Posts

Feminist Geology? Sexist Cancer Treatment? A Look Into What Colleges Teach Kids

Cogent, a prominent, peer-reviewed academic journal, recently published a paper entitled “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” The paper was published in the “Social Sciences” section of the journal alongside many prominent feminists and gender scholars.

There’s one big problem: the paper was a hoax. It was intentionally written to make no sense. The authors, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, wrote in a follow-up article on their own website that they themselves don’t even understand what they wrote.

“Assuming the pen names ‘Jamie Lindsay’ and ‘Peter Boyle,’ and writing for the fictitious ‘Southeast Independent Social Research Group,’ we wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of post-structuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We made no attempt to find out what ‘post-structuralist discursive gender theory’ actually means. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.”

It is impossible to exaggerate how nonsensically the paper was written.

“Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, ‘can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility’ (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer’s intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as ‘toxic hypermasculinity,’ is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).”

In the follow up, Boghossian commented, “No one knows what any of this means because it is complete nonsense. Anyone claiming to is pretending.”

Even better than the gibberish is the hysterical:

“Manspreading — a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide — is akin to raping the empty space around him.”

That sentence was clearly written for comedic effect. That the sheer absurdity of it was not a red flag for editors of the journal is astonishing.

That is by no means the extent of the comedic value of this paper. Throughout, the authors argue that the conceptual penis is “exclusionary to disenfranchised communities,” and the “driver behind much of climate change.”

Amazingly, despite the paper’s authors proposing that the conceptual penis causes climate change, the hoax paper was still published in a supposedly reputable academic journal.

The morals of the story are many, but primarily that women’s and gender studies must be reevaluated for quality and academic value.

Remember, Cogent is a prominent academic journal. “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” was published alongside the works of Ivy League professors and PhDs. Yet this babble was not out of place.

Here are some other examples demonstrating the lack of sanity in women’s and gender studies:

Breanne Fahs, a women’s and gender studies professor at Arizona State University, claims in a peer-reviewed journal that women should refuse the entire concept of sex in order to move society toward nihilism, anarchy and the destruction of the family:

“Using interview data with Cell 16 members, content analysis of early radical feminist writings, and theoretical and historical analyses of separatism, the piece argues that, by removing themselves from sexuality, women can take a more anarchic stance against the entire institution of sex, thereby working toward more nihilistic, anti-reproduction, anti-family goals that severely disrupt commonly held assumptions about sex, gender, and power.”

Donna Hughes, a women’s studies professor at the University of Rhode Island, once wrote an article for the Women’s Studies International Forum, in which she argued that the scientific method is a conspiracy to oppress women perpetrated by the patriarchy:

“The scientific method is a tool for the construction and justification of dominance in the world. The invention of statistics was a major methodological advance in the descriptive sciences causing a shift from descriptive analysis to mathematical analysis. The new methodological techniques were invented by men who were interested in explaining the inheritance of traits in order to support their political ideology of natural human superiority and inferiority.”

Maria Lugones, a professor of philosophy and women’s studies at Bighamton University, claimed in the feminist journal Hypatia that the concept of gender was a violent invention of the colonialists:

“Lugones argues that gender itself is a colonial introduction, a violent introduction consistently and contemporarily used to destroy peoples, cosmologies, and communities as the building ground of the ‘civilized’ West.”

Fahs and a colleague at ASU write in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Women’s Studies that the goal of women’s studies is to turn students into “human viruses” that infect other fields of study.

“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.”

It appears these “human viruses” have had some success in this spreading the “virus.” A group of professors at the University of Oregon wrote in Sage Journal that feminism is crucial to glaciology:

“Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”

This nonsense is indistinguishable from the hoax paper. However, feminist glaciology, although lacking sanity, is not an immediate danger to lives. However, women’s and gender studies is ‘infecting’ other fields as well, including the field where it will cause more damage: medicine. In the International Journal of Nursing Studies, the associate dean of studies in the Nursing department at University College Dublin writes that cancer treatment is sexist:

“I argue that there has largely been an uncritical endorsement of biomedical constructions of sexuality, rooted in orthodox sexology, with a dominant focus on sexual functioning and on sexual rehabilitation for women with cancer. Moreover, in this knowledge base, phallocentric heterosexuality over and above other forms of sexual expression is privileged, and the socio-political context of unequal gender power relations is largely excluded.”

Myra Hird, a sociology professor at Queen’s University laments in Sage Journal that a conference doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and other medical professionals focused on biology and medicine rather than feminist and queer theory:

“In accounting for the absence of feminist scholarship, I consider three issues. First, rather than highlight the social construction of gender through the social construction of sex, the conference revealed a persistent belief in `sex’ as the original sign through which gender is read. A second issue concerns the maturity hierarchy that clinicians seem to construct such that stable gender identification and `opposite’ gender desire appear at the apex. Finally, I am concerned with what seems to be a continued association of homosexuality with pathology.”

