So so sad!
Where have we gone?
“So, for this new spoof, Boghossian and Lindsay were careful to throw in lots of signifier phrases to indicate fashionable anti-male bias:..”
“They also took care to make it completely incomprehensible...”
See article for specifics.
“None of it should have survived more than a moment’s scrutiny by serious academics. But it was peer-reviewed by two experts in the field who, after suggesting only a few changes, passed it for publication:..”
Bruce Jenner did his part.
Here is the actual publication published in Cogent Social Sciences:
https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf
And.. just in case.. it has been archived here:
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf
Another really good analysis on this spoof is here:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/
Mine causes women to get hot.
Okay, I think we just began the daily Silly Hour.
Or maybe it’s still called Happy Hour.
The stupidity and insanity caused by liberalism exposed for our entertainment....LOL
Professor Irwin Corey shtick. The man made a living performing such nonsense as comedy routine.
I know mine causes climate change.....That’s a fact!
Quote from the actual paper:
“Toxic hypermasculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neocapitalist materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon-emitting fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments. We need not delve deeply into criticisms of dialectic objectivism, or their relationships with masculine tropes like the conceptual penis to make effective criticism of (exclusionary) dialectic objectivism. All perspectives matter.”
Here is what the authors say about the above paragraph:
If you’re having trouble understanding what any of that means, there are two important points to consider. First, we don’t understand it either. Nobody does. This problem should have rendered it unpublishable in all peer-reviewed, academic journals. Second, these examples are remarkably lucid compared to much of the rest of the paper.
Are all male mammals at fault or only human males?
“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” should not have been published on its merits because it was actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever. The paper is academically worthless nonsense.
I dunno. People get tenure and a lifetime suck off the academic teat based on this stuff. Cui bono?
“Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as “toxic hypermasculinity,” is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).”
Authors say:
No one knows what any of this means because it is complete nonsense. Anyone claiming to is pretending. Full stop.
It gets worse. Not only is the text ridiculous, so are the references.
“Penises of the World UNITE’!!! ROFLMAO...
This is the thread you need to be on....
Oh great.
Another thread about Megyn Kelly on the Howard Stern show.
"Is It Art? Eyeglasses on Museum Floor Began as Teenagers’ Prank"
"Two California teenagers who recently visited the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art were less than impressed by some of the exhibits and wondered if they could do better."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/arts/sfmoma-glasses-prank.html
I can’t believe this rates a post on FR... not once, but twice! Saturday and nothing else to do?