Common sense and logic are clearly no longer requirements at colleges and universities if the idea behind this student’s master’s thesis is anything to go by.
Essentially, the student claims scientists are sexist for their observations of nature — observations just about every other human on earth has made over the millennia, too.
Ylva Jonsson, who studied rural development as a master’s student at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, published her criticism of science magazines in the 2017 thesis, “Nature is full of rapists.”
If that title doesn’t give a clear enough idea about where her politics are, Jonsson wrote in the study’s abstract that she analyzed a popular science magazine with “a critical conception of ideology.”
Critical theory is the postmodernist, neo-Marxist idea, often peddled by college professors, that emphasizes critiquing every aspect of society, culture — even science itself — from a sociological framework.
One of the most prominent negative effects of this pervasive ideology is the increasing number of people becoming “transgender” and claiming that biological sex is meaningless.
A similar idea is peddled by Jonsson’s thesis, which suggests that the representation of animals in science magazines legitimizes “the division of human sexes.”
“The result shows that the division of human sexes is made legitimate in Illustrerad Vetenskap (the publication Science Illustrated) by presenting animals as carriers of the ‘natural’ sex roles at the same time as presenting the animals as similar to humans,” Jonsson wrote in her abstract.
She seems to be ignoring that the “division” of human sexes (as well as animal sexes) is actually legitimate.
Women can give birth and nurse a child. Men cannot do those things. These are natural differences and biological fact, present at the birth of every human baby.
However, this seems to be a problem for Jonsson.
Master’s thesis concludes science magazines are sexist because they present female animals as the ones with the main responsibility for nursing offspringhttps://t.co/0VMkHrpgLW pic.twitter.com/tiwzQumg7T
— Yeyo (@RealYeyoZa) November 29, 2018
“Further, the female animals are presented as less willing to participate in sexual activities, less active and less rational then (sic) the males, and with the main responsibility for nursing offspring,” Jonsson wrote.
Jonsson is upset that science magazines are telling the truth that female animals often have role that are quite different from those of the males.
These roles are not made-up social constructs. They stem from real biological differences between males and females, including the ability to nurse offspring.
Fortunately, some social media users have a good deal more common sense than the authors of master’s theses that question the blindingly obvious.
Checkout some of the reactions to Jonsson’s criticisms. The backlash was a blast.
— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) December 3, 2018
i like the fact s/he claims that humans are a separate category from other mammals and not subject to the laws of nature… this embarrassing work of fiction is the product of paranoid delusion not an intelligent mind… swedish academia is totally politicised 💩
— RobbieReindeer🎄🇬🇪🇳🇿🦌 (@ropata) December 3, 2018
Biologists are NOT assigning human gender roles to animals. They are NOT personifying them. Instead, they recognize natural and necessary differences in the sexes and draw insight into human behaviors from the animal wild. This thesis has it backwards. Also, men don’t have milk.
— Josh Wilson (@_JStizzle_) December 4, 2018
Fortunately, nature does not read scientific magazines or theses.
— KGroveTX (@kgrovetx) December 3, 2018
“Master’s Thesis”? I’m already triggered by the use of the word “Master”.
— madeofmistake (@madeofmistak3) December 3, 2018
Under postmodernism, reality itself is rejected, as seen in Jonsson’s thesis.
Radical leftists and the higher education institutions that craft their twisted ideology have strayed completely from common sense.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.