The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies

[Aggrophobic]

https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10....17.1330439.pdf

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/...ender-studies/

So, someone made the effort to make a "paper" that is as much garbage as possible (yup, even MORE garbage than the usual gender study papers, which says A LOT) - and it got published

Someones triggered.
Might have been the authors goal all along.

[Mister Cheese]

...can anyone say word salad?

[HumbleDuck]

Is social science really science though?

I hope not, because then basically anything is science. Me claiming unicorns exist because of the patriarchy is science at that point.

Social sciences are by definition science, and I do believe they are playing an important roll ( as they did in the past couple of centuries) in development of modern societies.
Someone publishing crap doesn't make that crap part of the field that paper is claiming to be related to though.

[Seani]

Too long did not read

[Celista]

I get the premise, it's more about toxic masculinity than the penis itself which is more of a metaphor. Article is a trainwreck, though.

[Firefall]

Just on the topic of social constructs: why do we assume that if something is a social construct that therefore it by definition is not physically/objectively real?

We (sociologists) don't. Durkhiem basically used this as proof of "God" (which is basically, to him, Society).

[Celista]

"Climate change and the conceptual penis" they managed to work in climate change, too! Hahaha

[nalle]

Ah i see i see. So if every guy fapped at the same time they could make the world turn into a desert in a matter of minutes?

Exactly. Obviously men should be shackled or get their penises removed to stop this coming madness.

[Firefall]

People forget that academia is as much a business and media as newspapers and clickbait articles are, when it gets down to it. It's argumentation for the sake of people who want to read arguments.

You clicked.

Greatb8m8 or whatever they say these days.

[Izalla]

"After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success."

This is awesome

[Saucexorzski]

I wonder if calling this toxic femininity would arouse the same reaction.

[Video Games]

Exactly. Obviously men should be shackled or get their penises removed to stop this cuming madness.

Fixed. 1010

[Dhrizzle]

Your daily bogpill - Bogdanov affair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

Other hoaxes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lishing_hoaxes

So this latest example shows gender studies is as much garbage as physics, medicine and IT?

[Izalla]

This thread is more about: "People write a fake article and actually find a journal trashy enough to publish it"

I think a lot of people are missing the whole "fake paper intentionally written to be garbage" part

[NED funded]

LMAO, what's worse is that this is a joke paper. I can't believe they found someone so dumb or desñerate to publish it.

[Izalla]

And equally important the fact that it was published in a garbage journal. Now if the garbage paper had made it in a highly ranked journal (though tbh none of the journals in the field of gender studies are particularly highly ranked but still) then we'd have something to talk about.

True, it's more of a calling out of the specific journal that agreed to publish them (and the one that rejected them but recommended the journal that accepted) and the process by which that journal functions and accepts papers than a critique of journals as a whole. Still funny to read though

[bloodrunner]

This just proves that if you write enough unintelligible BS in one document, it will be praised by people that won't admit they can't understand it.

[Moralgy]

https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10....17.1330439.pdf

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/...ender-studies/

So, someone made the effort to make a "paper" that is as much garbage as possible (yup, even MORE garbage than the usual gender study papers, which says A LOT) - and it got published

https://www.cogentoa.com/

I've never heard of this before, anyone know anything it? Them publishing this paper seems like a good way to tell that it doesn't actually do, quote "Each Cogent OA title offers the highest standards of peer review, overseen by expert editors and editorial boards. " Lol

[Powerogue]

"this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that
penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting
role as a type of masculine performance."

"You're being such a dick today!"
"Thank you!"

I also love the line about a man who does not use his penis can scarcely be said to have one at all.

"...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."

[Kraenen]

Social sciences are by definition science, and I do believe they are playing an important roll ( as they did in the past couple of centuries) in development of modern societies.
Someone publishing crap doesn't make that crap part of the field that paper is claiming to be related to though.

At best they're pseudosciences. They don't have true experiments, for one. Their theories are a lot less empirical, objective, and are harder to falsify.