May 20, 2017 By
“The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct” was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal even though its authors call it “academically worthless nonsense.”
The paper is a hoax. The article was written without merits and disguised nonsense with academic jargon and appealed to its publishers only because it appeared to support their bias.
The article’s abstract reads:
Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, 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.
That’s all it took, apparently, to fool a peer-reviewed journal into believing that this hoax was legitimate.
A collection of personal opinions may have little merit as it stands, but the authors of this sociological paper admit that it purposefully shamed the peer reviewed journal by successfully publishing an article that makes no sense whatsoever.
Among several other hilarious claims, the authors asserted that:
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.
That’s right. The authors actually claimed that the “conceptual penis” causes climate change, and the publisher bought it.
The article continues:
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.
You can, it turns out, make no sense whatsoever, but say what a publisher thinks is what it wants to hear, and you’ll be “peer reviewed.”
Daily Caller reports:
“No one knows what any of this means because it is complete nonsense,” the authors wrote afterwards of the above paragraph. “Anyone claiming to is pretending. Full stop.”
[…] we assumed we could publish outright nonsense provided it looked the part and portrayed a moralizing attitude that comported with the editors’ moral convictions.”
“‘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 authors concluded. “The paper is academically worthless nonsense. The question that now needs to be answered is, ‘How can we restore the reliability of the peer-review process?’
This was a pretty hilarious defeat of the merits of the journal and the “peer reviewed” system that passes belief systems guessing away at what opinion are the most moral as science.