Feminist scientists: Citing straight, white men promotes 'oppression'

Started 1 week ago | Discussions thread
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 51,044
Re: Feminist scientists: Citing straight, white men promotes 'oppression'

Chris59 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

TeddyBigFoot wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

livelong wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/16/feminist-scientists-say-citing-research-by-straight-white-men-promotes-a-system-of-oppression/?utm_term=.cbc0559fd907

I posted this because WaPo is actually serious about this story. Two feminist clowns are promoting this new cutting edge idea that straight white males promote a system of oppression in science. This article is so important in this day and age that WaPo had the need to write about it, which means we have the need to discuss this.

Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two feminist scientists, who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars. These are scientists, you see. Yes, you can’t argue with scientists.

So we cannot promote the work of straight white men anymore because it’s discriminatory and oppresses diverse voices. Does that mean we shouldn't promote Climate Change which is being peddled mostly by white heterosexual males? I'm just asking.

This story also contains a term feminist geography. Have you ever heard of feminist geography? Does anybody have any idea what feminist geography is? Did you know that geography could be feminist?

Let's continue.

The two "scientists" whose names are Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne say that promoting the work of straight white men perpetuates white heteromasculinism which is defined as a system of oppression that benefits only those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered. ]

What in the world? What the heck is cisgender? Let's find out if you didn't jump off a bridge yet.

A cisgender is a person whose gender identity matches their birth sex. No, really. If you’re born a man and you think you’re a man, you’re a cis. We, the normal folks, are now being labeled as cis's. Just like transgendered are named as trans because they are confused about their own sex, we who are not confused, are labeled as cis. It's a transgender versus cisgender thing.

What a world we live in.

-- hide signature --

Truth is stranger than fiction!

There is no such thing as a "feminist scientist". There is only a feminist promoting her idea of why she has been unsuccessful in life.

Might want to revisit that, given that one of the two is male.

You might want to revisit that, given that I said "a feminist" (singular)...

You were making a generalisation about 'feminist scientists'.

Was I? Actually, no!

Part of that generalisation was the assumption that they, as a group, were universally female.

Never said it and never implied it.

You were caught out making a prejudiced generalisation. Semantic wriggling doesn't get you off the hook.

It's not "semantic wriggling", it's what I wrote. No amount of claptrap from you will get you off the hook for being unable to comprehend simple English and mouthing off at nothing (again).

-- hide signature --

Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

You're right:

"There is no such thing as a "feminist scientist". There is only a feminist promoting her idea of why she has been unsuccessful in life."

In all of that the various terms used are singular.

"as a"
"feminist scientist"
"only a feminist"
"her idea... she has been"

All singular terms as they are used there.

Bobn2 has a problem with comprehension. He thinks that it's okay to put words in your mouth, ridicule you for them, and then, when you point out that you never said or implied any of it, well, to him that's just "semantic wriggling".

Chris59, when caught out in a minor error will generally engage in semantic wriggling and blame transference to the person who caught him out.

Caught me out at what? There is no error, minor or major in what I wrote. What you think I said and what I actually said are two entirely different things.

It's absolutely clear that you wrote what you wrote assuming that the 'feminist scientists' in question were both female. Your post made absolutely no sense if you didn't. Then again, making absolutely no sense would be true to form, I suppose.

He then generally engages in smug private/public conversations about the matter with Obollox, the only person on this forum creepy and toxic enough to buddy up with him.

Tut, tut. If you actually used your time effectively and learned to read with care and comprehension all this twisting and turning wouldn't be necessary. Here's a tip! When you're in a hole, the first thing you need to do is to stop digging!

Just because you built yourself a semantic periscope doesn't change who's actually in the hole, and it isn't me. From your post, there is one of two possibilities, either you were generalising on the basis that all 'feminist scientists' are female, or you were being specific, in which case you decided to pick out from this pair the female one to insult. Neither interpretation does you any credit.

-- hide signature --

Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Stop digging idiot -

I think you meant digging for idiots. I don't have to dig, the likes of you just turn up on their own.

people are starting to notice.

Notice that you've been caught out in your bigotry yet again, sure. There were only the two possible interpretations of what you said, Chris. Which one was it?

-- hide signature --

Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Dig, dig, dig - you never learn, do you stupid?

You seem to have a strange obsession with digging, to add in all the others. The real question would be who is 'stupid'. On the one hand is the person who lays down the law about science he doesn't even begin to understand (we know you don't know the difference between heat and temperature, and we also know that you can't begin to justify your pretentious pronouncements about your beloved chaos theory, because much though you bang on about the 'mathematics of chaos theory', your maths isn't even close to understanding it). Then there is the person who points out that you are a charlatan. If we have to ascribe 'stupid', I'd go for the one who repeatedly digs themselves holes laying down the law on stuff they know nothing about.

-- hide signature --

Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

When all else fails, get personal. Keep digging stupid.

Yawn.

-- hide signature --

Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow