Abolition of Science by Feminism

0 Comments

*Author’s note: This is an excerpt from one of my older books, translated from the German original.

_________________



Science, legislation, jurisdiction, government and reporting require strict objectivity, dispassion and basic principles of justice and state, such as the presumption of innocence, freedom of expression, protection of privacy. Let us consider what has become of it.

Feminist pseudoscience, deliberately and consciously based on subjectivity, partiality, influencing and changing the “research subject”, has replaced objective science in all subjects that are remotely related to culture or gender. Some even say that all sciences except hard core subjects such as natural sciences are affected, but attempts have been reported even from mathematical faculties to gender them.

Abuse of universities, research centers, the judiciary and power for subjectivity and consciously tendentious struggle are neither derailment nor overzealousness of individuals but planned feminist approaches that have been openly described in feminist literature. These are not “isolated radical” writings by “outsiders”, but the central, founding theoretical writings and methods, which continue to have an institutionalized effect down to terms, definitions, approaches and topics. That caused objectivity to collapse in all areas of science, that deal with people. It is the strategy and leitmotif of the whole feminist wave, as well as previous waves.

Let’s look at what has become of the basic principles of science, legislation, jurisprudence, government and public service.

«A fundamental universal position is out of the question for women. Women can define themselves into and out of the law; for there is no compulsion to be consistent, as in ‒ cosmopolitan male universal ‒ science. Aporias only dissolve in the process. (see Smaus 1989).»[1] (Marlis Krüger {ed.}, What does feminist actually mean?, 1993, p. 281, Volume 1 of the Feminist Library) [basic feminist script, no satire, meant completely seriously])

Women’s studies, founded by feminism, contradict the criteria of factual science and objectivity. Partisanship and subjective feelings of consternation/(??)/concernment due to ideological attitude set up the domain. The same applies to other propaganda subjects such as gender, queer, black and LGBT studies. Even male studies were also founded with feminist premises and approaches, almost all other subjects were infected. In addition, feminist subjects disguise themselves with many creative names.

«This paper theorizes that one future pedagogical priority of women’s studies is to train students not only to master a body of knowledge but also to serve as symbolic “viruses” that infect, unsettle, and disrupt traditional and entrenched fields. In this essay, we first posit how the metaphor of the virus in part exemplifies an ideal feminist pedagogy, and we then investigate how both women’s studies and the spread of actual viruses (e.g., Ebola, HIV) produce similar kinds  of emotional responses in others. …

In doing so, we frame two new priorities for women’s studies – training male students as viruses and embracing “negative” stereotypes of feminist professors – as important future directions for the potentially liberatory aspects of the field» (Multidisciplin Journal of Gender Studies, Volume 5, Number 1, Hipatia Press)

The entire university, research and state system, as well as the public, were overwhelmed by this anti-scientific method, infected, and transformed into breeding grounds for their feminist ideology virus. Since then, the state, schools, universities and research institutions have been producing the virus of feminist ideology that has been hammered into their heads, instead of objective science.

«The inclusion of personal concern into the research process is an indispensable element of feminist science. The same holds for the principle of partiality

Conscious partisanship is thus the social and, as it were, politically turned dimension of concernment. It creates a closeness through similarity with the other woman or with other women …

Autonomy

The basic principles of concernment and partiality result in demands for feminist research itself, namely the demand for autonomy …

Feminist family sociology as partisan science, lived openly, will not fade away on the political level.

The connection to the women’s movement, especially autonomous women’s research and practice … is indispensable.» (Brigitte Brück et al., Feminist Sociology, 1997)

Radical, partisan propaganda, which tears apart all connections between the sexes, fights and disenfranchises men, is not a fancy new aberration, but a central principle since its foundation, operating with massive government funding and support.

«This basic framework was formulated by Maria Mies in 1977 in the “Methodical Postulates for Women’s Research”» (Christa Damkowski, Psychology Today, September 1988)

These are (unfortunately) not excesses of individual extremists, but basic principles on which the ideology is based, as well as their campaigns, their approach in all areas of society, especially feminist-minded pseudo-research in all subjects that are distantly related to people.

