Academic Hoax on the penis as a social construct held "in high regard" by peer reivewers

[JeremyPacman]

www.dailywire.com/news/16682/conceptual-penis-academic-hoax-exposes-absurdity-james-barrett

Not where feminism can make clear, testable claims, and in plain English.

The thing is, many men don't see them as clear, testable claims at all. I mentioned Jordan Peterson, and he is not the only one. The number of men I have heard say that there is no such thing as the patriarchy and that women have equality... If you genuinely think that the rest of society sees feminism as some sort of rational logic, you are sadly sadly mistaken, because it really doesn't. All forms of study, including gender studies, needs to be protected because I can promise you they will come for feminism. It's terrifying what is happening in Hungary as a pp said, and it in no way makes society better. Other things that will be eliminated include critical race studies- basically anything that challenges the mainstream and is studied from the viewpoints of more marginalised groups.

As I said, there are bits of e.g. Butler that I don't agree with and bits I don't. But it will be a cold day in hell that I say that it should not be permitted to be studied because it's not 'scientific' enough, because feminism really is not viewed as scientific either.

It would be a lot easier to find the not-nonsense that may exist in Butler's writing if her writing style wasn't designed to baffle readers into submission.

I don't personally find incomprehensible boundary-pushing gibberish readable but I will defend to the death your right to read it.

Having said that, I feel we are told a lot that we must accept misogynist view A lest we open the door to misogynist view B, and I don't accept that at all. We should not have to compromise our views in order to feel that we are allowed to hold them.

I agree that just because I think Butler is an exceptionally bad writer that doesn't mean that her writing should be banned from universities. Critiqued a bit more vigorously, yes.

This is awful. We should be concerned. It muddies the water at a time we need clarity.

Thinking about the category woman and the construction of gender are important tasks, that are really relevant to feminism atm. We actually need the Academy to make the case as to why men can't self-declare as women, and the dangers that it presents to women and the feminist project. The problem is that academic feminists are too frightened to say much, and that's a real problem.

Yes, the article is funny - I did snigger, but sadly, if we can't garner clear, well-structured arguments about identity politics, the joke will be on us.

Have to say, Kathleen Stock stands out as a really brave and reasonable academic, who is both succinct and clear.

I can pick up half a dozen books at my local Waterstones that explain string theory, or neuroscience, or even (god help us) high finance, in clear English. They explain the ideas step by step, introducing terminology as they go along. There’s really no excuse for bad writing. If you can’t explain an idea you probably don’t understand it either.

The trouble is that academia has been almost fully taken over by politically correct, identity policing, postmodern "progressive" leftism almost to the level of absurdity, which woul;d be funny if it were not so tragic, as this affair highlights so well.

Tano. Said......

"The trouble is that academia has been almost fully taken over by politically correct, identity policing, postmodern "progressive" leftism almost to the level of absurdity, which woul;d be funny if it were not so tragic, as this affair highlights so well."

Nail meets head.

They aren’t coming for feminism. I’ve been following them all for a while. They have my absolute admiration for being brave enough to test academic standards in this manner.

I agree that just because I think Butler is an exceptionally bad writer that doesn't mean that her writing should be banned from universities. Critiqued a bit more vigorously, yes.
.
This ^.

How about a readability test, with Hegel as the bar? If an academic can't convey the ideas she's arguing wrt gender and sex with more clarity than Hegel writes about the world spirit, she needs to pull out a red pencil, take a look at serpentine syntax and obscuring jargon, and rewrite.

And also this ^.

Mamaryllis I am not talking about the particular people who did this experiment. I am talking more generally. If you want to bin gender studies, prepare for opponents of feminism to launch a similar attack on that.

Yes, agree Butler does not write well in terms of clarity. Believe me, she is not alone. She really isn’t. Countless academics fail to get the point across clearly.

This is not a defence of Butler, but rather a warning not to get swept along just because the victim happens to be someone you don’t agree with. It’s the general principle. And feminism has many enemies. Radical feminists aren’t famed for being super-clear writers either.

I may be wrong but it seemed that the point of the fake article was to critique the poor quality of some academic writing. Butler is not alone in that, she is simply one of the most prominent examples. But it is a problem! Firstly because this material is not only not being robustly criticised, but is actually given merit, and secondly because it devalues what may be valid arguments when made by someone who can write coherently.

Thomas Laqueur, for example, makes a similar argument but does so in clear and concise language. Saying that he doesn't dispute the existence of biological sex or feel the need to use scare quotes around the word 'sex'.

It's not an attack on gender studies, it's an attack on poor quality academic writing, which, unfortunately, is rife within gender studies. I'd dispute the idea that radical feminists are known for being unclear, but even if that was the case, the answer is to improve the quality of radfem writing, not to defend incoherent jargon.

I have seen threads on here praising the Hungarian government for shutting down gender studies departments. I think the experiment did highlight some concerns wiithin academia and I don’t think anyone should lose their job over it. Nobody should lose their job or have their department shut down simply because there are people who don’t think the same.

I think I saw one of the threads you mentioned, but the view was challenged (I think I posted) and it was explained why it wasn't A Good Thing.

I agree with you that there is antagonism towards gender studies, but I'd argue that the Butler-esque academics exacerbate that. They make the subject seem like incoherent, irrelevant naval gazing, instead of a valid discipline with robust methodology. If we want it to be protected and taken seriously the standard of writing (and I'd argue, of critical thinking) must improve.

Only on MN could I be arguing about academia over breakfast

There is also an interesting Wikipedia article with more bakcground about this matter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair

A couple if interesting quotes:

The authors' intent was to expose problems in grievance studies, a term they apply to a subcategory of these academic areas, in which "poor science is undermining the real and important work being done elsewhere."
...
By the time of the reveal, four of their 20 papers had been published, three had been accepted but not yet published, six had been rejected, and seven were still under review. One of the published papers had won special recognition.