Feminist Profs Claim Citing Sources Perpetuates “White Heteromasculinism”

Two feminist professors are claiming that citing established authors perpetuates “white heteromasculinism.”

You heard that right, college graduates: those four years you spent learning APA/MLA and getting reamed out for having bad citations was a waste.

That whole time you – yes you, bigot – were actually perpetuating the terrible white patriarchy your feminist friends have told you about.

Campus Reform reports that Carrie Mott, from University of Rutgers and her cohort Professor Daniel Cockayne from the University of Waterloo.

Together, the two wrote a report in  titled Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement’ in which they explain in detail how they plan to get people use citations as a form of anti-racist resistance.

This isn’t the first time Campus Reform has uncovered crazy liberal bias from professors either. Campus Reform actually reported on flyers at a college campus calling the MAGA slogan coded neo-nazi language.

Now, Campus Reform is reporting on a pair of feminist professors who are planning to mobilize the ‘politics of citation’ to help resist racism and the patriarchy.

Stop counting citations and start checking their levels of white heteromasculinism and wokeness.

Yet we also suggest, against citation counting and other related neoliberal technologies that imprecisely approximate measures of impact, influence, and academic excellence, citation thought conscientiously can also be a feminist and anti-racist technology of resistance that demonstrates engagement with those authors and voices we want to carry forward.

Campus Reform reports on the content of the article:

“To cite only white men…or to only cite established scholars…does a disservice to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism,” they argue, defining “white heteromasculinism” as “an intersectional system of oppression describing on-going processes that bolster the status of those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”

The authors claim that this oppressive tradition contributes to the “marginalization of women, people of color, and those othered through white heteromasculine hegemony,” asserting that “particular voices and bodies are persistently left out of the conversation altogether.”

Watch MILO explain why modern feminism is CANCER.

Campus Reform
Gender, Place & Culture

Facebook Comments


  1. Hairatic Rick

    July 14, 2017 at 3:07 am

    It true, cite established scholar do discriminate and “bolster the status of those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual” and not retarded. You can disregard the non word “cisgendered” for it is baby babble. Cis is Latin for before like cis montana or standing before the mountain. The feminist imbeciles think that cis means that you have not started being transgender yet. Trans montana means to travel across the mountain. It is not the end of the trip it is the action of taking the trip. Don’t let any of these fools call you that name. Funny how they demand that you call the snowflakes whatever crazy stuff they make up but they demand the right to call you the crap they pull out of their ass. ????

    • Margaret Price

      July 14, 2017 at 9:13 am

      Not knowing the meaning of the Latin they fling about like poo only underscores their idiocy. I had someone on a comment threat attempt to correct me when I called an unborn baby–gasp–a baby. They swooped in with, “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus.” to which I replied, “Fetus is Latin for offspring. It’s a baby.” They disappeared after that, which surprised me. I was expecting a reply along the lines of, “Shut up, you stupid head.” I paraphrases, of course.

      • Hairatic Rick

        July 15, 2017 at 4:19 am

        The At-left make up new words because they are to dumb to know the true meanings ????

        • Open Here

          July 25, 2017 at 2:53 am


          • Hairatic Rick

            July 25, 2017 at 5:20 am

            HA! Got me ????

    • David Watts

      July 14, 2017 at 10:48 am

      I refuse to use prefixes for anyone, especially myself. This pigeonholing of people by the most surface indicators, causing the prefix ‘to enter the room before they do,’ is the height of victim card-playing and lameness, IMO.

      • Sally

        July 14, 2017 at 2:51 pm

        Prefixes? Do you mean pronouns?

        • David Watts

          July 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm

          I was thinking more of putting anything in front of “American.” Asian-American, Afro-American, Unicorn-American, like that. But yeah: pronouns, too: cis-male, etc.

          • Sally

            July 14, 2017 at 9:41 pm

            Gotcha. Thanks.

          • Kristen Loomis

            July 15, 2017 at 2:20 am

            I identify as a unicorn princess and I need you to respect that and always refer to me as a unicorn or my feelers might get hurt and I’ll be forced to cry to other social media people about how you bullied me and denied my civil right to identify as non human.

            ….I almost kept a straight face while typing that.

      • Hairatic Rick

        July 15, 2017 at 4:16 am

        Indeed, same here.

  2. Robert A'Beuy

    July 14, 2017 at 6:55 am

    When SJW words don’t show up in dictionaries…

  3. Ya know,
    Science requires you to cite works that have been shown to be correct as far as they went in the examining a phenomenon and the data around it, along with the logical and rational deductions from that data. Even if you are countering the hypothesis of the work, you still cite it as a starting point.

    The race/gender/etc of the author(s) of the works you cite is irrelevant

    Unless, of course, you are a SJW and are just emoting a belief (or a screed, as I read here!) not actually being scientific. And that means any rational being will have to reject those beliefs if there is no evidence to support that belief.

    Not scholarly, just a SJW emotional rant.

  4. Raymond Cist

    July 14, 2017 at 9:30 am

    The liberals have run out ideas and now they just fling poop like monkeys and wait for something to stick.

  5. David Calvani

    July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am

    Anyone — absolutely ANYONE — who uses terms like “technology of resistance” and “intersectional system of oppression” is someone who can be dismissed as a crackpot.

    • David Watts

      July 14, 2017 at 10:50 am

      They shore do sound high-falutin’ and ed-ooo-cated when they throw them big words around, though, eh?

      • David Calvani

        July 16, 2017 at 12:53 am

        Only to themselves. :/

  6. Sir Nigel

    July 14, 2017 at 10:11 am

    Did anyone else notice that an objection to “white heteromasculinity” is being lodged by a Canadian with the word “Cock” in his name? You can’t make this stuff up.

  7. Ziggy89

    July 14, 2017 at 10:49 am

    And cis-normative and shit” and allkindastufflikethat

  8. Alan_McIntire

    July 14, 2017 at 11:03 am

    Is she “admitting” that white males are smarter that blacks and females, who, based on her argument,
    are too “stupid” to cite reliable studies to back up their arguments?

  9. ptjarz

    July 14, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    Idiosyncratically euphemistic eccentricities are the promulgators of triturable obfuscation.

  10. Ken Bishop

    July 14, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    Was it not Milo himself who argued that, now that we are all unprecedentedly free, we have to invent offences that don’t exist in order to nourish our sense of victimhood? “White heteromasculinism” doesn’t exist.

  11. A V_8000

    July 14, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    My head hurts

  12. Danlantic

    July 14, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    I can make a pretty fair guess at someone’s gender and ethnicity from the name. (Exceptions: George Elliot [woman] and Leslie Charteris [Chinese].) But how would I tell from the name if someone is cishet or able-bodied or rich.

    As for “economically priviledged” these wimmin better “check their privilege”. Being paid for writing such drivel is an example of charity, not work.

  13. misha1d1

    July 15, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    In other words, we are dumb asses and we don’t actually want to engage in actual research because we are to (expletive deleted) to do the actual work. Additionally, if we did engage in rigorous academic research, we may learn that out post-modernist, socialist agenda is entirely, well, bull shit. We can’t have that, so let us just make things up. Stupid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top