«Maria Mies’ “Methodical Postulates for Women’s Research” (1978) provided the scientific-theoretical foundations.» (Vera Konieczka et al., Feminist Science, p. 11)

Feminist literature makes it clear how important methodological postulates such as those of Maria Mies for feminist “science” and methodology have been and continue to be as the “basis”; for terms, approaches, questions, methods, the whole feminist building is based on such postulates and false feminist presuppositions. This is also confirmed by academic feminist writings from 2010:

«Christa Müller

Partisanship and concernment: Women’s research as a political practice

… Maria Mies, a professor of sociology at the Cologne University of Applied Sciences, now emeritus, formulated methodical postulates for women’s research. As Andrea Baier (1996: 142) writes, they are regarded as the undisputed starting point for the German debate on methods and methodology in women’s research

Maria Mies also sees her own involvement in social movements as knowledge generating … Here, the sociologist follows the Maosian epistemological paradigm that the essence of a phenomenon can only be recognized if and by changing it.»(Handbook for Women and Gender Research: Theory, Methods and Empiricism, edited by Ruth Becker, Beate Kortendiek, VS Verlag Springer Fachmedien, 3rd edition 2010)

Such anti-scientific postulates, methods, wrong assumptions and twisted approaches underlie feminist-influenced ‘research’, no matter what the subject is called, whether women’s research, feminist ‘science’, gender research or gender studies. New names will be added.

«feminist sciences, which are named either as feminist research, women’s research or, since the 1990s, gender studies. Their emergence and development cannot be separated from the political movements at their respective times. Especially the so-called new women’s movement (Lenz 2009) acted as an initial spark for feminist sciences in the 1970s and later as a pacemaker. The same applies to queer-feminist sciences.» (Handbook Qualitative Research in Psychology, edited by Günter Mey, Katja Mruck, 28.9.2010)

So it doesn’t help to want to partially distance yourself from the wrong prerequisites and methods decades later, but to leave the scheme of lies based on it.[2]

Entire generations have been infected with such ideological science, “sensitized” in their gibberish.

«If women make their own subjective concern as the starting point and guideline for their research, then they are first sensitized »(Contributions to feminist theory and practice, 11, 1984, p. 11)

Such subjectivity can prove everything and the opposite of everything, especially if the following postulates are observed:

«Methodological postulates

  1. The postulate of value-freedom, neutrality and indifference towards research objects – the most important yardstick for objectivity so far – is being replaced by conscious partiality»(contributions to feminist theory and practice, 11, 1984, p. 12)

Today, activist pseudo-research of that type has spread to many areas.

Partly because of partiality, partly from unconscious, innate, cavalry-like skewness, my books from the 1990s, from which these quotes and evidence are taken, were ignored by the media and the public, as was my literary account of the problem and female electoral power since the 1980s.

«3. The contemplative, uninvolved ‘audience research’ is replaced by active participation in emancipatory actions and the integration of research into these actions» (contributions to feminist theory and practice, 11, 1984, p. 13)

In medicine, even double-blind studies are used or prescribed, in which even the doctor does not know, whether he is administering a placebo or a medication, so that imagination (subjectivity) can have no effect on the course of the patient, the study and the resulting statistics. Because even if only the doctor knows what is in his hand, an unconscious transmission is possible, which leads to false statements about the effectiveness of a drug. The combative interference described was a widespread feminist model that explains their claims as well as the weird ‘statistics’ used to back up such campaigns and claims. The theoretical statements are in no way follies of a few extremists. Instead, they are basic motives and an accurate description of how feminism originated and which methods it’s based upon. The entire humanities have been infected by it. Note, the word ‘qualitative research’ is used as a euphemism, which means completely zero-quality subjective feminist insinuations:

«Social Research Methods
Alan Bryman (p. 403)
Feminism and qualitative research

A further dimension that could have been included in in the section on ‛Some contrasts between quantitative and qualitative research’ is that, in the view of some writers, qualitative research is associated with a feminist sensitivity, and that, by implication, quantitative research is viewed by many feminists as incompatible with feminism. This issue was briefly signposted in Chapter 2. …

The notion that there is an affinity between feminism and qualitative research has at least two main components to it: a view that quantitative research is inherently incompatible with feminism, and a view that qualitative research provides greater opportunity for a feminist sensitivity to come to fore. Quantitative research is frequently viewed as incompatible with feminism for the following reasons.

  • According to Mies (1993), quantitative research suppresses the voices of women either by ignoring them or by submerging them in a torrent of facts and statistics.

[Remark: What a cruelty to let go of facts on feminists, who perceive their preferred gender as a victim in a subjective navel gaze!]

  • The criteria of valid knowledge associated with quantitative research are ones that turn women, when they are focus of research, into objects. This means that women are again subjected to exploitation, in that knowledge of an experience is extracted from them with nothing in return, even when the research is conducted by women (Mies 1993).

