Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, two absolutely genius academics, managed to get a hoax article highlighting EVERYTHING that is wrong with modern feminism and gender studies published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. As in, “experts” in the gender-studies field thought this was good enough to publish. In the article, they essentially argue that penises link back to everything wrong in the world.
It is HYSTERICAL.
The article, ““The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct” was purposely written not to make any sense whatsoever. So of course, the gender-studies folks loved it.
The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.
That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it.
The conclusion beautifully sums up the complete absurdity not only of the article, but of the entire gender studies and SJW movement:
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.
Catch that? CONCEPTUAL DRIVER BEHIND MUCH OF CLIMATE CHANGE. What a work of perverse genius!
HOW exactly did they back the claim that wieners cause climate change? Exactly as any SJW would:
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.
The best explanation of all of this comes from the authors themselves.
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….
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. Most of our references are quotations from papers and figures in the field that barely make sense in the context of the text. Others were obtained by searching keywords and grabbing papers that sounded plausibly connected to words we cited. We read exactly zero of the sources we cited, by intention, as part of the hoax.
Amazing. Absolutely Amazing. A round of applause for these men!