Feminist Science: The New Science

“Oh, feminists, what hath you wrought!?” I ask myself with wringing hands and a voice echoing into heaven’s depths. “What are you screwing up this time!?” So, what has feminism done now in order to create a fictional world of oppression whereby feminists are conveniently needed to set right the world’s wrongs? Feminist science! Man, I kid you not.

Sara Giordano, an individual with a PhD in neuroscience, left that natural scientific field and waded into the murky waters of feminism, opting to teach “women’s studies” at—wait for it—a university in California. Her reason? Traditional science is racist colonialism and needs to change. This stuff writes itself, no? Now she wants to teach feminist science.

Before I get into wiping the floor with the nonsense of feminist science, can I be so bold as to steal a few minutes of your day so that I might tell you what I despise most about modern feminism? It’s not their lies about patriarchy or rape culture or, even in this case, racist white science; it’s that they have blatantly stolen the black victims’ playbook in order to treat victim cults like Fortune 500 companies in free-market capitalism. It’s nothing but parity, whereby feminism is simply parroting the sh*t black victim cults have been using for years.

We need examples, don’t we?

Okay, how about the wage gap? The same shoddy polling tactics were used by feminists to create the mythical wage gap that were used by black victim cults decades ago to cite racial discrimination in employment. Just like the black cults left out criminal history, lack of work experience, and a lack of education to make it look like America was just racist against them, feminists also cooked their books by leaving out data like age ranges, education, what women are willing to work vs. men, etc. The black folks did it first; the white feminists just culturally appropriated the tactic. (This is actually a great example of what feminist science will produce.)

How about those old rape polls going around universities? (More feminist science!) Feminists used them to claim 20% of all women were raped, so be very fearful, ladies, because you’re living in a rape culture and it’s not a question of if you’re a victim, but when! This same style of self-reporting pollster trickery was used to gauge how many black people felt like white people were racist against them, back in the day. As you might imagine, when you poll a willing victim with a grievance, you’re going to get your desired result.

Feminists are basically just creating an identical victim cult, stealing the same methodology black cults once used, in order to achieve their more-equal-than-equal status. I guess when you call it feminist science, though, you’re giving it more of a shield.

Now let’s get into the meat of the matter.

Sara Giordano is a Lunatic

This professor, who we’ll call a “feminist,” because that’s how she describes herself—or itself, or zeyself, I’m not sure—flat-out says that “Traditional science is racist [and] embraces scientific illiteracy.” Wow. Feminist science is the answer, people, because basic science has apparently failed us.

Scientific illiteracy. For serious? She couldn’t be more ironic if she got paid for the effort. Wait a minute… she’s a feminist studies professor. I’m pretty sure that’s what she gets paid for anyway.

She said that science has “earned its epistemic authority through its co-constitution with colonization and slavery” and that it “relies on a colonial and racialized form of power.” She then goes on to say that science has somehow drawn a distinction between “humans and non-humans” thus allowing “capitalism” to become “justified as a natural economic system.”

First: No! Science has earned its epistemic authority by actually working! The scientific method is the best we got, for any and everything. That’s why it has authority, you dullard. Feminist science will just tell us how first-world women are bigger victims than girls raped in Pakistan.

Secondly: Okay, like all Marxists, she tipped her hand. She couldn’t keep her Marxism out of her spam literature, and she thus lets you know that this is 100% about yet another professor in a western university filling their students’ heads with flowery imagines of communism that don’t involve breadlines and mass murder but rather an iPhone in every pocket and the evaporation of the white man from society.

But this isn’t an article picking communism apart. I have a few of those in circulation, and explain unequivocally how these “communists” are really just capitalists, only they’re pretty sh*tty at it.

This is about her claims that science is somehow inherently “white” and thus racist, relying on colonialism; and how we need feminist science now.

