I guess I'm not understanding how you can think that a paper that makes a claim about the real world, but doesn't apply to the real world, could be characterised as anything but nonsensical.
What this paper asserts is not that gender studies need to iterate on their techniques. It does not assert that the basic methodology of gender studies is good, but it needs some tweaks here and there. It asserts that, at a fundamental level, the concept of the field is flawed. They assert that the entire methodological framework is flawed. No one, not the authors of the replication crisis paper, or Ioannidis, nor any other serious academic asserts this about math, physics, etc...
Could it be perhaps that this individual paper, which you claim undermines the "entire methodological framework" of these fields, could be one of those individual studies that comes to incorrect conclusions, not because of any statistical flaw, but because of the inbuilt fallibility and political biases of the authors?
> If you presuppose that the category is absurd, the submission of an absurd paper is a vacuous act that proves nothing, and your point should be able to be easily demonstrated by your knowledge of the field as it stands.
It is my opinion and the thesis of the paper, that the papers that they got accepted to these journals is absurd. I will quote here the theses description of the 7 accepted papers:
Sure, most got rejected. But 7 got accepted. And while banality is obviously a subjective value judgment, I don't think it applies to all of them. Just to enumerate the hypotheses that were accepted:
> That dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and a place of rampant canine rape culture and systemic oppression against “the oppressed dog” through which human attitudes to both problems can be measured. This provides insight into training men out of the sexual violence and bigotry to which they are prone.
> That it is only oppressive cultural norms which make society regard the building of muscle rather than fat admirable and that bodybuilding and activism on behalf of the fat could be benefited by including fat bodies displayed in non-competitive ways.
> That it is suspicious that men rarely anally self-penetrate using sex toys, and that this is probably due to fear of being thought homosexual (“homohysteria”) and bigotry against trans people (transphobia). (It combines these ideas into a novel concept “transhysteria,” which was suggested by one of the paper’s peer reviewers.) Encouraging them to engage in receptive penetrative anal eroticism will decrease transphobia and increase feminist values.
> That men frequent “breasturants” like Hooters because they are nostalgic for patriarchal dominance and enjoy being able to order attractive women around. The environment that breastaurants provide for facilitating this encourages men to identify sexual objectification and sexual conquest, along with masculine toughness and male dominance, with “authentic masculinity.” The data are clearly nonsense and conclusions drawn from it are unwarranted by it. (NB. One reviewer did raise concerns about the rigor of the data)
> That academic hoaxes or other forms of satirical or ironic critique of social justice scholarship are unethical, characterized by ignorance and rooted in a desire to preserve privilege.
> No clear thesis. A rambling poetic monologue of a bitter, divorced feminist, much of which was produced by a teenage angst poetry generator before being edited into something slightly more “realistic” which is then interspersed with self-indulgent autoethnographical reflections on female sexuality and spirituality written entirely in slightly under six hours.
> That feminism which foregrounds individual choice and responsibility and female agency and strength can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society.
I'll grant you that two of them, the 'breasturants' and Mein Kampf are relatively mild on the absurdity scale. The rest, in my view, are self-evidently ridiculous and/or unethical. If you disagree, feel free to explain why.
I'm really glad you're now saying that you just have the opinion that these papers and disciplines are absurd, because I'd consider that claim, stated as a fact, to be the realm of experts in the field. Presupposing the discipline is absurd would require you to have a deep knowledge of the field, which I'm not seeing much evidence of, here.
Where did I do that?
> I'm really glad you're now saying that you just have the opinion that these papers and disciplines are absurd, because I'd consider that claim, stated as a fact, to be the realm of experts in the field. Presupposing the discipline is absurd would require you to have a deep knowledge of the field, which I'm not seeing much evidence of, here.
You seem to have missed the point of their exercise. The point of their exercise is that the entire field is intellectually bankrupt. To say that the only people who can deem the field intellectually bankrupt are its members is fairly silly. Just read the papers. They're ridiculous. You've provided no defense whatsoever of their content.
You've come into this article, which only has evidence that papers written in bad faith can be accepted by peer-reviewed journals (trivial), already presupposing that the field is intellectually bankrupt. In order for me to believe you have the ability to make that judgement, I must also believe that you understand the field. People can be experts in fields without being a member of that field. You have fallen prey to the same false ideological purity you seem to have deemed yourself fit to criticize in others.
Since you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards, I can only assume you feel the article we're commenting on was pretty pointless. And let's be real here, this article didn't effect your view either way. We're done here.
I'm not asking you to believe my judgment. Judge for yourself. Evaluate the content.
> Since you're not advocating for rigorous empirical standards, I can only assume you feel the article we're commenting on was pretty pointless. And let's be real here, this article didn't effect your view either way. We're done here.
I could say the same of you, without loss of generality. You could easily have tried to make the case that the papers here weren't absurd at all, but you didn't. You never tried to do that, you simply tried to obfuscate and hide. It's easier than making a real point, I guess.
In fact, you haven't even stated your position clearly in this entire discussion. You've carefully avoided actually saying "I don't believe these papers are absurd, and I do not believe the acceptance of them by these journals should make us at all skeptical of gender studies as a field". So, go ahead. State your position. I've stated mine.