape them. In colonial times, science believed that people in African were not “civilized” like europeans; therefore, science was used to justify slavery. Similarly, science was used to justify the genocide of Indigenous people all over the world. People have been tortured, killed, raped… in the name of science. Currently science reinforces the idea that you have to be either male or female, and that this depends only on your genitalia. Until recently, science… Read more »
None of that happened because of science. It happened because people will use any excuse that they can come up with to push their agenda.
Science does not currently say that you have to be either male or female, although some scientists are interested in studying the biological differences between people of different sexes and genders.
Science invented viagra to treat hypertension. Boners were a side effect.
Your examples suck and you don’t know anything about actual science. You also don’t know what “violence” means.
lol jason, go on- study quantum theory and stop wasting everyones time/money in the political science dept.
Could not agree more! This article points it out fairly. He’s just asking why we must be forced to accept what feminist classes teach when most of it is biased information. The scientific method is not applied in this field so how can we trust that everything is completely correct? If a subject is not open to debate, there is no room to disprove or improve it. If this was the case, we would still be thinking the planets revolved around Earth, etc. To the author: I appreciate the investigative work by looking through the university’s policies. I have much… Read more »
This is amazing!
I think a lot of the backlash to this article comes from the tone in which it’s written, Jason. You raise an interesting point, one which should be considered across all social sciences: that they should conform more closely to the scientific method than they currently do. But a lot of the language in this article is condescending and belies a chip on your shoulder. If you actually do have a chip on your shoulder because you’ve been talked down to by feminists you’ve encountered and therefore don’t care if you sound condescending, I totally understand. Just don’t be confused… Read more »
Another example of liberal/leftist use of Repressive Tolerance. They justify/require wide tolerance for their own views/orthodoxy but have zero tolerance for those who object or disagree. Rather than defend their position they attempt to silence by attacking the person’s character. If things do not change soon they will resort to physical attacks. The only way to combat this is to the way Jason did. By calling them out into the open for a debate (to which they have not responded). It’s time to coin a phrase, ” get mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore.” We… Read more »
It is actually legitimately frightening that the Daily Nexus has given such a confused, desperate and hateful person a platform to spread such uninformed garbage. You *almost* have to admire that someone would actually post such drivel under their own name in the internet age, but a quick jaunt through his Facebook finds Trump support, actually hilarious anti-marijuana stances (signing petitions to enact the death penalty on marijuana offenses) and just a clear representation of a sad, lonely person looking for attention. Daily Nexus and it’s editors, you are doing this student a disservice but allowing him to broadcast this… Read more »
You do know that the pro-Trump and anti-marijuana stuff is a joke, right? Although I do somewhat appreciate Trump for driving narrow-minded people like you crazy, even if I disagree with many of his stances…
By the way, congratulations on outright admitting that feminism and PC supporters are violent.
When everything you write sounds like a complete joke, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that someone would think you believe in that stuff in earnest. You hurt your extremely loud while simultaneously ineffective opinions but commingling it with the posts of a troll. It wouldn’t take me or anyone being narrow-minded to be confused by that (although my Spidey-sense feels an incoming juvenile insult in response coming in the next reply about how narrow my mind is). While i’m not surprised that even in the comments you continue to make stuff up, I didn’t mention anything about feminists or… Read more »
As a recent alumni who was disgusted with what I saw as pro-feminist horse shit making its way through UCSB when I was there, I’m thrilled that an opinion piece like this could be published by the Daily Nexus. Comments of “you just don’t understand!11!” highlight exactly what Jason talks about: feminists (and other ridiculous Social Justice advocates) want their ideas and pseudoscience taken as fact, and refuse to allow any discussion or dissenting opinions on the matter. Good on you man for having the guts to write this, there are many, many of us in the real world who… Read more »
Jason’s base point–that Feminist Studies curricula are much more indoctrination than study is extremely valid.
Rather than read, discuss and dissect feminist theory, one is expected to take much of it as a given and move directly to using those unproven givens as bases for whole ranges of further theory and study.
This is extremely problematic. The instability of feminist theory due to this blind acceptance of unproven hypothesis is repeatedly shown to damage the whole idea of feminism–and yet anyone who points this out is excoriated as misogynist no matter how that person feels about feminism overall.
While I think Jason gives short-shrift to the need for, and the importance of, classes and theories that question modern assumptions about objectivity, I think he’s exactly right about the inappropriateness of creating entire department and GE requirements centered around a field of studies that only advances one viewpoint, and which also has an explicit political component. Feminist theory- and other theory not explicitly based on the philosophical theory of empiricism and the scientific method that came from it (yes, modern science is a practice derived from a particular philosophical theory with its own history)- absolutely deserves a place in… Read more »
I think that’s a good point. From my reading of Jason’s article, he’s not saying that Gender Studies theories shouldn’t be discussed at all, only that they shouldn’t be discussed as if they were unchallengable givens. I think a class that discussed the various perspectives and arguments surrounding gender theory, taught by a professor who wasn’t an evangelist for a particular viewpoint, would be very interesting. And would probably be more effective in helping people to understand other perspectives. But, as you say, that probably wouldn’t be allowed. Which kind of supports Jason’s underlying thesis that the classes are political,… Read more »
Bravo, Jason. Thank you for having the courage to write the truth in the face of this insane political correctness that rules our campuses and is destroying the education we thought our kids were getting. In fact, college students are being indoctrinated, not educated. Now you have allegedly been threatened for going against the grain. This just goes to prove how wrong the left is. As a part-time (ESL) teacher at UC Irvine Extension, I am distressed at the faux education our kids are getting in the humanities and social sciences. The UC system is trying to find ways to… Read more »