Washington Free Beacon
That the scientific method and zoos are sexist, that menstrual periods are a social construct, and that Pilates teaches white privilege are just a few subjects of gender studies papers that inspired the biggest hoax since the Sokal affair.
It did not take James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian long to get their fake paper that claimed the penis is "conceptual" and causes climate change published. A reading of over a dozen gender studies papers provided to the Washington Free Beacon by Lindsay makes it easy to understand why.
"We, like many, have been seeing stories and examples of ridiculous papers coming out of the far-left activist wing of academia, fields like gender studies, women's studies, and so on, based upon what's sometimes called ‘critical race and gender theory' or ‘radical constructivism,'" Lindsay said.
"As many did, we strongly suspected the feminist glacier study was a hoax," Lindsay said. "But the journal and author stood by it."
Lindsay said he and Boghossian decided after the feminist glacier study that it was plausible to hoax the gender studies field, as Alan Sokal did in the 1990s. Sokal successfully submitted a paper that claimed gravity is a social construct.
Lindsay, a scholar and author, also said they witnessed many examples of gender studies proponents bullying other academics skeptical of their work, mostly by accusing their critics of racism and sexism.
"Thus we thought a hoax might be worth doing, not just possible," he said.
"Eventually, we settled on the idea that the penis isn't real, but that it causes all of our worst problems," Lindsay said. "By tacking on the popular idea from radical constructivism that pretty much everything is a social construct, we were off to the races."
Aside from the gender glaciers study, Lindsay pointed to dozens of examples of papers published in respected journals that sound like hoaxes, but are in fact real. The Twitter account @RealPeerReview highlights outrageous examples on a daily basis.
Among the examples Lindsay cited included a paper published in a top-ranked gender studies journal last fall that claimed menstrual periods are a social construct.
"Despite a great deal of feminist work that has highlighted its social construction, menstruation seems a self-evidently ‘natural' bodily process," wrote Karen Ann Hasson, in her paper "Not a ‘Real' Period? Social and Material Constructions of Menstruation." "Yet, how menstruation is defined or what ‘counts' as menstruation is rarely questioned."
Questionable research in gender studies goes back decades. A commonly cited paper by Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman, "Doing Gender," was published in 1987.
West and Zimmerman call gender a "routine accomplishment," an "achieved property of situated conduct," and a "powerful ideological device."
"We contend that the ‘doing' of gender is undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production," they wrote.
Another paper published in the Women's Studies International Forum in 1995 claims the scientific method itself is sexist and needs to be changed for feminists.
Donna M. Hughes wrote about a need for a "feminist critique of the scientific method," because science is "sexist, racist, heterosexist, and classist."
"Biological determinism has long been shown to be sexism, racism, and heterosexism at work under the guise of science," she wrote. "The objectivity of science has long been suspect or rejected."
Betsie Garner and David Grazian borrowed from West and Zimmerman for a paper published in 2016 that claims zoos are sexist.
An alligator's sharp teeth reinforces "hegemonic norms of masculinity" to boys, according to Garner and Grazian, who scold parents for engaging in dangerous stereotypes in conversations with their children at the zoo.
One example derides a mother for telling her child that it is surprising that the male peacocks are the ones with the "pretty, bright feathers."
A dad is rebuked for calling a white bear a "little sissy" for not running and jumping, "demeaning the bear as too weak and feminine to uphold masculine ideals of agility and drive," the authors write.
"The Essence of the Hard On: Hegemonic Masculinity and the Cultural Construction of ‘Erectile Dysfunction’" was cited by Lindsay and Boghossian in their hoax.
The paper, written by Annie Potts in 2000, argues that curing erectile dysfunction reinforces hegemonic masculinity.
"This article employs feminist poststructuralist discursive analysis to investigate the effect of the metonymic relationship between the penis and the phallus on the cultural construction of male ‘sexual dysfunctions,'" Potts wrote.
