Its offical, gender studies and its ilk are all fake.

markodaly

This proves what I have long suspected about fake fields of study like "gender studies", "queer studies", and a new one I had never heard of "fat studies", that each of these fields propagates total nonsense. The papers are written in gibberish that seeks to make opacity and pointlessness the end goal. These "academic" fields are so devoid of substance that so-called experts cannot distinguish between "real" and "fake" articles. Stop the nonsense. Make English Mean Something Again.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2018-10-05T10%3A00%3A15&utm_medium=social

The sheer craziness of the papers the authors concocted makes this fact all the more shocking. One of their papers reads like a straightforward riff on the Sokal Hoax. Dismissing “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, it makes a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology—or practice interpretative dance—instead:

There is loads of gold here, but this one is my favourite.

Yet another paper has a rather more sinister hue. In “Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation,” the fictitious author argues that men who masturbate while thinking about a woman without her consent are perpetrators of sexual violence:

By drawing upon empirical studies of psychological harms of objectification, especially through depersonalization, and exploring severel veins of theoretical literature on nonphysical forms of sexual violence, this articles seeks to situate non-concensual male autoerotic fantasizing about women as a form of metasexual violence that depersonalizes her, injures her being on an affective level, contributes to consequent harms of objectification and rape culture, and can appropriate her identity for the purpose of male sexual gratification.

This one also made me chuckle but itz also has very serious tyrnaical undertones.

Sokal Squared doesn’t just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals. This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to redress the “privilege” of white students. Exhorting college professors to enact forms of “experiential reparations,” the paper suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even binding them to the floor in chains. If students protest, educators are told to

take considerable care not to validate privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege.

Franz Von Peppercorn

When I was younger I read a sociological text about the symbolic phallic design of missiles. They represented the penis. The author, a male, didn’t really address anything with regards to aerodynamics and didn’t feel the neeed to.

wexie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

When I was younger I read a sociological text about the symbolic phallic design of missiles.

Cause us men are screwing the planet!!!

:rolleyes:

TheValeyard

wexie wrote: »

Cause us men are screwing the planet!!!

:rolleyes:

Or explode prematurely all over the launchpad.

SoyBoy69

As someone who basically has a masters degree in postmodernism, I'm sympathetic to the view that there is a lot of twaddle floating around in the curriculum, so I rather enjoy the Sokal affair.

Despite that, I do enjoy grappling with postmodern literature and I think much of it is very worthwhile. I also think there is a secular materialist orthodoxy in current times which tries to claim science as it's own. Personally, I feel science has become overextended into philosophical inquiry for political and ideological reasons and that it should have little import, and unprivileged import, into human philosophy.

An interesting comparison with the sokal affair is the reproducibility crisis in science which is ongoing.

Finally, i would also put many popular scientists in the same bracket as the lower level postmodern thinkers. Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Andrea Ghez (black hole professor at UCLA)... all of these for me are charlatans at a certain level.

Potential-Monke

There's way too many big words in this thread already...

Captain Obvious

Official? Have the lords of the internet confirmed this?

wexie

If anyone's interested here's an article written by the actual people that conducted the study, complete with the papers they submitted.

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

CrankyHaus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

When I was younger I read a sociological text about the symbolic phallic design of missiles. They represented the penis. The author, a male, didn’t really address anything with regards to aerodynamics and didn’t feel the neeed to.

That phallic metaphor nonsense is surprisingly common and rarely called out as the BS it is. I've had well educated people try to tell me that skyscrapers are entirely a phallic extension of male ego, nothing to do with efficient land use in crowded cities, and read respected film reviewers describing light sabers as a phallic representation (Peter Biskind in a weird critique of Star Wars).

These people must have penis on the brain all the time. Imagine identifying everyday objects as a vagina metaphor and trying to sound clever by saying it in public?

JohnMc1

CrankyHaus wrote: »

That phallic metaphor nonsense is surprisingly common and rarely called out as the BS it is. I've had well educated people try to tell me that skyscrapers are entirely a phallic extension of male ego, nothing to do with efficient land use in crowded cities, and read respected film reviewers describing light sabers as a phallic representation (Peter Biskind in a weird critique of Star Wars).

These people must have penis on the brain all the time. Imagine identifying everyday objects as a vagina metaphor and trying to sound clever by saying it in public?

Probably because they're not getting any.

padd b1975

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

When I was younger I read a sociological text about the symbolic phallic design of missiles. They represented the penis. The author, a male, didn’t really address anything with regards to aerodynamics and didn’t feel the neeed to.

I'm about ten years out of the plumbing and heating business.
Back then, we had male and female pipe fittings.

Fook knows what they're called these days!!