[Note: Because of feminist empathy disorder, men are never seen as victims, although they are at least as much, or more, affected by such practices. Apart from that, there is no science when objectivity is replaced by subjective feminist partiality. Even if feminist women do the research, that’s not feminist enough for them. Here anti-science and subjective humbug are raised to the norm.]

  • The emphasis on controlling variables further exacerbates this last problem, and indeed the very idea of control is viewed as masculine approach.

[Note: Controlling the variables is a prerequisite for being scientific. Otherwise there could be many other causes for appearances than the assumed one. Refraining from controlling the variables means charlatanism, propaganda humbug or esoteric spinning.]

  • The use of predetermined categories in quantitative research results in an emphasis on what is already known as consequently in ‛the silencing of women’s own voices’ (Maynard 1998:18).

[Note: Not only is the absurdity of feminist principles unbeatable, but they also build on the opposite of the facts. Indeed, there is an empathy gap for men, as evidenced by modern evolutionary biology, because women are inherently preferred in our perception, which was and is one of the real causes of feminism. Male losers have always been silenced, but not women. Feminism has silenced the voices of men for generations with systematic oppression, as I document in censorship chapters of all of my nonfiction books. In contrast, early feminist voices have been published and preserved by men since the Middle Ages. Conversely, feminists try to systematically prevent uncomfortable books in advance, or to withdraw them from circulation, if they cannot be prevented. Today it has even become common to throw them out of libraries as ‘politically incorrect’. Others have been boycotted or stolen from shops.

Now to the categories: If it’s not clearly stated beforehand, what is being investigated, it is not research, but agitation, which invents itself categories, that best match its propaganda. If you don’t even know what you’re investigating, you can state anything. Arbitrariness and caprice are invited, when subjective minds subsequently invent or create categories.]

  • The criteria of valid knowledge associated with quantitative research also mean that women are to be researched in a value-neutral way, when in fact the goals of feminist research should be to conduct research specifically for women.

[Note: This is a commitment to unscientific as a method. It is also extreme sexism according to the feminist definition of this term. Even if we reject the term because there are natural, demonstrable differences between the sexes, feminists contradict themselves. The fact, that they explicitly call for research for women only (the privileged sex), already exposes feminism. Furthermore, their rejection of sex-neutral research reveals their unscientific partisanship.]

  • It is sometimes suggested, that the quest for universal laws is inconsistent with feminism’s emphasis on the situated nature of social reality, which is seen as embedded in the various social identities (based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, and so on), that are unique to individuals (Miner-Rubino et al. 2007).» (Alan Bryman, Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, 5. Ausgabe)

[The latter related to the quirk to deny universal laws, to think of everything as individually and socially constructed, just as new genders are constantly being invented.]

Feminists demonstrate that they are not only unable or unwilling to use scientific methodology, but deliberately pervert it to its radical opposite. Therefore, feminists are a danger to science, scientific methodology, objectivity and fact-based knowledge. Since they have infected a large part of the population with their collective hysteria, and in particular have seduced entire generations of women, feminism has been experimentally proven and made clear what great dangers feminist emancipation brings: The entire system of science is getting perverted into irrational ideology. It’s suicidal for a civilization to go this way.

«Skeggs (2001: 429-30) argues, that the political goals of feminist research led to a preference for qualitative research to ‘focus on women’s experience and to listen and explore the shared meanings between women with an aim to reformulate traditional research agendas’.» (Alan Bryman, ibid)

[Female sensations and the collective prejudice of feminist circles replaced scientific approaches. In fact, it is male losers (80 percent of men tend to be made losers by unrestricted sexual selection), whose experience is consistently disregarded by evolutionary mechanisms, and is additionally suppressed by feminism.] 

For decades, feminists have been fiddling with statistics they have faked. As early as the 1970s, Esther Vilar found that her opponent in the television debate, Alice Schwarzer, consistently used incorrect numbers of twisted statistics. It would be beyond the scope of this book to go into depth on this special topic.