Another paper claims fat men's penises might not exist.
"Fat male sexuality: The monster in the maze," published in July 2016, argues, "fat male sexuality paradoxically doesn't exist" because of their depiction in the media. The first reference cited is Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, but lists the year 1992, instead of 1999, when the movie actually was released.
Other examples include donated blood is a social construction, how the Pilates exercises "Single Leg Stretch" and "Leg Circles" teach white privilege, and that male lactation is possible through social construction.
The article "The Lactating Man," published in May 2016, presupposes that the idea that "lactation and breastfeeding are typically viewed as inherently female activities," may be wrong.
Another paper published in April examines racism and sexism against squirrels using "feminist posthumanist theories and feminist food studies."
Yet another gender studies paper published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies in 2013 explores the "conundrums for masculine lesbians" due to "heterosexism and patriarchy" that forces expectations of pregnancy on women.
Wikipedia is also sexist, because it "excludes and silences feminist ways of knowing and writing," claims another paper. The federal government has also invested in this topic, spending $202,000 to find out why Wikipedia is sexist in 2013.
Syllabi used in STEM courses are also sexist, according to one paper that urges science professors to use "less competitive teaching methods and grading profiles that could improve the experience of female students."
Lindsay said the most alarming paper he has encountered was published last year.
The paper, written Breanne Fahs and Michael Karger, favorably compares feminists to viruses like HIV and Ebola, who should infect other fields of scientific study with liberal ideologies.
"The truly scary papers are the ones from radical constructivist schools that seek to replace science with feminist science," Lindsay said. "It's very concerning."
Nearly 15,000 students graduate with cultural and gender studies degrees each year.
The post Read the Gender Studies Papers That Inspired the ‘Penis Causes Climate Change’ Hoax appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Congressional Republicans are attempting to guarantee workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections and allow members to more easily opt out of paying for union political activity after seeing the Obama administration and Democrats block previous efforts.
Rep. Phil Roe (R., Tenn.), a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee introduced the Employee Rights Act, a bill that has previously failed to advance out of the House, on Thursday. Roe said that the it would serve to counteract many of the handouts given to organized labor by the Obama administration, including its revision of union election rules that sped up the timeline of union certification votes, while preserving the lengthy process for decertifying a union. The ERA would force unions to hold re-certification votes on a regular basis to ensure that they still had the support of current, rather than past, members.
"The rights of American workers were under attack during the Obama presidency, and it is time to restore those rights and work to foster a pro-growth, pro-employee environment," Roe said in a statement. "This legislation will ensure individuals’ rights are upheld when considering whether or not they wish to join a union."
The bill would guarantee a secret ballot election and broaden participation requirements to increase turnout in union votes before the National Labor Relations Board, the top federal labor arbiter that oversees union organizing campaigns. It would also reverse the current practice in which workers are forced to opt into agency fees, dues payments that cover only union representational activities and exclude political and lobbying expenses. Under the bill, workers would by default only pay for representation and would have to opt into participating in the union's political work. Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) said that such a measure would increase transparency about how dues money is spent and allow workers to hold union officials accountable for their budgetary decisions.
"The Employee Rights Act is critical legislation that establishes clear protections for America’s workers—to protect employees from union coercion, to have a secret ballot, and, if they choose to join a union, to know how their dues are spent," Wilson said in a statement.
Organized labor has opposed past iterations of the bill. The AFL-CIO called such legislation "a proposal that would subvert democracy and stifle working people’s voices."
The bill earned the praise of union watchdogs who have long advocated for reforms to the process of union organizing in the United States. Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts, said that the legislation represented the most comprehensive labor reforms in 70 years and would rebalance the scales of labor policy in favor of workers.
"Labor law is rigged in favor of union leadership against the interest of its own members. Union elites have grown unresponsive to their members, trampling their workplace rights to maintain power," he said in a statement. "The complicity and silence of Democrats in denying employee rights is embarrassing."
