Should We Still Cite the Scholarship of Serial Harassers and Sexists?

Article here. Excerpt:

'Here’s a question we haven’t asked about structural sexism in academe: Do we still keep citing the scholarship of serial harassers and sexists? Within their institutions, they may finally get the fate due to them (or not). But their citational legacy will live on, sometimes even in the form of the pro-forma citations that reviewers expect to see in a manuscript, and ask for if they don’t.

And for those men whose academic sexism hasn’t risen to the level of actionable correction, and very likely won’t — while they continue ignoring female scholars and belittling their work on a daily basis — their reputation overall will remain clean. A serial sexist is unlikely to cite the work of female scholars, but if he is a predominant voice in your field or subfield, there is no way for you to avoid having to continue to build his academic reputation through citations, even if you would like to avoid doing so.'

Like0 Dislike0


When Europe Christianized it went on a rampage of destroying works of all kinds penned by non-Christians, specifically pagans. Books by Jews and Muslims were OK because those too were Abrahamic religions but anything penned by a polytheist was burned. That is how the Dark Ages took hold.

A more recent example: Nazi Germany. Works written by Jews were banned. This included tons and tons of academic and scientific work. All of Einstein's work for example was censored. This set back the Germans years in development of the atomic bomb. As a consequence the US developed it first. But as it turns out we didn't need it. As Hitler had also banned Jews themselves, about 1/6 of Germany's potential army was murdered or driven out of the country. Germany was beaten conventionally and as fast as it was arguably because by the time he was done excluding potential recruits because of their heritage or whatever else he probably had excluded at least 1/3 of the men he could have drafted to fight for him. An ex-German officer after WWII once observed, "You know you are going to lose when you start shooting your own men." In the case of Hitler he had started that even BEFORE he actually went to war.

Banning people and their contributions to all manner of things because you don't like their very identities as human beings or the fact that they have done or said something you don't like is a fairly short-sighted approach to the matter of what constitutes useful information. The banning of works, citations, etc., because of WHO the information came from is a great way to set back whatever effort you have that relies on that information for who-knows-how-long.

The Dark Ages lasted something like 1000 years, right? THAT's how long you can be set back.

Like1 Dislike0

feminists have promised for decades that women can do anything men can do. 'a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle', and dozens more sayings that come straight from a Marxist's mouth, or pen as it were. problem is, they can't, and they really do need men. still, feminists need to deliver to keep getting billion$ in gov handout$. men must be pushed out if women are to ever take over. out performing men certainly didn't work. shaming men only had marginal, and devastating effects for a while. false accusations and fluid accusations that could be anything, like sexual harassment, are getting old and could soon result in a lot more women meeting mr. REAL equality in the courtrooms if they continue. some countries are finally developing laws against false accusations by women. so what's left? destruction of all things male. its like blacks destroying everything 'racist', which is whatever they don't like or have been told is racist. its working w/ blacks, it worked against jews, heck, its worked pretty good throughout history. so hey, let's destroy everything male. when we eventually revert back to living in caves, I guess men will be expected to build a fire, kill food, and protect women and children, again.

Like1 Dislike0