Spend any time at all in the world of women’s and gender studies and you will realize that the absurdity of “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” is not out of place. Unfortunately, this meaningless babble is not the exception in women’s and gender studies but the rule.

This is a problem. Women’s and gender studies is among the fastest growing fields in academia, with degrees conferred in the discipline increasing by 300% since 1990.

Eighteen-year-olds, most of whom don’t know any better, are being inundated with this rubbish in their college classes. They are being taught that the family unit is an evil construct, that acknowledging gender is violent, that mathematics, biology, ecology and all other fields of study must be subject to queer feminist critiques and reams of other destructive nonsense.

The university system will do nothing about this. The majority of presidents, deans and other higher education administrators ascribe to these post-modern, intersectional leftist absurdities, and the few who don’t are afraid to speak out.

This cannot be allowed to continue. Gender studies should be defunded. States should begin defunding these quackademic programs through the legislative process. Because these programs lack real world value, these programs will likely dissolve without government funds.

Seeing that this is unlikely to occur in radically leftist Washington State, there are other ways we can go about defunding these programs.

First, fight to implement school choice. Under school choice programs, the taxes that fund education will be allocated by parents to the education provider of their choice.

Once parents have the power over education rather than the government, parents will be able to effectively defund gender studies by redirecting their money away from institutions that teach such gobbledygook.

The other option is to put unceasing pressure on education administrators. If you are in college or are the parent of a college student, find out what your school is teaching. This goes for high schools as well. These ideas may originate at universities, but what is taught in universities eventually trickles down into high school.

If we don’t fight this, feminist glaciology and radical anti-family ideology will be coming to a school near you.


James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

FPIW ‘College Kids’ Video Featured on O’Reilly Factor, National Review

 

FPIW’s newest ‘College Kids Say the Darndest Things‘ video was featured Wednesday night on FoxNews’ The O’Reilly Factor. You can watch the segment with Bill O’Reilly and comedian Dennis Miller below:

The video then made its way to National Review Online, where columnist David French wrote, “…it’s hard to deny reality, but these students give it a valiant effort. And to think — this nonsense now has the force of law, sanctioned as objective “fact” by the Department of Justice. It didn’t take long for progressives to lose their minds.

Across video platforms, the College Kids Say the Darndest Things series has reached over 3 million people since mid-April.  You can watch the first episode (on identity) and second episode (on gender) below:

You can help us fund the next episode by clicking here: wafami.ly/1OtsOX2.

‘Disturbed’ UW Grad Student Angry Over FPIW Video

 

Last month, I interviewed some students at the University of Washington discussing identity in the context of the recent debate over bathrooms.  It was published in video form as College Kids Say the Darndest Things.  The response to this video has been diverse, as you would expect it to be.

Today, however, I received maybe my favorite response of all from someone named Katie W., who claims to be a graduate student at the University of Washington.

Here it is.


To Whom is [sic] May Concern,

I am a graduate student at the University of Washington. I recently viewed a video in which the director of your ‘institute’ interviewed students on my school’s campus and was extremely disturbed. I came to this website to read his bio and was further concerned by the work that he and this group are attempting to accomplish.

Perhaps you should take another view of your own video, 5’9 white guy, in an attempt to hear what these young people are trying to say about identity, their opinions are much more developed and thought out an than your fixed idea of how people are allowed to be.

I’m unsure if you have taken any kind of history class, or learned about how Western civilization has been developed, but white dudes like yourself have been attempting to control and fix identities for a pretty long time. And this video is a clear example of the anxiety they begin to feel when human beings push the borders of their attempted control.

I would encourage you to do some anti-oppression race and gender training, maybe led by someone who in not a straight white man. There are other people in the world that have allowed themselves to think outside your boundaries. Even though that gives you extreme fear, anxiety, discomfort, they still get to be alive, and surprise: their lives and being are still valuable.

The questions you pose in these videos deserve thought, attention, and reflexivity. The way you present the issue of identity is a reductionist attempt at control.

Signed,

Katie W.


The thing Katie and I agree on is that we were both “extremely disturbed” by what we witnessed, but for different reasons.

It appears that merely questioning the wisdom of logic that allows anyone to be whatever they want whenever they want is simply a “reductionist attempt to control.”

Apparently, this is what we learn in grad school.

FPIW’s Zach Freeman to Appear on BBC Northern Ireland

 

FPIW Communications Director Zachary Freeman will appear tonight on Nolan LIVE, a late-night talk program on BBC One in Northern Ireland.  The live broadcast will take place at 10:45pm GMT (3:45pm PT).