Hector Bellend

padd b1975 wrote: »

I'm about ten years out of the plumbing and heating business.
Back then, we had male and female pipe fittings.

Fook knows what they're called these day!!

I'm sure there's a gender fluid pun in there somewhere

OMM 0000

A friend of mine did a PhD in Gender Studies at <better to snip the university name> and she said literally every lecturer / staff member hates men. A few live as lesbians out of spite, even though they're not naturally lesbians. She said it was incredibly toxic.

She's normal and reasonable. I'm not exaggerating when I say she said every lecturer / staff member hates men.

wexie

OMM 0000 wrote: »

A few live as lesbians out of spite, even though they're not naturally lesbians. She said it was incredibly toxic.

See something like that would actually be worth studying from a psychological point of view.

But it'd take a brave man person to bring that up I'd imagine

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

I'm about ten years out of the plumbing and heating business.
Back then, we had male and female pipe fittings.

Fook knows what they're called these days!!

Most are simply called couplings, except when the "gender" has to be stated.
https://www.ie.screwfix.com/pegler-prestex-px42-male-compression-coupling-22mm-x.html
https://www.ie.screwfix.com/female-coupler-22mm-x.html

Dannyriver

Potential-Monke wrote: »

There's way too many big words in this thread already...

'are'

Roger Hassenforder

OMM 0000 wrote: »

A few live as lesbians out of spite, even though they're not naturally lesbians.

I'm not exaggerating when I say she said every lecturer / staff member hates men

Will it ever dawn on these morons, in doing so that they're actually doing 'men' a favour, by not making some unfortunate wretch of a man have to live with one of them. Someone, somewhere has dodged a bullet.

JohnMc1

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Will it ever dawn on these morons, in doing so that they're actually doing 'men' a favour, by not making some unfortunate wretch of a man have to live with one of them. Someone, somewhere has dodged a bullet.

Nope. They're the reason MGTOW [Men going their own way] is such a growing trend. The only people I feel sorry for in all of this are the cats that will have to put up with their insanity.

Captain Obvious

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Nope. They're the reason MGTOW [Men going their own way] is such a growing trend. The only people I feel sorry for in all of this are the cats that will have to put up with their insanity.

That is so pathetic.

ebbsy

I like chicken.

Gimme A Pound

MGTOW is not just because of a minority of psychos. It's guys who only want to be with women who are bitches, so they decide all women are bitches. They're not interested in women who are just normal and rational (yes, plenty of us exist) - also, because of their unpleasant attitude, women are turned off by them, which further confirms (to them) that women are all bitches.

kneemos

Gotta have time on your hands for all of this shoite.

Captain Obvious

Gerardo Clean Kindle wrote: »

MGTOW is not just because of a minority of psychos. It's guys who only want to be with women who are bitches, so they decide all women are bitches. They're not interested in women who are just normal and rational (yes, plenty of us exist) - also, because of their unpleasant attitude, women are turned off by them, which further confirms (to them) that women are all bitches.

So basically incels have rebranded themselves

Gimme A Pound

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So basically incels have rebranded themselves

No, the two terms are used. They also refer to guys who don't have luck with the ladies because none find them attractive, which is of course sh1t for the guys - very lonely and frustrating, but if women aren't into them, that's not the women being horrible (so long as they are not bitches about it), it's just personal preference, which doesn't deserve resentment/misogyny.

MonkieSocks

Ball-istic Misseiles
:rolleyes:

mikhail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So basically incels have rebranded themselves

Dating is hard. For some people, it's very hard. A certain kind of mind decides it's definitely the other gender's fault more or less. Those who leave it there and give up, I guess I can understand and empathise with. Those who obsess about it, read and write about constantly it in little online echo-chambers... I don't get it. They seem to get caught in a toxic little loop where their attitudes reinforce their isolation which reinforces their attitudes...

The Rape of Lucretia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xih5HyFOYg

JJayoo

Did a master's in NUIG, one of the social sciences, and it was pretty shocking how openly a few of the lectures hated men. Out of 40 members of staff in the department they have one guy yet the gender pay gap and men holding women back was the entire topic of a few modules.

About have the female staff were from actual science/medical backgrounds and they had zero man bashing, however the lesbian who resembled Bosco was hardcore, I wish I could post a picture of her.

Needless to say the Masters wasn't worth the paper it's printed on

Ulysses Gaze

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So basically incels have rebranded themselves

There are differences between the two.

MGTOW are guys that have had, generally, bad experiences with women. Perhaps they have been married and have divorced or were in a relationship that ended badly.

Incels have never had sexual relationships with women.

