Why the hell are we subsidising revolution, asks Jordan Peterson. Well, WELL? Why the hell ARE we subsidising revolution in the form of women’s studies departments that are anti-civilisation?
Peterson points out that these departments push false anthropology and that in order to ‘fix’ society they want to tear down the Western civilisation which they believe is oppressive and patriarchal. The revolution that would follow would be a nightmare.
And Peterson is not wrong, is he? Especially after this great find by @RealPeerReview. This paper in Multidisciplinary Journal on Gender Studies, Volume 5, Number 1, carries the article Women’s Studies as Virus: Institutional Feminism and the Projection of Danger. It tells us: ‘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 (eg Ebola, HIV) produce similar kinds of emotional responses in others.
‘By looking at triviality, mockery, panic, and anger that women’s studies as a field elicits, we conclude by outlining the stakes of framing women’s studies as an infectious, insurrectional, and potentially dangerous field of study. In doing so, we frame two new priorities for women’s studies – training male students as viruses and embracing “negative” stereotypes of feminist professors – as important future directions for the potentially liberatory aspects of the field.’ (Emphasis my own.)
This International Women’s Day we ask: should the taxpayer be funding women’s studies departments? What exactly are they teaching there, and will it benefit society?
