“The conceptual penis as a social construct.” A fake social science paper got published in a “peer reviewed” journal, demonstrating the intellectual vacuousness of “culture studies” in academia. The phony paper even linked “toxic masculinity” to climate change, which surely must have made the “peers” salivate:
“Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change. Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the conceptual penis.”
Are your brain cells shriveling like it’s cold outside?
View Comments (10)
So… Lost me here. What is this story about? Measuring up our collective bananas?
1
Ah?
I am moderately intelligent person, but that was torturous... which I guess was the point.
Well, the very first quoted sentence randomly mixes nouns with adjectives, which right away grinds your reading to a halt trying to make sense of it. But apparently it was no problem for the "peers" who reviewed it.
The pee-ers that reviewed it must have been hung over.
That was a hard read....
That's why the journal printed the paper in columns.
Anthony Weiner something something.....
Some people might be puzzled but I see the commonality to which you refer. The paper was written using sentences; and Anthony Weiner is about to be sentenced. Right?
No doubt Bill Nye and AlGore will soon be citing this piece of 'peer-reviewed science' in their jihad against real science.