To the first part, knowledge as a collection of facts is subjective, so the statement "the most subjective academic fields" is already false. The humanities long ago realized that the meaning of statements like "line A intersects line B" depend heavily on implicit assumptions about what you mean by 'lines' and 'intersect'. And even when the math used is unambiguous, the communication and interpretation of it is always done by a human with cultural biases that are liable to make "straight Euclidean line" the unspoken default. The only time it's objective is when the expert is communicating to other experts with the same contextual biases.
To the second part, the humanities are fond of condemning a system that perpetuates systemic violence. That rich white men benefit from
and created it is a historical - and in the most abstract discussions, coincidental - fact. It's only human nature to be uncomfortable with criticism of a system that's done you no harm or done you well. But the political humanities are concerned with you to the degree that you refuse to acknowledge or take action against this system. The white male is the byproduct of a historical examination, not the starting point.
