The intersectional feminist agenda has corrupted modern academia. This isn’t just the opinion of a disaffected liberal journalist, but the findings of a trio of concerned academics who conducted an elaborate research hoax exposing the malpractice within the current university climate.
According to a report from The New York Times, left-wing professors Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian drafted 20 deliberately absurd non-research papers wondering if feminist publications releasing so-called ‘academic journals’ would take their bait. “Is it possible that people with no Ph.D. in any field could write papers in that field every two weeks and get it published?” Boghossian told the Times. “That’s the question I asked.”
Two of the authors (Lindsay and Boghossian) were famous for the 2017 ‘conceptual penis’ paper which, through their use of extremely vague and pseudo-scientific language, argued penises were just social constructs and not part of the male reproductive system. This was later published in academia despite it being an elaborate prank with no truth. In their latest video, published on YouTube under the title “Grievance Studies,” the academics reveal that four of their papers have been published, three are set to be printed, seven remain under academic review, while only six have been totally rejected. As of now, only one of their pieces, focusing on ‘fat bodybuilding’ as somehow legitimately healthy, was retracted.
Of those that were accepted, their insane topics include a fake examination into “human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity” at dog parks, a non-research paper into why straight men eat at Hooters, a non-study into whether straight men are more or less homophobic and transphobic after experiencing homosexual sex toys, as well as a delightful feminist paper titled “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” which was simply a 3000 word rewrite of a chapter from Adolf Hitler’s novel “Mein Kampf”.
Hitler’s original work (chapter 12, volume 1) outlined a multi-point manifesto into why the Third Reich leader believed the Nazi party was essential to preserving Aryan dominance and what his regime would demand of its member. Instead, his anti-semitic Nazism was replaced to include modern intersectional feminist jargon with an anti-male bias.
The summary reads: “feminism, which foregrounds individual choice, responsibility, female agency, and strength, can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society.” In other words, the paper argues that feminism should abandon the principles of individual choice and agency to adopt collectivism against their oppressors. In Hitler’s case, these oppressors were the Jewish people his party would later slaughter by the millions under his command of Germany. The Wall Street Journal cited this portion of their paper:
“Put another way, if more feminists had, rather than becoming distracted by seductions of choice, the baubles of neoliberalism, or male approval, implacably guarded the interests of oppressed people especially those dominated by racism, colonialism, imperialism, ableism, homophobia, classism, and all other manners of oppression that intersect with feminism and if in matters of remaking society more feminists had avowed only their commitment against all oppressions with equal intensity as they defended their will to female choice, and if with equal firmness they had demanded justice for all those oppressed by systems of power, today we would very likely have equality.” Among the academic’s target audience — spiteful feminists with a chip on their shoulder — this bait was taken hook, line and sinker.
“The reviewers are supportive of the work and noted its potential to generate important dialogue for social workers and feminist scholars,” then praised the co-editor-in-chief of the journal “Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work,” claiming Hitler’s rewritings would be accepted upon peer-review. It should be noted their work is ranked #24 among the best of their field. Without verification of credentials, sources, methods or critical review, Hitler’s work was reprinted as the new progress.
Understand these proposed ideas didn’t just stop at theoretical collectivization. In another bizarre instance, RT reports that another feminist philosophy journal, “Hypatia” accepted one of their papers which argues that left-wing social justice advocates should be exempted from mockery, as it would pose harm to the cause, while conservatives should be held to another standard. Later throughout the piece, the academics wrote an argument that censoring or silencing ‘privileged students,’ namely those white, straight and/or male, is justified and their punishment should be framed as ‘experiential reparations,’ which include being bound to the floor wearing chains and being refused attention despite discomfort. This, too, was accepted and published:
Through these insane responses, the trio concluded teachers within these academic fields don’t examine the truth behind the humanities in an ethical manner, but are rather biased activists that are selling their students expensive snake oil in the form of — you guessed it — ‘grievance studies.’ Their answers, from the abandonment of individualism to subjecting their enemy students to the treatment of slaves on the basis of prior societal wrongs, is clearly unbecoming of education — and these teachers aren’t buying it.
“Something has gone wrong in the university — especially in certain fields within the humanities,” the three academics wrote for Areo Magazine. “Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous,” they continue. “For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.”