JJayoo

Is MGTOW just not wanting to get married? You that you aren't tied to a woman

Afro Turner

JJayoo wrote: »

Did a master's in NUIG, one of the social sciences, and it was pretty shocking how openly a few of the lectures hated men. Out of 40 members of staff in the department they have one guy yet the gender pay gap and men holding women back was the entire topic of a few modules.

About have the female staff were from actual science/medical backgrounds and they had zero man bashing, however the lesbian who resembled Bosco was hardcore, I wish I could post a picture of her.

Needless to say the Masters wasn't worth the paper it's printed on

NUIG is a clown college.

MadDog76

I did my own research into Gender Studies and my conclusion is there are two genders...... male and female.

Graces7

CrankyHaus wrote: »

That phallic metaphor nonsense is surprisingly common and rarely called out as the BS it is. I've had well educated people try to tell me that skyscrapers are entirely a phallic extension of male ego, nothing to do with efficient land use in crowded cities, and read respected film reviewers describing light sabers as a phallic representation (Peter Biskind in a weird critique of Star Wars).

These people must have penis on the brain all the time. Imagine identifying everyday objects as a vagina metaphor and trying to sound clever by saying it in public?

Have a serious look at ancient standing stones... male domination

The Rape of Lucretia

Look at the whole mining industry since millennia.
Clearly a case of men being coerced and duped by women into constructing enormous vagina worship monuments into the earth as shrines of women as earth mother, with men, in their thousands, forced to crawl into them as if back into the womb, and out of sight of the woman again.
Its the ultimate in female domination.

suicide_circus

JJayoo wrote: »

Is MGTOW just not wanting to get married? You that you aren't tied to a woman

In the context of divorce settlements and alimony payments, it's a reasonable course for men to take tbh

silverharp

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Look at the whole mining industry since millennia.
Clearly a case of men being coerced and duped by women into constructing enormous vagina worship monuments into the earth as shrines of women as earth mother, with men, in their thousands, forced to crawl into them as if back into the womb, and out of sight of the woman again.
Its the ultimate in female domination.

if you had the time you should write a paper on that and get it published

TOMs WIFE

JJayoo wrote: »

Did a master's in NUIG, one of the social sciences, and it was pretty shocking how openly a few of the lectures hated men. Out of 40 members of staff in the department they have one guy yet the gender pay gap and men holding women back was the entire topic of a few modules.

About have the female staff were from actual science/medical backgrounds and they had zero man bashing, however the lesbian who resembled Bosco was hardcore, I wish I could post a picture of her.

Needless to say the Masters wasn't worth the paper it's printed on

One has to ask the question as to why women (or manginas) do gender studies. You'd really have to be anti male in the first place!

Paddy Cow

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

One has to ask the question as to why women (or manginas) do gender studies. You'd really have to be anti male in the first place!

They're the type of people who harp on about encouraging women into STEM because it's easier than actually getting a STEM degree/career themselves. Empty vessels make the most noise and all that.

Ray Palmer

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

What amazes me about educated people try to do word play about what is institutional discrimination and discrimination on a personal level. The claim comes from minorities too where because the institutions are not run by them they can't be racist to others.

Let's be clear hey are two different things. You can be sexist as a women and not have control over the government or institutions. If you are going to claim that the institutions have never favoured women you have not paid attention.

For decades women were allowed retire before men while they actually live longer, men get longer prison sentences, they couldn't get children's allowance paid to them for decades and it is still defaulted to the mother, maternity benefit is far greater than paternity benefit even considering the practicalities of birth. Women are automatically trusted in many situations like care professions and more sinisterly in domestic abuse claims. So institutionally men are held down by women favoured policies and women do gain from it so the claims falls down both ways

Sultan_of_Ping

CrankyHaus wrote: »

That phallic metaphor nonsense is surprisingly common and rarely called out as the BS it is. I've had well educated people try to tell me that skyscrapers are entirely a phallic extension of male ego, nothing to do with efficient land use in crowded cities, and read respected film reviewers describing light sabers as a phallic representation (Peter Biskind in a weird critique of Star Wars).

These people must have penis on the brain all the time. Imagine identifying everyday objects as a vagina metaphor and trying to sound clever by saying it in public?

In a previous role, I had a student try to argue that descriptions relating to swords being sheathed and unsheathed; being brandished; and being used stab or lob body parts off were all to do with the projection of male virility and sexual power!!

The scary thing was a couple of her classmates agreed!!

Once she concluded her argument I responded with "Now that's an interesting point......" (shorthand for "that's totally fûçking bonkers") before completely ignoring it and moving on to something more rational.

CinemaGuy45

MadDog76 wrote: »

I did my own research into Gender Studies and my conclusion is there are two genders...... male and female.

Nazi racist bigot.

This is the danger of the far right trying to mix facts with the truth.
There are 47 genders and that is the truth.
Not interested in facts or stereotypes.