«To produce the pattern of systemic discri­mi­na­tion against men (even as a by-product) and to repre­sent its un­der­lying pre­mise (…), ideo­lo­gi­cal fe­mi­nists have had to in­vent or re­fine se­ve­ral speci­fi­cally legal strategies. One type of stra­te­gy in­vol­ves de­fi­ning or re­de­fi­ning a pro­blem so that it has ideo­lo­gi­cal sig­ni­fi­cance and po­li­ti­cal power… But some of them ori­gi­na­ted in the emo­tio­nal con­fu­si­on of he­te­ro­se­xu­al re­la­ti­ons at a time of ra­pid change. To estab­lish these le­gal chan­ges as le­gi­ti­ma­te so­lu­ti­ons to bona fide prob­lems, fe­mi­nists have ex­ploi­ted am­bi­gu­ity in their de­fi­ni­ti­ons.
Even when quan­ti­ta­tive infor­ma­ti­on is avai­lable, though, it can be ma­ni­pu­la­ted. Some fe­mi­nists have used ag­gre­ga­ted sta­tis­tics, for in­stance, which have skewed the re­sults to sup­port their claims. Others have fa­bri­ca­ted sta­tis­tics. Even aca­de­mic fe­mi­nists have in­dul­ged in sta­tistics abuse by pub­li­shing false sta­ti­stics in pro­fes­si­onal jour­nals, of­ten spe­ci­alized ones that are ac­coun­table on­ly to fe­mi­nist edi­to­rial boards.
Having de­fined or re­de­fined prob­lems ideo­lo­gi­cally, the­se fe­mi­nists have had to get them on­to the agen­das of justi­ces and le­gis­la­tors. This goal has al­ways in­vol­ved the mo­bi­li­za­ti­on of re­sent­ment.» (Paul Nathan­son, Ka­the­rine Young, Lega­lizing Mi­san­dry: From Public Shame to Syste­mic Dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on Against Men)

Once put into the world, the false claims remain and stick in our mind, even after being refuted.

«But, as I have dis­co­vered over the years, among fal­se sta­tis­tics the har­dest of all to slay are those pro­mo­ted by fe­mi­nist pro­fes­sors.»[3] (Chri­sti­na Hoff Som­mers, Per­si­stent Myths in Fe­mi­nist Scho­lar­ship)

Anger and hysteria were then fuelled with false claims and extremely skewed vision; a model of the rage emerged.

«False Sta­tistics by Fe­mi­nist Groups Lead to Hyste­ria, Mi­san­dry»[4]

Often only women are examined; in this way it is systematically suppressed that men are mostly affected in the same way or more, which gives a fundamentally wrong picture.

If feminists are no longer able to remove the truth from their statistics, they remove the statistics. It should no longer be published, which contradicts their ideology:

«This goes beyond data being merely unavailable – statistics previously published are removed from the record! The Statistical Abstract of the United States, for example, used to publish a breakdown by sex of perpetrators of child abuse. Once men’s rights advocates publicised this, however, a government bureaucrat decided the world didn’t need to know that most perpetrators of child abuse are female. So 1992 was the last year they were published. (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992, Table No. 301).» (Pe­ter Zoh­rab, Sex, Lies & Feminism)

To falsify reality, feminists do not shy away from any hand-trick. Since the life expectancy of women is now on average several years longer than that of men, they (once again) move away from their principle of gender equality, and arbitrarily, at their own discretion, set a longer female life expectancy as a “target”, to extract the real difference from their data. It is no longer a question of comparing actual ages at the time of death, but ages with a gender-specific “target life” of their choice, which happens to be lower for men.

«First the UN Feminists did a statistical conjuring trick: They set an artificial maximum life-expectancy for women that was five years greater than men’s, and an equally artificial minimum life-expectancy for women that was likewise five years greater than men’s, then proceeded to “adjust” their raw data and make their calculations and rankings on that basis.» (Pe­ter Zoh­rab, Sex, Lies & Feminism)

**This article will be continued in Part 2.

Notes:

[1]     Evidence and basic arguments come from my manuscript “Les Deux Sexes – The Two Sexes” from the 1990s; at that time it was impossible to get such a project published.

[2]     Volume 5 “The Oppression of Men” uses sources of so-called men’s research, which formed against much feminist resistance in the slipstream of feminism and received little support, to show that even this faculty is firmly based on feminist principles. Thus, its approach does not get out of the closed feminist world view.

[3]     http://www.ca­tho­lic­edu­ca­ti­on.org/en/con­tro­ver­sy/fe­mi­nism/per­sis­tent-myths-in-fe­mi­nist-scho­lar­ship.html

[4]     http:­//patch.­com­/ca­li­for­ni­a/pe­ta­lu­ma/fal­se-sta­tis­tics-by-wo­men-s-groups-lead-to-hys­te­ria-mi­san­dry

Original Story on AVFM
Author: Jan Deichmohle
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
()

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *