In order to show how off the wall gender studies have become, and also to show how fast and loose "peer reviewed" status has become, two pranksters have had the following study published in a peer reviewed journal:
Among other things, they argued that...
... the penis is a social construct.
... global warming is caused by the penis.
skeptic.com
Pretty disappointed that no one bothered to read or reply.
Not self bumping, but this article is so Sup Forums that it must have been written by regular readers.
In a year or two that hoax will be a valid statement, just wait.
Good on them for showing what a sham the social sciences are. I'll point to this hoax when telling people that sociology is a joke.
Dawkins and Sokal would be proud.
how dare you ridicule academia, you uneducated swine
A sample of what they said in the paper....
"Manspreading — a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide — is akin to raping the empty space around him."
Here is part of their argument that climate chance is caused by the "conceptional penis"....
"Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of [sic] the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear."
What I find hysterical is that they started with the theory that they could pass off an entire paper of meaningless nonsense, as long as the conclusion was that men are inherently evil.
They proved it in spades.
Aside from making this social organization look stupid, it also calls into question both gender studies and the concept of the peer review process.
I love it and I think i'm going to try and cite it in my next paper
Liberals and other SJW blind to any irony, criticism, and anything that contradict their views. And people who pushing this agenda won't care.
Still, good job. We need more bullshit in their bullshit until it become too ridiculous and butt of every joke.
After reading the paper it honestly doesn't even sound fake. I've read similar essays (not in peer-reviewed journals obviously) that make pretty much the same nonsense arguments.
>Cogent Social Sciences
So they got a bullshit social science paper published by a bullshit social science journal that publishes nothing but bullshit social science papers.
Con a biology journal into publishing this queer theory horseshit and I'll be impressed.
Bump
University of Huddersfield isn't exactly known for excellence. The reviewer probably produces garbage as bad as the spoof work.
All those "gender studies" and other degeneration using such journals as a prove that their studies scientific, gone trough peer review and thus it helps to push their degeneracy further.
>The reviewer probably produces garbage as bad as the spoof work
Bump. We should do something about universities.
2 funny
this does make me sad though, idiots are now scientists
People, that's the point they're trying to make. They're just illustrating, yet again, that the emperor has no clothes in social sciences.
They're not trying to pass themselves off as great pranksters.
It's unbelievable how many people in here don't see the point in this hoax.
This, is this too hard to understand? Don't be so dense folks.
The sad thing is versions of this paper have been published unironically countless times in so many dubious social science, gender studies and other various fuckery journals. Search JSTOR for "lesbian phallus" to get a general idea
When you've spent so long arguing with lesbians on the internet and try to prank an academic journal and get peer reviewed.
>literally make things up to see how far you can get in the Gender Studies peer-review crowd
>Make up sources and even put the word "Scam" into the name of one of your sources
>Gets peer-reviewed and scores strongly in all categories. The only advice given by one of the peer-reviewers was to add some more bullshit, which they did
>Peer-Reviewers stated that there was a "strong" basis for what the paper was claiming, despite the paper being completely made up.
It's another Sokal Affair and it's great. Gender Studies has been and always will be a way for the useless and ideologically possessed to gain tenure and live off the money they get from poor, high-paying students every year.
It's a pay to publish journal, that the writers paid $700 for a prank.
meanwhile, James Watson, the guy who got a nobel for discovering fucking DNA, is banned from campuses
you had a great run burgers
i'm sorry for you but it seems that you're 2 generations away from idiocracy
all liberal art fields need to be abolished.
>he thinks the harder sciences are safe
My man in fifty years you won't even be able to do physics without referring to Newtons as "non-binary force quantifiers".
This is genius
Author has to be granted a PHD in gender studies and social science immediately
Calvin and Hobbes was redpilled as fuck.
you poor deluded bastard
in fifty years you won't be able to refer to Newtons at all because you don't just get to accelerate a unit of measure that is hate-speech towards gravitationaly challenged individuals at the rate of a unit of measure that is banned for it's ubiquitous use around the globe as a symbol of the patriarchy
Space rapists. What a time to be alive.
In other news, a paper saying that God created Heaven and Earth published in Vatican Weekly.
Poe's Law.