Feminist Geographers: Citing White Men is Racist and Sexist
Published : July 21, 2017
What, you ask, is revisionist scholarship? It’s refusing to cite white male scholars when doing academic research, because such citations contribute to “whiteheteromasculinity.” Or, so say two “feminist” professors of geography. And what is “feminist geography?” Feminist geography is the lame attempt by gender and race obsessed professors to impose a completely irrelevant lefty social construct on a quasi-scientific academic discipline so that the pseudo-science becomes ever more political and altogether less scientific.
Carrie Mott of Rutgers University and Daniel Cockayne of the University of Waterloo make the absurd argument in the academic journal Feminist Journal of Geography, which is ironic because Cockyane is not only a white male himself, thereby dooming his own essay to the feminist ash heap, but his very name is also feminist trigger-bait, assaulting woke women everywhere with its aggressively phallic connotations. The very fact that you have an academic journal devoted entirely to feminist geographies is indicative of how thoroughly leftist sociological approaches have mutated across the humanities, social sciences, and even the hard sciences (search for “feminist biology” and “green chemistry” on the internet sometime).
Mott and Cockayane state: “In this article we contribute to this literature by considering citation as a problematic technology that contributes to the reproduction of the white heteromasculinity of geographical thought and scholarship, despite advances toward more inclusivity in the discipline in recent decades. When it is predominantly white, heteronormative males who are cited, this means that the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds. 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 a that topic.”
Modish academic preening like this contains within its skewed methodology the seeds of its own unmaking. The idea that the race, gender, or sexuality of the researcher determines the validity of the argument is, of course, a particularly myopic and anti-intellectual kind of charlatanism that wouldn’t be accepted or promoted by campus tolerance factories if parsed any other way. And as this failed and bigoted humanities research paradigm encroaches upon the sciences, the consequences are potentially devastating for the scientific method.