The first thing I have to say about this: This is yet something else she stole from black people! I’m not even joking. Black college students in South Africa started this science-is-a-colonial-hoax nonsense a couple of years ago, where they begged to do away with teaching Newtonian gravity in favor of teaching about voodoo curses and targeted lightning strikes through magic spells. I’m not even joking a little bit about this. Giordano has simply stolen from black victim cults, yet again, and has sought to use market parity to get some attention for her Marxist drivel.

Black student uses iPad to show how colonial science is fake

That does say a lot about the Marxist message, does it not? If Marx actually made economic sense and was viable, these professors wouldn’t have to hide these messages inside of a broader context of barely legible nonsense. You wouldn’t need to create nonsense like feminist science to create warfare; we’d line up to embrace it if it worked.

This nonsense is what passes for intellectualism these days. When achieving a degree in neuroscience, one has to be familiar with disciplines like chemistry and biology and other natural scientific disciplines which focus on the neurosystem. This means color-blind objective data. It’s numbers on a page, not a white face in a book. Not one bit of feminist science, I guarantee it.

Their entire argument, these people who believe science is colonialism and racist, is that it was started by white men and is therefore for white men. Okay. If that’s the case, Sara, stop driving your car. Automobiles are white racism! Stop using your computer. The interwebs is colonial! Never again use indoor running water, a toilet, a toothbrush, soap, eat processed food, drink your coffee in the morning, watch television, or about 99% of anything else you do, because these western staples all have white men at their roots.

The great thing about the natural sciences is that there is no ideology in them. You don’t use ideology to create a working model of the world. You left objectivity for something purely subjective, Sara. You walked away from a field that required one to be only about real data and decided to plop your lazy ass down in a field that cannot survive without subjective nonsense and special pleading. You left actual science to try to be a pioneer of feminist science.

Dafuq is your major malfunction? 

I have two degrees in biology. Other than learning a bit about Darwin as a re-introduction to evolutionary biology, all the rest of the course—all the taxonomy and anthropology and geology, etc—was all about objective data. These data had numbers, not faces; they had numerical values, not melanin counts. And this is precisely why the argument that science is “colonial” or based on “slavery” fails. It’s because it’s not about the person performing the science, but rather the science itself. Feminist science won’t magically make things change here; it will just make them more biased and less useful than most social sciences we have now.

Science is methodology; it’s essentially a method by which to gather, test and further knowledge. When you create a theory in science, you’re creating something very impartial. You cannot inject any ideology into a scientific theory, lest you don’t have a scientific theory but rather a postulate. A theory, in a scientific context, is the highest form of proof under mathematics, and you create working models of utility; you model reality with the theory. In other words, you come up with an idea. You make sure it is testable and falsifiable. You then flesh this out into a hypothesis, a method by which you will test your initial postulate. Every step along the way, you need factual data, not ideology. Believing in white supremacy isn’t going to get you anywhere! Then, after you test your hypothesis, it graduates to a theory if it tests accurately, or gets knocked back to the postulate stage if inaccurate. But at no point along the way does anyone’s skin color or ancestors or grievances—real or imagined—come into play.

A theory in feminist science would basically be: “Men are rapists because we feel like they are,” full stop.

There are two things about Sara that strike me the oddest, and one thing that doesn’t.


  1. Sara undoubtedly uses, every day of her life, her iPhone and her car and her computer, and other gadgets that were created by the scientific method. I defy her, or anyone, to point to even 1 part in 1 billion in these methodologies that were darkened somehow by someone’s ideology. Even if the guy who created the first automobile was an insane racist, that had nothing to with the science behind the internal combustion engine. It’s f*cking ridiculous.

  2. Sara should know these things! She has a PhD in neuroscience! This leads me to believe she didn’t actually have to understand the science to achieve it. They passed her along because she was a woman (a lesbian woman by her haircut), and more women are needed in STEM. That she abandoned the field for the softest liberal arts imaginable actually gives this credence. Hey, I won’t let my ideology get into it though. Here’s my postulate: She received unearned degrees because of who she was, and she left the field after realizing she wasn’t smart enough to do the stuff professionally. Do you see how this works? I can be anti-feminist, but in order for this to flesh out, this testable, falsifiable postulate will work as a hypothesis based on objective data, not what I feel. Unlike feminist science, whose functionality relies only upon feels.

