With Painted Nails, Toxic Femininity Squeezes Science

With Painted Nails, Toxic Femininity Squeezes Science

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.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.


  1. Pat Cusack

    Your enemies are cunning; “they” hid in your last sentence.

  2. Robin

    Alas, poor Nature! I knew her, Horatio …

  3. Anon

    I would like to see a draft list of papers that will be immediately subject to post-publication retraction; furthermore, I would like to see the list of technological advances that need to withdrawn due to the publication of said papers.

  4. Hagfish Bagpipe

    Adam should have refused the fruit offered by his batty wife, given her a good drubbing, and begged God’s forgiveness. If he had done that, rather than acting low and gay and cucky like he did, then we might not be in such a pickle. Don’t blame Eve. It’s up to you, Adam.

  5. Hagfish Bagpipe

    *Begged God’s forgiveness for Eve’s transgression, not for giving her a good drubbing.

  6. Johnno

    Who is she?

    Find her and encourage her to get her next covid booster shot… And to continue doing so with increasing frequency as soon as she can.

    Emphasize how good it’ll make everyone feel, and reward her with social media accolades for doing so with effemminate flowery gushing praise. Then wait for nature to take its course.

    It’s safe and effective treatment… for what remains of science overall.

  7. Cloudbuster

    “Content that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, … superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on … disease …”

    So it is forbidden to suggest healthy is superior to diseased. I see.

  8. Cloudbuster

    …”socially relevant groupings…”

    How can these groupings be socially relevant if we are unable to remark upon the groupings?

  9. BDavi52

    How can we not love the demand that “content that directly or indirectly disparages” cannot be allowed?!

    Of course scientific content (content related to or generated by scientific research), in and of itself, disparages nothing. Images, in particular, are absolutely absent of even the slightest hint of disparagement. A picture of the corpse piles at Auschwitz — by itself — criticizes no one. It simply captures and records.

    Disparagement, always, is a function of the viewer as he encounters content (at least ‘scientific’ content which by definition does not say “X” is better or worse, superior or inferior to “Y”…only that it is different from “Y” in this or that quality).

    Given that absolute dependency — ANY content can be seen as ‘disparaging’ . And this means, of course, that NO content can be allowed because all content has the potential to hurt or offend someone.

    Safer and better to never say anything.

    Admittedly, yes, that kind of total prohibition makes scientific progress more difficult…but really, once you know all the answers already, who really needs ‘progress’??

  10. Cary Cotterman

    I can see Winston Smith sitting at his desk all day, going through piles of past scientific articles tagged for post-publication retraction, and dropping them into the chute to the incinerator below.

  11. C-Marie

    So Jesus Christ came speaking and teaching content that He knew would offend many, but then, since He is the Word of God, He could only speak the Truth whether He and the Truth would be accepted or not. And look at what that cost Him!!!

    God bless, C-Marie

  12. Inigo Montoya


    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my faith in institutions. Prepare to die.

  13. Jan Van Betsuni

    Originality (or) Diversity, Inclusion, Equality

  14. ray

    Hagfish Bagpipe: ‘Don’t blame Eve. It’s up to you, Adam.’

    Your doctrine of Blame The Male has been massively popular in the Western World over the past fifty years. Indeed, whole societies are now organized around destroying fatherhood and failing to hold women/wives/daughters responsible and accountable for outrageous and evil conduct. So much easier to Blame The Male . . . like everyone else does.

    Further, your advice not to ‘blame Eve’ for the femi-nazification of the Western nations is refuted by Paul and Scripture —

    ‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

    ‘But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    ‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’ (1 Tim. 2)

  15. C-Marie

    Interesting that 1 Timothy 2 is so absolutely clear that the woman was deceived and yet Adam was not deceived …. Adam knew full well what he was doing when he sinned, and that is why he carries the blame. He was with Eve when the tempter came and Adam understood and was with her throughout the whole deception.

    Re: responsibility ….. of men … of women ….

    And yet, who is responsible for the fertilizing of the woman’s egg, whether the man and woman are married to each other or not, which fertilization could not take place without the man, and which fertilization is the conception of a baby, which baby may well be murdered through abortion by the agreement of the woman, who is now a mother and the man is now a father, which goes to show that the gift of fertilizing ought to be guarded by men as a treasured gift from God, and the women guard their gift from God as well.

    God bless, C-Marie

  16. C-Marie

    Great movie, The Princess Bride, and the very best in sword fighting!!!

    God bless, C-Marie

Leave a Reply

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