Heather Greenaway, spokesman for the Workforce Fairness Institute, said that the legislation fell in line with President Trump's message of prioritizing workers over the interests of employers and union officials. The move toward a secret ballot election would prevent businesses from agreeing to card check organizing, in which labor petitions replace an actual vote on joining the union.
"This legislation represents the interests of workers and protects them in workplaces across America by respecting their right to choose or reject labor representation," she said in a release. "We strongly encourage members of the U.S. House to seriously consider supporting the Employee Rights Act and working to expeditiously advance the legislation."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that leaks from the Trump administration to the press remain an "issue" and a "problem" which could pose a threat to U.S. government sourcing.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Schiff was asked about recent reports that Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to President Trump and his son-in-law, considered setting up a communications line between the White House and Russia during the transition.
"Leaks are an issue," Schiff said. "They're an issue for every administration. They certainly are an issue for this one."
"If this material is accurate, these allegations are accurate," continued Schiff, "it represents another serious leak, and that's a problem."
Several prominent Democrats, as well as former Obama administration intelligence officials, have publicly agreed with Schiff that the leaks are an issue.
Schiff went on to explain that some leaks could be potentially damaging to national security.
"There've really been a couple categories of leaks, one that have potentially disclosed sources and methods," he said. "Those are the most troubling, because it could dry up very important information for the U.S. government."
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called leaks "damaging" and "corrosive" Sunday on "Meet the Press," saying the issue is particularly serious now due to U.S. reliance on foreign intelligence partners.
Earlier on the program, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly slammed the series of leaks coming out of the Trump administration, particularly the intelligence leaks from the investigation into last week's Manchester concert terror attack.
Kelly told host Chuck Todd it was almost treasonous, leading Todd to ask Clapper if he agreed.
"I have to say that leaks are damaging," Clapper said. "They're corrosive. They risk compromising sources, methods and tradecraft. As we've seen recently, they damage relationships with crucial partners. UK and Israel come to mind. This is particularly serious now because, in my experience–50-plus years in intelligence—I don't know of a time when we've depended more on friends and allies for sharing information and intelligence, particularly with respect to terrorism."
"I know Secretary Kelly takes this quite seriously, and he should," he added. "Legal definition of what's treason? I'll leave that to the lawyers, but just from a practitioner's standpoint in the intelligence business, leaks are bad."
United Kingdom officials were angered over the leaks from the Manchester probe, temporarily suspending intelligence-sharing over the incident. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson apologized and President Trump announced that the responsible party would be punished.
The post Clapper: Leaks Are ‘Corrosive,’ ‘Damage Relationships With Crucial Partners’ appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in an interview airing Sunday that nothing keeps him up at night, but he keeps others up at night.
At the end of a lengthy interview on CBS program "Face The Nation" on the variety of threats facing the United States, host John Dickerson asked Mattis "what keeps you awake at night?"
Without skipping a beat, the Pentagon chief replied, "Nothing, I keep other people awake at night."
This is in keeping with Mad Dog's overall Beastmode style.
The post BEASTMODE: Mattis: Nothing Keeps Me Awake at Night But I Keep Other People Awake at Night appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had a hard time answering Sunday if Hillary Clinton should run for president again in 2020.
Appearing on CNN's "State Of The Union", Emanuel waffled over the question, ultimately insisting that Clinton "has to decide whether that's in her heart."
Clinton ran and lost to Donald Trump in 2016 in a stunning political upset. She delivered a commencement speech at Wellesley College on Friday, and she took several shots at Trump, including comparing him to Richard Nixon, who ultimately resigned from office.
"If Hillary Clinton is up for another presidential run, would that be a good thing for your party?" CNN anchor Dana Bash asked.
Emanuel was not quick with an answer.
"You know, look, you're asking something that—we're not even first through the midterm election. She hasn't even declared, for me to say that—" he started.
