@maxdancona,
The hard sciences are different in significant ways.
1. Hard science aren't integrally entwined with a political ideology.
2. When people challenge the dominant paradigm, and have data to back it up, people are excited. They don't hide the data. I dated a woman who was studying the atmosphere of Mars, they discovered that the stratification completely defied the current models. They didn't hide this data, they celebrated it (and it turned into a large amount of grant money).
3. Data rules. We take it as a given that faster than light information transmission is impossible. If someone was able to break this limit... we wouldn't be threatened by it. It would upset much of what we understand of Physics. People would be very skeptical at first, but they would rush to test it... and if it held and was reproducible it would be celebrated.
I was disappointed when Pons and Fleischman didn't pass muster. I wasn't surprised, but it would have been much cooler to see the paradigms of Physics change. If cold fusion could have been reproduced reliably it would have been accepted in spite of the fact it breaks the current paradigm.
Data is what matters in hard science, not ideology. (Of course science is not perfect in terms of funding and prestige etc., but if someone has the data to back up her finding and it can be reproduced, their idea will prevail.)
This hoax is built on the idea that if you get ideology right, academic feminism will accept it no matter how ill-supported it is.