Wrote a crazy paper about rape culture and dog humping. It's truly an indefensible mess. The journal leads the subdiscipline and is well-respected in the broader category (gender studies). It also honored the paper as exemplary of the discipline in its 25th anniversary year.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Wrote a masculinities paper trashing masculinity. Got rejected because it focused on men rather than on women despite being a men and masculinities journal. Later published. Researcher whose work I used tells me I did better with his scholarship than anyone else ever has.
Show this thread -
Wrote a paper claiming that straight men can fix their transphobia by shoving things up their butts based on strongly leading interviews with eight straight men. Called a "truly marvelous paper" and "an important contribution to knowledge." Scholar I cited agrees with our point.
Show this thread -
Wrote a terrible paper saying astronomy is sexist unless it incorporates queer horoscopes. Weird but well-established and ranked journal. Reviewer tells us it's good we're taking the ideology into the hard sciences. I'm still getting emails to submit our revision.pic.twitter.com/tdJddLXBRa
Show this thread -
Wrote a rewrite of a chapter of Mein Kampf. Journals', plural, issue with it comes down to it being problematic to suggest feminism universalize. It suggests doing so should be done through allyship. Reviewers suggest we didn't sufficiently problematize power dynamics in allyship
Show this thread -
Wrote a crazy paper including a freshman-level stats analysis with a sociological conclusion. Journal rejects it because the stats are too advanced. Resubmit with most stats removed, heavily simplified. Reviewers recommended removing them, relying on narrative instead.
Show this thread -
Wrote a real feminist philosophy paper insisting there's no way to use humor to criticize social justice. Paper eagerly received as an "excellent contribution to feminist philosophy." Review has us problematize Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for being cis-straight white males.
Show this thread -
Write paper insisting fat bodybuilding should be a part of professional bodybuilding to challenge stereotypes about fat. Call it "the final frontier for fat activism" (Star Trek nod). Reviewer tells us "frontier" reminds of Native American genocide and not to use that word.
Show this thread -
Wrote another rewrite of Mein Kampf in which the putative author, a white lesbian, excoriates her own whiteness (standing in for Hitler's Jews). Significant among the reasons the paper didn't get in is that a reviewer said this positions her as a "good white" for being woke.
Show this thread -
Wrote a paper saying we should overcome privilege in classrooms by putting white male students in the floor in chains in silence. The issue the reviewers had with this was that treating these students with compassion recenters their needs over those of the oppressed.
Show this thread -
This can go on and on and on and on (and all papers and reviews are available in a Google drive). I don't think we're unwarranted in concluding something is wrong with the fields we were immersing ourselves in.
Show this thread -
Several critics have insisted that we cannot conclude that the problems we saw in grievance studies (which are deliberate applications of "theory") are unique to grievance studies (which, alone, rely on "theory"). I honestly don't know what else we can possibly conclude.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
