We remember that the CNRS caused general astonishment on the occasion of the controversy launched by Frédérique Vidal on “Islamo-leftism” at the university when it rushed to publish a denial as scathing as it was astounding: “ Islamo-leftism is not a scientific reality ».
The CNRS's mission is therefore to identify scientific concepts and those that are not. Evil tongues have not failed to point out that several events have unfortunately tended to invalidate the CNRS's doxa, and this continues to this day, with for example the support of certain left-wing parties for the CCIF or for Imam Iquioussen, or more recently the attacks against Florence Bergeaud-Blackler by academics visibly concerned with protecting the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention the triumph of Jean-Marc Rouillan among comrades fighting for pensions at the University of Bordeaux.
But none of this seems to have disturbed the quiet certainty of our CNRS. No denial has ever been published. One is tempted to draw a parallel with the theologians who condemned Galileo, but that would be a mistake: even Cardinal Bellarmine, a member of the Holy Office, had shown a certain flexibility in agreeing to consider that heliocentrism could be an admissible hypothesis.
In any case, the CNRS is far from having the same conceptual intransigence on all subjects. An article recently published in its journal gives an overview: " Giving the city back to women ».
How so? The city is forbidden to women? The reader eager for proof can only rush in: by what tortuous path does one arrive at such a conclusion? The demonstration is indeed implacable: for the CNRS, everything indicates that a global plan of domination and exclusion was hatched by men to drive out women, a bit like some would like to drive out cars that pollute too much today.
The explanation is clear: men have seized power. In the street, they harass women to the point of forcing them to hide. Besides, look around you: you won't see any. This situation stems from an omnipresent patriarchal culture, as the geographer Yves Raibaud, the scientific guarantor of this brilliant theory, explains without laughing. The exclusion of women, analyzes our expert, stems from a "male intimacy". Men have designed the city according to their needs, starting with their lustful needs because, if they have renounced the brothels of yesteryear, they have rushed to put massage parlors and billboards everywhere that outrageously exalt female nudity (vade retro satanas!).
In the city, therefore, everything is made for men, nothing for women. All the equipment is based on " on the ideal type of a citizen who would be an able-bodied white man "Women and minorities have nothing left to cry with but their eyes. The article does not mention Muslims, but this must be an oversight because we can well imagine that the city of white men is not made for them. The proof: we never hear the call of the muezzin.
This crazy theory adds an argument that is worth its weight in peanuts. Because our geographer has another thesis of his own: if men developed cycle paths, it is because cycling is an essentially masculine practice. You haven't thought about it, and yet it is logical: cycling is a guy thing!
When we discover this final argument, we are still seized by a doubt: has it not long been claimed that it is on the contrary the car that embodies machismo, this good old jalopy, supposedly phallic outgrowth of exacerbated virility? We are lost in conjectures: if the bicycle is macho, is the car feminine? Then Karl Popper's old thesis comes back to mind: when a theory is capable of explaining everything and its opposite, it is probably because it has no scientific value. But would it be possible that the CNRS, holder of past and present Truths, could go astray in promoting non-scientific theories?
