Wednesday, March 05, 2008

A feminist babbler will lead Harvard College

Evelynn Hammonds, a black postmodern feminist science-hater, was chosen to lead the Harvard College.

During the anti-Summers witch hunts, this pseudointellectual was the chairwoman of the "Women Task Force" - the Feminazi Inquisition - and one of the main people who forced President Summers to throw USD 50 million out of the feminist window. Whenever I heard her speaking at the FAS faculty meeting, I was really down.

In her "scholarly" work, she has criticized science as an industrial tool of the evil straight white males to oppress the sexuality of the nice black female lesbian people: see e.g. her masterpieces "Black (w)holes and the geometry of black female sexuality" or "Conflicts and tensions in the feminist study of gender and science".

In the physics title above, you could also replace "l" by "r" in the second word.

She has also co-authored articles arguing that the doctors shouldn't be allowed to look at race when they try to cure their patients. Her work is a textbook example of the postmodern trash whose worthlessness was demonstrated by Alan Sokal, among others.

I personally find it outrageous that people of this kind are awarded degrees these days. But when this woman becomes the dean of a college of one of the most famous universities in the world, expected to control all of its undergraduate education and to be even able to integrate the feminist studies into the curriculum, we might start to be afraid that the situation has become irrepairable.


  1. I think it is good to see a african-american women move up in the world. However, the desire to see equality does not excuse complacency.

  2. Debates and Issues: "The content of science is also hostile to women, from the biological research programs that suggest gender inequality ... to the metaphorical identification of scientific inquiry with male sexual conquest."

    Notwithstanding my female acquaintances for whom "male sexual conquest" is reportedly a desired element of coitus, nor my presumption that success in business, engineering, politics, or indeed any human endeavor would find a welcome (even less strained) analogy to that brutish affair, it is fundamentally offensive to any gender studies program to suggest e.g. Newton (or Noether) is driven by a need to compensate for sexual inadequacy.

    To identify thinking with vicarious rape shoots feminism in the foot. I wish the author would see one is not quite so terrible as she believes.