You and I, dear reader, have seen scores of lousy papers in Nature, and its subsidiary journals, over the years. The proportion of these science stink bombs is increasing, as we know.
And will accelerate. On purpose. By design. Because of toxic femininity.
Mixed, of course, with sloth, greed, effeminate masculinity and woke with its strong urge to DIE. All must DIE: Diversity, Inclusion, Equity. Incidentally, ever notice that Diversity, if the word is taken at its English definition, is the polar opposite of Equity, such that it would be impossible to achieve both simultaneously? It’s because Diversity means, not what it means in English, but Uniformity. Which is identical to Equity, the minimum entropy heat death of all things. Skip that.
Toxic femininity is the unchecked-by-male-complementarity behavior of women who demand all things be about feelings. Where all other matters are made secondary, and put in forced subservience to emotion, the most powerful motive force of females. A force which is no bad thing, of course. Unless it becomes the only thing.
To prove this, I offer you “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans“, a peer-reviewed entry in Nature Human Behavior, by a lady who insists science become the valet de chambre to emotion.
This urge is not wrong in itself. There is no morality, or direction in science. That means what to study, and what use to make of studies, is not scientific: both facets must be decided by considerations outside science. And one of these considerations can be emotion. But it can only be the chief consideration under toxic femininity.
So here is our lady warning about secondhand research, exactly like how they warn secondhand smoking kills as many, or more, than firsthand smoking. Secondhand research, she says, might cause “stigmatization of a vulnerable human group” even worse than firsthand research. We know who these noble Victims are when she uses the terms “racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic”.
Now one thing woke toxic femininity is not is logical. We swim in arguments which are paradoxical or self-refuting, traits which would kill any normal field. Unless that field is emotion-based.
For instance, our lady condemns research that “assumes that a human group is superior or inferior over another simply because of a social characteristic”. One social characteristic is saying one group is superior because it is against hurtful research, and another group is inferior because it is not. You will lose yourself in that circle forever.
She says “Authors should ensure that writing is free from stereotypes or cultural assumptions.” Which makes it impossible to speak of any groups at all.
She naturally embraces gender madness and says there is no such thing as race, which would make “racism” impossible, and she hates “racism”.
None of that will be surprising to you. Maybe this won’t, either, but it is the key. She would not only ban future research that runs afoul of her rules, but she would “retract post-publication” prior research. This is the scientific equivalent of tearing statues down. Wait until you see demands classic papers be withdrawn.
Here are her main rules:
1. Content that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability, or other socially constructed or socially relevant groupings (hereafter referred to as socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings).
This, of course, is as circular as the first argument we met. But it also reveals how toxic femininity leads to Equality, the false belief that all are “really” the same. Except the evil few who say people are different. Another self-refuting argument.
Number two is the first argument above. Number three follows from it:
3. Content that includes text or images that directly or indirectly disparage a person or group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings.
Can this follow from the emotional demand that no longer can there be such things as fat or ugly? Weight doesn’t matter and all are beautiful. By definition.
4. Submissions that embody singular, privileged perspectives, which are exclusionary of a diversity of voices in relation to socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings, and which purport such perspectives to be generalisable and/or assumed.
This is the strict emotional enforcement of DIE. The only exceptional person or group is that person or group who says there are exceptional persons or group.
As we saw yesterday, our lady’s rules will be a great boon for scientific output. For doing research her way, where the answers are known in advance, makes everything easy.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.