Paddy Cow

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Nazi racist bigot.

This is the danger of the far right trying to mix facts with the truth.
There are 47 genders and that is the truth.
Not interested in facts or stereotypes.

Here's how you figure out your biological gender - when you go to the doctor, do you get a smear test or prostate exam? Smear = female. Prostate = male. There are unlimited gender identities because some attention seekers have far too much time on their hands and want to feel special by being different and edgy.

The Rape of Lucretia

silverharp wrote: »

if you had the time you should write a paper on that and get it published

It strays into suggesting men are victims and women are victimisers. Which isnt allowed afaik. I would probably get arrested, or worse, harassed on twitter.

JohnMc1

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

One has to ask the question as to why women (or manginas) do gender studies. You'd really have to be anti male in the first place!

Because its one of those courses that more than likely takes place in an auditorium so you can either sleep the whole class or sneak out once you've signed the attendance sheet.

JohnMc1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

What amazes me about educated people try to do word play about what is institutional discrimination and discrimination on a personal level. The claim comes from minorities too where because the institutions are not run by them they can't be racist to others.

Let's be clear hey are two different things. You can be sexist as a women and not have control over the government or institutions. If you are going to claim that the institutions have never favoured women you have not paid attention.

For decades women were allowed retire before men while they actually live longer, men get longer prison sentences, they couldn't get children's allowance paid to them for decades and it is still defaulted to the mother, maternity benefit is far greater than paternity benefit even considering the practicalities of birth. Women are automatically trusted in many situations like care professions and more sinisterly in domestic abuse claims. So institutionally men are held down by women favoured policies and women do gain from it so the claims falls down both ways

The Left love rewriting definitions to suit their agenda.

p1akuw47h5r3it

SoyBoy69 wrote: »

As someone who basically has a masters degree in postmodernism, I'm sympathetic to the view that there is a lot of twaddle floating around in the curriculum, so I rather enjoy the Sokal affair.

Despite that, I do enjoy grappling with postmodern literature and I think much of it is very worthwhile. I also think there is a secular materialist orthodoxy in current times which tries to claim science as it's own. Personally, I feel science has become overextended into philosophical inquiry for political and ideological reasons and that it should have little import, and unprivileged import, into human philosophy.

An interesting comparison with the sokal affair is the reproducibility crisis in science which is ongoing.

Finally, i would also put many popular scientists in the same bracket as the lower level postmodern thinkers. Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Andrea Ghez (black hole professor at UCLA)... all of these for me are charlatans at a certain level.

Why do you believe these people to be charlatans?

BumChum

Places of higher education need some severe scrutiny put upon them. Its like the wild-west in terms of setting up any old guff, convincing people that its going to provide a solid foundation for the rest of their lives, and then holding the hand out for significant sums of money from the students/government/taxpayers, and often all three at the same time.

This kind of stuff will collapse sooner rather than later, and I feel genuinely sorry for the poor students that have been duped.

boundlessSea

For government funded research there should be much better quality, I am not sure how this could be done, maybe it could be assessed by external people outside an academic field, maybe some academic sub-fields like gender studies should have their funding reduced until they improve the quality of their research (and how evidence is evaluated) and reduce the field's politicization but this could interfere with academic freedom which would be bad.

BumChum

boundlessSea wrote: »

For government funded research there should be much better quality, I am not sure how this could be done, maybe it could be assessed by external people outside an academic field, maybe some academic sub-fields like gender studies should have their funding reduced until they improve the quality of their research (and how evidence is evaluated) and reduce the field's politicization but this could interfere with academic freedom which would be bad.

Science, in general, is taking a beating in terms of quality. We are drowning in questionable research.

Particularly speaking, I find a lot of these gender studies and cultural study courses to be outrageous from the get-go. It has practically become its own little industry, self-justifying its existence via "publications" that can neither be verified or even questioned in some cases.

What does a graduate of gender studies even DO after college? Besides the apparent inclination toward protesting and scolding people online, surely its a gigantic feedback loop where the only thing realistically possible is to return to academics.....hence b&llocking up the lives of ANOTHER class load of naïve youngsters!

If teenagers are lost in idealism, parents need to cop them on to reality. You can have good intentions AND not waste your life at the same time. You usually get one chance at college, and to waste it on this is mind-boggling.

Its the emperors new clothes of academics.

greencap

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That is so pathetic.

Found the faux-lesbian gender professor.

Gimme A Pound

greencap wrote: »

Found the faux-lesbian gender professor.

Ah here, I can't stand that SJW stuff, but as a woman, I also can't stand that MGTOW stuff either, since it is blatantly hostile to women.

Both silly extremes.