If you aren’t able to watch the program live, you can catch the segment following the broadcast on the BBC, and on our Facebook page Thursday morning.

Zachary will join award-winning host Stephen Nolan for a discussion of transgenderism, and give some insight into the first episode of FPIW’s viral video series, College Kids Say the Darndest Things.

 

FPIW’s Second ‘College Kids Say’ Video Launches with 15k views

 

The second episode in FPIW’s wildly popular College Kids Say the Darndest Things series launched Monday afternoon, just hours after the federal government inserted themselves into the battle between the unrealistic social justice agenda and biological science.

This episode, filmed near Seattle University, a Jesuit private school, asks college students if there is a difference between men and women.  Some of the answers are hilarious, bizarre, and alarming.  Is this really what our institutions of higher education are teaching?

If you want to be a part of creating culture-changing conversations, please consider helping to fund the next episode.

New FPIW Video to be Released Monday

 

The next installment in FPIW’s wildly popular College Kids Say the Darndest Things series will be released on Monday, May 9th at 7:00pm Eastern/4:00 pm Pacific.

The first episode of the series, which aims to generate conversation about some of the most pressing issues in our culture, has been played more than 2.1 million times in over 220 countries.  In the episode, filmed on campus at the University of Washington in Seattle, FPIW Executive Director Joseph Backholm asked students questions about identity; specifically, whether or not he should be able to identify as a 6’5″ Chinese woman. The answers he got were both hilarious and highly concerning. If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out here.

Screen Shot 2016-05-03 at 3.15.03 PM

Episode 2 was filmed near Seattle University, a private, Jesuit Catholic school located about three miles from the University of Washington.  In it, Joseph, a law-school alumnus of Seattle University, asks students about the difference between men and women.  Like in the first episode, the answers are hilarious, but also highlight the strange world view students are being taught by the academic establishment — both in secular and faith-based institutions.

Episode 2 will be screened Friday night at FPIW’s Annual Dinner, Beyond Football: An Evening with Steve Largent.  A limited number of tickets and sponsorships for that event are still available (click here for tickets).  

For continuous updates, be sure to follow @FPIW on Twitter.

College Kids Say the Darndest Things Hits 1.35 Million Views

 

Since its release one week ago, FPIW’s video, College Kids Say the Darndest Things: On Identity, has amassed over 1.35 million views on YouTube and Facebook.

It has been covered by a number of individuals and media outlets around the world: Washington Times, National ReviewRush Limbaugh, HotAir, TownHall, Breitbart, Allen West, Mandiner (Hungary), Christian News Network, College Fix, The HayridePatheos, Twitter).

In case you haven’t had a chance to see it, you can see the video and the transcript below.

 

Transcript

Joseph Backholm: There’s been a lot of talk about identity lately. But how far does it go, and is it possible to be wrong? We went to the University of Washington to find out.

Backholm, to student: Are you aware of the debate happening in Washington State around the ability access bathrooms, locker rooms, spas, based on gender identity and gender expression?

Student 1: I think people should be able to have access to the facility…

Student 2: I think bathrooms could and potentially should be gender-neutral because there doesn’t need to be a classification for differences…

Student 3: I think people definitely should have the ability to go into whichever locker room they want…

Student 4: Uh, I feel like at least public universities should try and do their best to accommodate for those who do not have a specific gender identity…

Student 5: You know, whether you identify as male or female and whether your sex at birth is matching to that, you should be able to utilize the resources…

Backholm: So if I told you I was a woman, what would your response be?

Student 6: (shrugs shoulders) Good for you, okay! Like, yeah!

Student 2: Nice to meet you…

Student 7: I’d be like…what? Really?

Student 8: I don’t have a problem with it…

Student 4: I’d ask you how you came to that conclusion…

Backholm: If I told you that I was Chinese, what would your response be?

Student 6: I mean I might be a little surprised but I’d say, like, good for you! Yeah, be who you are!

Student 3: I would maybe think you had some Chinese ancestor?

Student 4: I would ask you how you came to that conclusion and why you came to that conclusion…

Student 5: Um, I would have a lot of questions (laughing), just because on the outside, I would assume that you are a white man…

Backholm: If I told you that I was seven years old, what would your response be?

Student 6: (struggles to answer)

Student 3: Um, I wouldn’t believe that immediately…

Student 1: Uh, I probably wouldn’t believe it but I mean, it wouldn’t really bother me that much to go out of my way and tell you, “no, you’re wrong.” I’d just be like, “oh, okay, he wants to say he’s seven years old…”

Student 6: If you feel seven at heart, then…so be it, yeah! Good for you.

