What In The Fresh Hell Is This? Geographers Don't Want To Cite Any More Research From White Males?

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: Jul 17, 2017 3:30 PM
What In The Fresh Hell Is This? Geographers Don't Want To Cite Any More Research From White Males?

The progressive Left is scoffing at the recent poll number showing that 58 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning Independents find that colleges have a detrimental impact on the country. You can hear them now rehashing the GOP are anti-intellectuals arguments, which I’m sure allows these fragile beings to sleep soundly. Yet, given the anti-free speech antics of the college liberals, the nonsensical lectures about privilege, the cafeteria protests about food being culturally misappropriated, and safe space advocacy, you can see how the Right can feel this way. Also, it’s not like the faculty are—well—sane individuals. Sorry, that’s not the right word—they’re anti-intellectual. Like these two feminist geography professors who don’t want others to cite the research of white, straight males because it maintains the “white heteromasculinity” system. If you’re by copious amounts of alcohol, start drinking. If you’re not within reach of alcohol, these two will force you to start drinking heavily. What in the fresh hell is this?

Via Campus Reform:

Rutgers University professor Carrie Mott and University of Waterloo professor Daniel Cockayne advance the claim in an article published last month in the Feminist Journal of Geography, but also suggest that citation can serve as “a feminist and anti-racist technology of resistance” if references are chosen with the explicit intent of promoting “those authors and voices we want to carry forward.”

Mott and Cockayne say citation practices are an issue of scholarly concern because whether a professor's work is cited by other scholars has strong implications for hiring, promotion, tenure, and how “certain voices are represented over others” in academia.

“To cite only white men…or to only cite established scholars…does a disservice to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism,” they argue, defining “white heteromasculinism” as “an intersectional system of oppression describing on-going processes that bolster the status of those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”

The authors claim that this oppressive tradition contributes to the “marginalization of women, people of color, and those othered through white heteromasculine hegemony,” asserting that “particular voices and bodies are persistently left out of the conversation altogether.”

Yeah, for those of you following this progressive politically correct speech code; “cisgendered” is where the red flags should have gone up as a warning that this was going to be insane. The term pretty much means those who live their lives as the gender assigned at birth. And let’s cut the nonsense about this, there are only two of them. Count them: One. Two. That’s it.

Okay—so to be more intellectually well-rounded, we need to disregard other research from fellow geography scholars because “screw white people.” That’s sounds a bit strange. Second, I can say that as a person of color, I really don’t care.

If you forced me, let’s go by the numbers. My homeland is Asia. I was born in South Korea. Asians are roughly two-thirds of the world’s population, we inhabit the largest continent, and China and India are two of the most populous countries in the world, with the latter being the most populous democratic state. It’s the home for various tiger economies, like South Korea, which is one of the world’s preeminent shipbuilders, a trillion dollar economy, and part of the G-20. China is a huge trading partner for the U.S. and a massive economic titan in its own right. By 2050, India will overtake the U.S. economy. By 2030, or sooner, China will accomplish that feat (some have reported that it's already happened). Are you really serious that if we cite white, straight guys who probably have already discovered these very preliminary facts about just one part of the world that, uh, “white heteromasculine hegemony” will continue? If they don’t write about it, then they’re just bad academics, but please—facts are facts no matter who writes them.  In all, this is just an academic apartheid in reverse. No one should really care about who wrote the study as long as it has solid data. Is it accurate? That should be the only key criteria for citing a study. It just comes to show you the suffocating authoritarian qualities of American progressivism. They will make you care.