Not Odd:

  1. She’s a Marxist. Surprise, surprise! Marxists are charged with creating this sort of tumult. They seek to start quarrels and to create discord until which point classes are warring with one another. It’s how they hope to spark a revolution. So, I hope readers will forgive me for not getting more into the objectivity of science. (She doesn’t even make an argument; honestly!) It just so happens I don’t believe that she believes the nonsense she’s spouting. She’s just trying to vex people and buckle people with insurrection, which hopefully spreads out like ripples in a pond, because she’s an unabashed Marxist and wants to create that sort of class warfare.

These people, Sara and those black South Africans, always lose me when they spout this sh*t. They’ll preach as sincere as anyone you’ve ever heard that science should be rejected, objectivity is based on colonialism and white racism and oppression, so we need to rethink things through a black or feminist approach. But then in the middle of their discussions, they’ll pull out their phones or iPads and visit Twitter. You can’t make this sh*t up!

No doubt any college teaching feminist science would require every self-respecting female to have the latest iPhone.

Are they not smart enough to realize that the same scientific method they’re decrying is precisely what built the gadgets on which they lead their comfortable first-world lives? So, Sara, colonial science is fine for your automobile, your Starbucks cappuccino maker, and the car you take to work, but it’s not good enough for your students to use without you calling it biased? Feminist science is much better… because reasons.

These people are too transparent!

Truthfully, I’m highly disappointed. When I read a snippet of this from Milo’s site, Home of the Gayboi, I read that Sara was a legit neuroscientist and had an education! So I thought she would make a scientific argument about why “science” was rooted in colonialism and needed to be redirected to a “feminist” point of view. The fact of the matter, however, is that she doesn’t even make an argument. She doesn’t make an argument at all.

She simply blurts out, through bare assertion, that science is a product of colonialism because history, and shows zero examples of how anything white or racist has tainted science. Then inserts that we need feminist science. She’s really just trying to create some buzz as a Marxist, and it’s plain to see.

I am curious about one thing, however. I mean, we know what “black” science in Africa is going to be. The black kids there have stated clearly that they wish to replace colonialism-influenced science by tribal magic spells. They’re legitimately serious about this. They believe in voodoo lightning curses while believing gravity is some trick white people are playing on them. But what is feminist science, I wonder? Sara doesn’t state anything about it. She just speaks about taking a feminist approach to knowledge.

Well, I suppose this will entail no longer teaching science to children if a male was involved in the theory or the production of a product, particularly a white male. They’ll just be teaching about female scientists and talking about how to defeat patriarchy.

Feminist science degrees will be as hard to achieve as your willingness to agree with Sara that boys drool, girls rule. 

For years many people have been claiming that failed Marxists wiggled their way into universities just to brainwash children and push their own socialist propaganda, thus messing the children up and ensuring that they’re spending thousands of dollars to learn absolutely nothing. Thank you, Sara, for pulling these folks out of the realm of conspiracy fog and into the light of day as great oracles of our time.

Your lunacy shines a light on just how f*cking dangerous Marxists can be! Maybe McCarthyism was a good thing. Sure, he was a white man, but you wouldn’t be allowed to spread this bullsh*t at least.

On a final note, I challenge anyone reading this to give me one example of how someone’s race or ideology can color a scientific theory or change objective data. Sara apparently didn’t learn this in around ten years of college, but science doesn’t work like that.

Marxists are terrible people.

Facebook Comments

About the Author

Brian Hendrix
Brian is a regular contributor to Halsey News. He has more than 20 years experience in Media and Publishing. He can be reached at brian@halseynews.com or on Twitter @kekkitchen