You might have heard the following: systemic oppression, institutionalized racism, glass ceiling, internalized misogyny, white privilege, toxic masculinity or similar wordly constructs, popularized by liberal politicians and activists. Where do they come from? Broadly speaking, the ideology called postmodernism, a neo-Marxist framework, whose core authors include Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, alongside a number of other French intellectuals.
A key component of post-modern ideology is that there are no truths, only interpretations. This idea is wildly appreciated among both radical feminists and transgender activists, pushing the idea of ''blank slate'', negating the idea that there's such thing as biological gender or biological differences between male and female body, indeed only what the person perceives matters.
Another key concept of post-modernism is that the reality can be ultimately be read as a power struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed. This bounces off traditional Marxist ideas, where the oppressor was the bourgeoise, while the oppressed was the proletariat. In post-modernism, Western societies are a power struggle between the oppressors, white, heterosexual, males, and the oppressed, non-white, lgbt, women. The entirety of Western democratic institutions including the legal system is the result of the oppressor's work, thus Western democracies are white supremacist, patriarchal and non-inclusive, the solution is to tear them apart.
This conceptual framework is taught in universities in the following disciplines: literature, anthropology, gender studies, sexuality studies, ethnic studies, cultural studies. The outcome of the academic research in these fields has given birth to the terms I listed at the beginning. Diversity and inclusion policies, now heavily pushed in both the academia and corporations are entirely based on the research stemming from this fields.
These are the ''grievance studies''. And they are all frauds.
3 academics (Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, left-leaning themselves, before the usual suspects try to paint this as an alt right conspiracy), tired of the insane climate in the academia, decided to create hoax studies, replicating the ideologically charged language of these fields and submitted them for peer-review and publication.
Out of the 20 hoax papers published, 7 were accepted, including 1 rewarded for ''excellent scholarships'' and another 7 were under review, before the Wall Street Journal found out what was going on and published the story, causing journals to retract the published papers and the remaining one to simply half the process.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-ne...mia-1538520950
The following papers are the ones accepted:
-Helen Wilson (pseudonym) (2018). "Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon".
-Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity) (2018). "Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding".
-M. Smith (pseudonym) (2018). "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use".
-Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity) (2018). "An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant"
-Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "When the Joke Is on You: A Feminist Perspective on How Positionality Influences Satire
-Carol Miller (pseudonym). "Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality"
-Maria Gonzalez, and Lisa A. Jones (pseudonyms). "Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism"
The third one argued that straight men were willing to date trans-people if they underwent a treatment of anal pentration with toys (!). The first one argued that rape culture could be observed in dogs and that treating heterosexual men like dogs, including leash, could be helpful to stop rape culture. The last one is simply a rewriting of Hitler's Mein Kampf, from a feminist perspective, replacing Jews with males. It was initially rejected because the author was a white feminists, and it was suggested it should include the intersectional perspective of a black feminist thus arguing against the oppression of white males, not just males.
This papers were submitted to prominent journals which adopt the post-modern framework to explain the world. Unlike standard scientific research, here the conclusion always predetermined: the oppression, the patriarchy, white supremacy or whatever else, is deeply ingrained in instutions, language, behaviour and people. As such, a non-white lgbt individual experience should be always valued above those of individuals belonging to oppressor categories, on the basis that they are privileged due to their race, gender or sexual orientation. To correct such privilege, positive discrimination is necessary.
Wiki link for your fun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair
Have you ever heard liberals bragging how the majority of the academia leans their way? Well, no wonders, this is what they do. A complete destruction of the peer-reviewing process and the scientific method (which btw is also white supremacist according to these studies).
While the majority of this ideological nonsense so far has been limited to humanities, there's a heavy pressure for intersectionality to be adopted in biology, behavioural science and mathematics. The authors have received enormous support by fellow academics, but the majority of them prefers to remain anonymous out of fear of being reprimanded by the diversity and equity officers of the academic administration and have their career ruined.
So, how do we stop liberals from destroying human knowledge? Is it too late for Western universities?
--------------------------------------------------------
edit: as an example of the pressure on natural sciences to push this nonsense
CERN recently adopted a diversity and inclusion policy as well. They run a conference to explain the alleged benefits of gender diversity, one of the physicists actually checks the data, concludes there's no discrimination against women at all and that the whole argument is bogus; remarks: ''physics was invented by men, it's not a club by invitation''. Outcome: usual liberal freakout, he's suspended from CERN.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45709205
A top tier physicist with over 42k citations suspended because he demonstrated that gender barriers in his field are a myth.