Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

An interesting experiment??!?

9 replies

WomanDictionaryDefined · 15/10/2018 15:07

areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

Our paper-writing methodology always followed a specific pattern: it started with an idea that spoke to our epistemological or ethical concerns with the field and then sought to bend the existing scholarship to support it. The goal was always to use what the existing literature offered to get some little bit of lunacy or depravity to be acceptable at the highest levels of intellectual respectability within the field. Therefore, each paper began with something absurd or deeply unethical (or both) that we wanted to forward or conclude. We then made the existing peer-reviewed literature do our bidding in the attempt to get published in the academic canon.

This is the primary point of the project: What we just described is not knowledge production; it’s sophistry. That is, it’s a forgery of knowledge that should not be mistaken for the real thing. The biggest difference between us and the scholarship we are studying by emulation is that we know we made things up.

OP posts:
HirplesWithHaggis · 15/10/2018 15:11

I thought it was fascinating. And funny. And scary.

WomanDictionaryDefined · 15/10/2018 15:23

I think this needs publicity, bring back science and evidence based fatcs!

OP posts:
FermatsTheorem · 15/10/2018 20:41

Oh I skim read this - very, very interesting read. Sort of Sokal scandal amped up to number 11 on the dial.

Materialist · 15/10/2018 20:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BoomBoomsCousin · 15/10/2018 21:32

It’s problematic, driven to a large extent by funding concerns at universities. But is isn’t just social sciences that are in trouble. Science has a growing problem with credibility because of lax journal standards, the tendency to prefer publishing positive results over negative ones or repeated studies and the way a lot of statistics based results, especially in the medical field, can be gamed by doing lots and lots of studies and then only publishing the positive ones.

So, while I agree that journals and academia need to improve, I don’t think it’s necessarily a good thing to put too much store in this particular attempt to discredit. The system is, afterall, designed to treat writers in good faith not to try and second guess whether they are being assholes. And the criticisms that this study encourages are ones frequently aimed a legitimate studies and efforts to highlight the difficulties women face.

donquixotedelamancha · 15/10/2018 22:49

They got papers accepted and published on:

That dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and a place of rampant canine rape culture and systemic oppression against “the oppressed dog” through which human attitudes to both problems can be measured.

That it is only oppressive cultural norms which make society regard the building of muscle rather than fat admirable and that bodybuilding and activism on behalf of the fat could be benefited by including fat bodies displayed in non-competitive ways.

That it is suspicious that men rarely anally self-penetrate using sex toys, and that this is probably due to fear of being thought homosexual (“homohysteria”) and bigotry against trans people (transphobia).

That men frequent “breasturants” like Hooters because they are nostalgic for patriarchal dominance and enjoy being able to order attractive women around.

And accepted, but not published before the press rumbled them on:

That academic hoaxes or other forms of satirical or ironic critique of social justice scholarship are unethical, characterized by ignorance and rooted in a desire to preserve privilege.

A rambling poetic monologue of a bitter, divorced feminist, much of which was produced by a teenage angst poetry generator

Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism (in this case, part of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf with fashionable buzzwords switched in)

I do admire their chutzpah.

Ereshkigal · 15/10/2018 22:55

That academic hoaxes or other forms of satirical or ironic critique of social justice scholarship are unethical, characterized by ignorance and rooted in a desire to preserve privilege.

I read something that made that exact same point completely po faced and serious. That the only acceptable use of satire or humour was from a social justice perspective.

WomanDictionaryDefined · 15/10/2018 23:24

I welcome this after Brown failing to support the rapid onset gender dysphoria paper, the universities and journals need to wise up and stop taking the easy route.

OP posts:
WomanDictionaryDefined · 15/10/2018 23:28

science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/958

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page