According to Geography professors Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne, researchers in the various academic fields should stop using studies done by white, straight men to bolster their own work. Doing so, they argue, only keeps the current structures of privilege and oppression in place while hurting women and people of color who want to advance their scientific careers.
Mott, who teaches at Rutgers, and Cockayne, who is a professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, said in a recent paper that by citing the work of straight, white men, researchers were perpetuating “white heteromasculinism” which is a (totally not imaginary) system that only benefits those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” Cisgendered, in case you missed it, is when you are a man and you also call yourself a man. Or if you’re a woman who calls yourself a woman. Yes, we apparently need a special term for this now.
“This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color,” they wrote in their paper. “To cite narrowly, to only cite white men, or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism.”
In an interview with Campus Reform, Mott said that when the scientific community was primarily based on papers filled with the work of white, straight men, “the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds.” Mott went on to say that “when scholars continue to cite only white men on a given topic, they ignore the broader diversity of voices and researchers that are also doing important work on that topic.”
In a word, this is not only racist, sexist, and absurd, it shows a baffling misunderstanding of what science is all about. Or, perhaps we should qualify: What it SHOULD be all about. Science is not supposed to be a collection of people’s personal experiences. That’s what history books are for. Memoirs. Daytime television. To hear Mott and Cockayne tell it, you’d think that a scientific research paper is based on the author’s childhood memories. Their interactions with their workplace colleagues. Their day-to-day opinions about “stuff.” We’ll just say – if that’s what science has become, it’s no wonder that so much of it is off-the-wall.
Science is supposed to be about objective facts and inferences made from those facts. It shouldn’t matter if the people gathering and looking into those facts are black, white, male, female, or (Christ almighty) cisgender. This is yet another attempt by feminists to generate “diversity” by means of force, and it will have the same effect as all prior such efforts have had: To replace true greatness and achievement with feel-goodery nonsense.