Gender studies hoax exposes leftist ideologies

[Dill]

(05-26-2017, 10:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know, and that is the focus of those that did this. However, there is a large swath of people that will ignore the fact that these sorts of journals do not represent the the research journals that are truly respected in the different fields. They will use this to attack all social sciences or all of academia while ignoring that this is like using ITT Tech, DeVry, or Capella to attack Stanford, or UMass, or UGA.

Well said. The "hoax" was not so much about pay for publish as it was an attempt to de-legitimize gender studies.

They sent it first to a legitimate journal which rejected it. That journal's automatic reply suggested they try Cogent social sciences--an odd title if you ask me.

They claim "misuse" of scientific terms without really examining examples. Creating a parody can be funny, but is finally not an argument and not scientific.

By the way, the authors don't mind trading on the difference between penis a symbolic concept and penis as an actual, organic appendage.

I think this Slate article get is right. They also point out that hard science journals are hoaxed too and no one calls science a hoax.

Phallic Anxiety (Probably!) Drives Male Academics to Execute Lame Hoax About Gender Studies
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/05/25/the_conceptual_penis_hoax_is_more_evidence_of_male_academics_weird_anxiety.html

[Dill]

(05-26-2017, 09:49 AM)TVlad Wrote: The male penis causes climate change.

A never should have been published "paper" comprised of unintelligible strings of words actually gets published.

We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises. How do we defend that assertion? Like this:

If not exposed as a hoax, this would make perfect sense to liberals The penis causes climate change, and climate change causes terrorism.
How the hoax was conducted:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

These authors aren't representing their own work correctly. Their "hoax" paper uses the term "penis" as the label of a CONCEPT, hypermasculinity, not the actual male organ. Then they argued that hypermascunlinity drives competitive capitalism, which is not that hard to connect to climate change. So they aren't really arguing that penises cause climate change.

The hoax is itself a kind of hoax, designed more to confirm suspicions of people who don't know much about gender studies and can't read some of the work in that area because of the dense jargon--and to do so without the authors demonstrating themselves that they know what they are talking about.