This is sexist.
It’s not everyday I agree with a feminist.
But sometimes, they just have a way of seeing things as they are. Usually when reality gives them a good opportunity to whine about something and demand that men bend it to suit their tastes better.
In this case, they’re saying science is “sexist” because women are incapable of being objective.
Seems like we’ve got a solid case of “agreeing with a liberal for all the wrong reasons” on our hands here.
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, concludes a recent dissertation by a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota.
Laura Parson, a student in the university’s education department, reviewed eight science class syllabi at a “Midwest public university” and said she discovered in them a hidden hostility to women and minorities:
Initial exploration of the STEM syllabi in this study did not reveal overt references to gender, such as through the use of gendered pronouns. However, upon deeper review, language used in the syllabi reflects institutionalized STEM teaching practices and views about knowledge that are inherently discriminatory to women and minorities by promoting a view of knowledge as static and unchanging, a view of teaching that promotes the idea of a passive student, and by promoting a chilly climate that marginalizes women.
When you have a relaxed and “warm” climate, women complain about “sexual harassment” or about men making jokes and being “insensitive.” Then when you make everything serious and clinically cold, they complain that they’re being “marginalized.”
A waamen, in the process of being marginalized.
It’s almost like women don’t belong in serious fields like science and business.
Even though the course syllabi contained no “gendered assumptions” about students or other overtly discriminatory implications, Parson writes, they display prejudice against women and minorities because they refuse to entertain the possibility that “scientific knowledge is subjective.”
Women Are Too Stupid to Use Logic
Throughout her dissertation, Parson assumes and asserts that women and minorities are uniquely challenged by the idea that science can provide objective information about the natural world. This is an unfair assumption, she says, because the concept of objectivity is too hard for women and minorities to understand. “[N]otions of absolute truth and a single reality” are “masculine,” she says, referring to poststructuralist feminist theory.
Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make [sic] the correct decision.
So, in other words, using logic and the scientific method are inherently “male” ways of knowing that women and minorities cannot employ.
This is what we’ve been saying all along!
No logic or science = it goes in the box.
So it seems feminists and Nazis agree completely on the nature of women; we both believe they’re irrational creatures who can’t engage with the world objectively. The difference is in our stated approach to the problem.
Feminists would like men to completely transform the fabric of reality so that it responds to their emotions rather than the laws of nature.
Our approach is WHITE SHARIA. Or, in other words, to get women to do the things they’re good at and needed for, which is taking care of the home and of children, rather than wasting everybody’s time in laboratories.