Backholm: So if I wanted to enroll in a first grade class, do you think I should be allowed to?

Student 1: Uh, probably…not, I guess? I mean, unless you haven’t completed first grade up to this point and for some reason need to do that now…

Student 6: If that where you feel mentally you should be then, I feel like there are communities that would accept you for that…

Student 4: I would say so long as you’re not hindering society, and you’re not causing harm to other people, I feel like that should be an okay thing…

Backholm, If I told you that I am six feet, five inches tall, what would you say?

Student 8: (long pause)

Student 5: Now that, I would question…

Backholm: Why?

Student 5: Because you’re not… (laughing) No, I don’t think you’re six foot five.

Student 3: If you truly believe you’re 6’5”, I don’t think it’s harmful…I think it’s fine if you believe that…it doesn’t matter to me if you…think you’re taller than you are.

Backholm: So you’d be willing to tell me I’m wrong?

Student 3: I wouldn’t tell you you’re wrong…

Student 8: No, but I’d say that I don’t think that you are…

Student 6: I feel like that’s not my place, as like another human, to say someone is wrong or to draw lines or boundaries…

Student 1: No, I mean, I wouldn’t just go like, “oh, you’re wrong and it’s wrong to believe in it,” because again, it doesn’t really bother me how you want to think about your height or anything…

Backholm: So, I can be a Chinese woman…?

Student 5: (laughing) Um, sure…

Backholm: But I can’t be a 6’5” Chinese woman?

Student 5: (long pause) Yes…

Student 4: If you thoroughly debated me or explained why you felt that you were six foot five, I feel like I would be very open to saying that you are six foot five…or Chinese…or a woman.

Backholm: It shouldn’t be hard to tell a 5’9” white guy that he’s not a 6’5” Chinese woman, but clearly, it is. Why? What does that say about our culture? And what does that say about our ability to answer questions that actually are difficult?

Closing slide: If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.

To request Joseph Backholm to speak at your event, please fill out our speaker request form.  

To support videos like these in the future, please chip in your support here!

Former Professor’s Warning About Nonjudgmental Students

FPIW received this letter from a former professor in response to our video, College Kids Say the Darndest Things: On Identity


Dear FPIW,

I’ve just seen your interesting interviews with “nonjudgmental” students at the University of Washington.

Your question about our ability to answer the questions that really are difficult remains up in the air, but I can tell you that people can’t deal with life-and-death issues even when someone’s life is at stake.

While teaching linguistics at a university in Michigan, I routinely had young damsels walking up to me after class from a group of 85 students to ask for personal advice.

One of them had been sleeping in the bed with a drug addicted boyfriend whom her parents had inexplicably allowed to move in when she was a teenager.  Now she wanted to get him out, but she couldn’t.  I gave her my best advice and the courage to kick him out. (More than courage, I gave her the realistic fear of how things may end up if he didn’t.)

Another one had become the “girlfriend” of a procurer and pornographer who took a class or two on campus so that he could recruit women for his operation. He had falsely convinced her he was “protecting” her from the sex industry, when in fact, he was following all the steps routinely used to break a woman into prostitution or pornography. At this point, he was at the step of trying to create an obligation that she could not earn enough in a normal way to pay back. I blew the lid off the whole thing for her and told her how to get away from the guy, which she did.

Now, the question is, why were these girls going to their professor with this? Why not a counselor or even a friend?

The reason, they told me, was that nobody in their lives, but me, would be judgmental.

Even when a young woman’s life was in danger, nobody did anything more than encourage her to clarify her feelings, and some even encouraged the one girl to discuss her concerns with the pornographer to find out how he felt!

So people now can’t make judgments even when it’s necessary.

Signed,

[Professor K.]


In case you missed it, here’s the video everyone has been talking about.

If you’d like to support more projects like the video series, shown above, please click here to link arms with us.

Joseph Backholm a 6’5″ Chinese Woman? College Students Affirm New Identity in Video

 

Can a 5’9″ white guy “identify” as a 6’5″ Chinese woman?

The inaugural episode of FPIW’s new series, College Kids Say the Darndest Things, asked students questions on the issue of identity.  Can someone identify as something that they are not?  And can they be wrong?

You can watch the hilarious, yet concerning 4-minute episode here:

If students can’t draw a line on an observable reality as simple as someone’s height, how can we expect them to discern truth from lies on issues that actually matter?

This new series, funded by generous donors in Washington, aims to educate college students and the general public on the importance of issues by considering the root implications of policies and positions, and not just taking cues from social justice rhetoric.

If you want to be a part of this effort, would you join us financially to make sure every student is exposed to observable, real, and undeniable truth?