You got the same with 'Everybody is wrong about God.' The existence of some feminist work largely depends on them not saying anything which breaks the rules - eg patriarchy isn't real, biological gender differences are real,
-
-
In fairness, it took years. Same thing happens in social studies. Pendulum swings, it swings back. The path to truth is not a straight line. I say this as someone who has been thoroughly bludgeoned by that pendulum.
-
No, it didn't. You're not seriously claiming that vaccines causing autism was accepted by relevant scientists for years? I know it wasn't. I had a baby and was bombarded with info from the NHS refuting it
-
It took twelve years for them to retract the article.
-
Then blame the Lancet. We wouldn't be criticising feminist theory if one of their jounals refused to retract a bad study whilst the majority of the field made the problem clear & carried out & published &made accessible many disconfirming studies.
-
That's kind of my point: individual errors shouldn't negate the GOOD scholarship that does exist. Certain fields of study have greater problems than others. Let's fix them. Not declare them irrelevant.
-
Not declaring them irrelevant. Wanting to do them properly. Pointing out the problem in the field preventing this.
-
If you think we're mistaken and the majority of the field of feminist theory is rigorous and evidence-based and managing to publish much work refuting the loons, please do write something showing all this. Camille Paglia is very unpopular in the field.
-
The problem may be one of who the gatekeepers are - a problem in many academic disciplines, for sure, but acute here - how often are articles peer-reviewed by those looking for rigorous, evidence-based arguments, rather than simply arriving at the ‘right’ conclusion?
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.