Bash pressed him, but Emanuel insisted that the question was "not a good question."
"You know, I love you," said an increasingly flustered Emanuel. "It's not a good question. OK? So the question is, it's not a good question."
"Why not?" Bash asked. "She sounded like she could be a candidate again. Would you think that's a good idea? You're a party leader."
"I happen to love Hillary, and I think she's full of energy," Emanuel said of Clinton, who was recently overcome by a coughing fit while delivering a commencement address.
He then went on to explain that it didn't matter what was in his head, but rather what was in her heart.
"And I happen to think there's a lot of time between now and the presidential [election], and she has to decide whether that's in her heart," he said. "We have a lot of time between now and the presidential election of 2020. Hillary has a lot to offer. The core question is not whether I think she would be a good candidate. It's whether she wants to run."
"Because," he concluded, "at the end of the day, the public's pretty smart. And if it's only going through the motion, don't pick that up."
The latest in the series of leaks from the White House are "outrageous," according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, and even "darn close to treason."
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was forced to apologize for intelligence leaks from the investigation into Monday's suicide terror attack in Manchester, according to CNN. United Kingdom officials temporarily suspended intelligence sharing as a result.
Kelly's comments came after British Prime Minister Theresa May reacted angrily to the leaks ahead of a NATO meeting which both she and President Trump attended. In response, Trump promised to bring the resources of the Justice Department to bear on finding and prosecuting leakers.
"Fox News Sunday" Host Chris Wallace quizzed Kelly on the Manchester leaks, pressing him on how and why the administration faced such persistent problems.
"How was this kind of sensitive information leaked to the New York Times," Wallace asked, "and General, why is it that, whether it's politics or terror, our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement agencies can't keep a secret?"
"It's outrageous," Kelly said.
For his part, Kelly acted immediately to engage the British.
When I called—immediately after the attack, I called my counterpart in UK, offered my condolences," he said. "She rightfully and very graciously accepted the condolences, and leaned into me on this leak."
"It's outrageous," Kelly repeated. "I don't know why people do it. It jeopardizes not only the investigations, but puts people's lives in jeopardy."
In claiming as much, he echoed the sentiments of Democrats like Sen. Chris Coons (Del.) and Rep. Terri Sewell (Ala.), as well as former Obama intelligence officials like former CIA Director James Brennan and former DNI James Clapper.
"I don't know why people do it," Kelly said, "but they do. And that's the world we live in."
In a separate interview on "Meet The Press," Kelly addressed the issue again, saying it was unacceptable and possibly treasonous.
"When you leak the kind of information that seems to be routinely leaked—high, high level of classification–I think it's darn close to treason," he said.
UPDATE: 11:54 A.M.: This article was updated with video and comments that Kelly made on "Meet The Press."
The post Kelly Slams Manchester Intelligence Leak: ‘It’s Outrageous,’ ‘Darn Close to Treason’ appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said he "might" ban laptops in the cabin of all international flights into and out of the United States during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."
That bit of intelligence became part of a Washington firestorm this month when reports broke that President Trump shared highly classified information about Islamic State plans to use laptop explosives on airplanes with Russian officials in the Oval Office.
Kelly tersely responded, "I might," when host Chris Wallace asked him if he was planning to institute such a ban.
"There's a real threat," Kelly said. "There's numerous threats against aviation. That's really the thing that they're obsessed with, the terrorists, the idea of knocking down an airplane in flight."
Wallace asked him when he would make a final decision.
"We're still following the intelligence," Kelly said. "The very, very good news is again we are working incredibly close with friends and partners around the world … We are going to raise bar for, generally speaking, aviation security much higher than it is now, and there's new technologies down the road, not too far down the road that we'll rely on. But it is a real, sophisticated threat, and I'll reserve that decision until we see where it's going."
The post Kelly: We ‘Might’ Ban Laptops in Cabins of All International Flights appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.