By Keyster
“A recent study suggests women are better than men at everything!” We’ve been barraged with these articles for decades, to the point we’re numb to them. But they serve an important purpose in the feminist propaganda campaign. The messaging, if repeated often enough through the fog horn of the mainstream media, becomes the de facto truth. And the fact that a “study” comes from a “Sociologists of Science” department of an accredited university means it must be “scientific” because of something called “peer review”. Let’s trace the path of the peer review process at a given higher educational institution.
Professors who want to ascend in the ranks (and pay scale) of their employer, reaching the ultimate level and security of “tenured”, are expected to do more than just “profess” or teach. They’re also expected to research or study something in their field, write about it and get it published in a related journal. Before any submission is to be considered however it must first pass through a gauntlet of “referees” or peers for review. This is typically, but not always blind, or having the name of the researcher hidden. The publication editor will have a list of “go to” peer reviewers that she will send the research to. This process alone can take as long as several years and sometimes stall indefinitely, as the peer reviewers receive no credit for reviewing and have no incentive to prioritize doing it. Should the research material reach certain “agreeable” conclusions consistent with their views and be written and formatted in the recognizable style of a certain colleague, this may serve as an incentive for the peer to read it and comment on it in a more expeditious fashion.
Each discipline handles this process differently and abides by different standards, but because “Social Science” is considered science it’s deemed just as credible and yet subject to more interpretation at the same time. It’s determining facts from the vagaries of human psychology, not a neat logical formula; not to mention the researcher’s own biased approach. But the end game here is getting published, no matter what it takes.
So the first test for the erstwhile Associate Professor looking to score points for advancement is getting past his Department Head. He proposes, let’s say, a study to research that women consistently practice diverse levels of standards in mate selection. His hypothesis being this is physical and cyclical in nature; some for sexual encounters and some for monogamous life commitment. The Department Head’s misogyny meter immediately starts to click and she challenges exactly what he’s trying to conclude with this research. (ANYTHING that might present women in a negative light must be scrutinized!) She stonewalls him for months until finally he catches her in a weak moment, perhaps even charms her, while laying out a strong argument to fund and begin this research. Perhaps she’ll openly support him in the interest of helping along his own career suicide. “He obviously doesn’t understand WHAT he’s dealing with.”
He conducts his research over a year, through surveys, lab studies, brain scans, interviews, etc. and concludes that women are attracted to different types of men depending on where they are in their estrus cycle. YIKES! Is this really something important to the gender studies portion of “social science”? Well, it’s never been done or at least published and the evidence is rather conclusive, if not ground breaking. After some initial protest and internal wrangling he’s able to submit his research for publication, probably having to submit a protest to the Dean and step on some toes to do it. This is then passed on by the editor of “The American Journal of Social Sciences” to a pre-selected group of social scientists from Universities and Colleges around the country that specializes in “gender science” for their review. Upon perusing the research their first question might be “What department head in her right mind allowed this misogynist research to take place at all, let alone fund it? Heresy! There’s a traitor in our midst!” They may even call around to find out who the perpetrator of this so called “research” is.
Make no mistake, if it makes women appear to be women rather than equal to or better than men, it will be stalled in review indefinitely, if allowed to proceed at all. And if it is, it will be picked apart as “falsely conducted”, “incomplete” and so forth. The editor will have no choice but to return the research as not passing peer review and therefore not meeting the standards for publication. No publication, no promotion. No publication, no feminist biased mass media to release it as a “story”, complete with journalistic freedom to editorialize and expert analysis from feminist pundits; not that they’d even consider going with it on the slowest news day of the year, unless it wreaked of another “you go grrl” moment.
This my friends is why the social sciences academic research and studies regarding men and women (and many other things that don’t fit the narrative), CANNOT be trusted for accuracy and honesty in any form. Whether it is domestic violence, parenting, math skills, in the workplace, equal pay, rape, etc.; because it will be tainted with bias from the femocracy that controls the Social Science Departments of every school across our land. They’re the worst kind of scientist; the kind with a preconceived agenda, corrupted by ideology and having an axe to grind.
