(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) A Colorado astrophysicist revealed herself as a leftist snowflake, claiming that her field of work is filled with white supremacy and sexism because other scientists dared to use “hyper-masculine” and “violent” language when describing stars.
In an interview with the college newspaper, Natalie Gosnell, an assistant professor at Colorado College, also claimed that she struggled to overcome the division between art and science that is rooted in “systemic racism,” according to the Daily Mail.
On her website, Gosnell claimed she wants “to cross typical disciplinary boundaries to create art-science pieces that re-inscribe outer space as feminist space.”
“Both artists and scientists are just observing things about the world, interpreting those observations, and then sharing their interpretation,” Gosnell said in her interview with the college newspaper.
“As an astrophysicist, I am a product of institutions steeped in systemic racism and white supremacy.”
Gosnell said that her fellow scientists, who are not beholden to woke dogma, use “sexist” and “racist” language to describe scientific phenomena, saying that how stars burn through their fuel and die is viewed through a “hypermasculine” lens and that these scientists use “very violent” metaphors to describe the phenomena.
As an example, she talked about how stars that take mass from other stars are labeled “bad boys,” probably referring to an article written by a popular science journalist — not a scientist — Nancy Atkinson in 2009.
“… blue stragglers [which] steal mass from companion stars by crashing into their neighbors’ are ‘stellar bad-boys,'” Atkinson wrote.
Gosnell said that she tries to combine art and science because the two fields are more similar than different.
“I think because science and art were so separate, and that’s how it is […] systemic questions within science, the often chosen metaphors [to discuss science] are very violent and hypermasculine,” she said.
“The tenants of white supremacy emerging [in physics] of individualism and exceptionalism and perfectionism… it’s an either-or thinking and there’s no subtlety, there’s no gray area. All of this is manifested in the way we think about our research and what counts as good research, what counts as important research.”
