May Open Thread V


177 thoughts on “May Open Thread V


    If “it takes one to know one”, doesn’t this imply that Leiter is grotesque?

    1. Interesting story. Not so surprising. In 2014, the philosophy department there organized a conference to honor a rapist and stalker, Charlotte Coursier. At the same time, Coursier’s multiple stalking victims were driven out of their home by vigilantes.

    1. ……………………………………..________

    2. Get out the popcorn, folks, and settle down to a feature production.

      Do you suppose that HarperCollins might just conceivably have already run all this past high-powered libel lawyers in New York, before publishing the book? The sort of thing that large publishers do as a matter of course, maybe? Meanwhile, Sue, Grabbit and Runne of the Midwest legal sorority will get a nice stream of fee income, while it lasts — unless they’ve taken it on a pro bono basis.

      1. Heh, a quick google of these lawyers seems to indicate otherwise. I imagine they’ve taken the case on contingency. I think you would need to be rich to pay them hourly or whatever. Both of them seem to have won multiple high-profile cases. As leiter is pointing out, these lawyers would have to be crazy to risk their reputations on this if they know of no actual information that substantiates the claims.

              1. Seems like it could be true, could be false. We must settle this here, settle it now. There is no other option.

                1. I’m sure you responded in exactly the same way when Ludlow’s name was being dragged through the mud.

    3. Somewhere in the pile of documents I’ve read, it was reported that LLH allegedly admitted that she and Ludlow had consensual sex once (and only once) before the alleged rape. This claim was repeated in the Kipnis book, as I recall. Does anyone remember the source of that claim? It looks like she does not say there was ever any consensual sex in this complaint.

      1. lol why oh why would you care so much about this as to read a “pile” of documents. I think you need a hobby.

        1. It’s been going on since, what, 2014? I regularly read the two main blogs, which have covered this affair very extensively, and I read the Kipnis book. That comes to a pile, in my estimation, without being any sort of weird fixation. Thanks for your concern, though.

        1. Cool. Here’s a fourth for you:

          “Several weeks after the conversation between Nola Hartley and her advisor (and over two years after the events in question), Hartley dropped a new bombshell. Hysterical and crying, she revealed to Jocelyn Packer that Ludlow had once had sex with her without her consent when she was drunk.
          They’d been drinking at his place, and the next thing she remembered was waking up in his bed in the morning naked and realizing what had happened. They’d had sex one additional time, she confessed, while they were both again drunk, though this time it was consensual. They’d only had sex those two times, she said.”

          That’s the relevant text from Kipnis. What’s the source for this information? Is the account false? It conflicts with the narrative presented in the lawsuit, obviously.

            1. Ah, I think I was confused by this text from Leiter’s summary: “They became socially and emotionally intimate, but never sexually intimate according to plaintiff until the alleged case of nonconsensual sex.” So on her account the lone instance of consensual sex occurred after the sexual assault? I somehow had formed the impression that she had previously said it happened before the assault.

  2. Is one idea in the lawsuit that because Title IX proceedings at Northwestern are treated as “confidential” by Northwestern that Kipnis legally wrongs the plaintiff by writing about these matters in ways that violate Northwestern’s rules? If so is this because Kipnis has an affiliation with Northwestern? If Kipnis violated Northwestern’s confidentiality policy this might raise an issue between Kipnis and Northwestern but under what understanding of civil law is a violation of Northwestern’s confidentiality policies a legal matter in the state in Illinois? Other issues raised in the complaint at least might have some relevance under Illinois law.

    It seems that the plaintiff and/or at least one of her graduate school colleagues also violated Northwestern’s confidentiality policies. See, for example, their postings at Daily Nous and Huffington Post. I wonder if the plaintiff will also be suing her graduate student ally for violating her privacy via these breaches of Northwestern’s confidentiality rules. I suspect she will not. She likely thinks it’s ok to violate the confidentiality of Northwestern’s proceedings if one is on her side of the dispute.

      1. Yes, at least partly. See p.17, count one, paragraph 77. The fact that under Northwestern policy the internal title ix investigation was considered confidential is cited in support of the claim that the “matters publicized were not of legitimate public concern.”

  3. Which one of you shitlords called for Leydon-Hardy to be blacklisted? Which one of you predicted that she’d have a hell of a time getting a job? Which one of you was gleeful at such prospects? Guess what? Your words are forever immortalized in a lawsuit and will be used to extract money out of Harper-Collins and into Leydon-Hardy’s bank account. I hope you’re happy with that — or perhaps you were a “false flag op” all along, designed to bolster the chances of a lucrative lawsuit?

    At any rate, discovery on this case is going to be fun. The moderator of this blog should be prepared; it wouldn’t surprise me at all if s/he were unmasked in the process.

    1. For those who don’t care to read the whole thing, the relevant part of the lawsuit (page 17):

      “Some in Plaintiff’s academic and professional community have opined online that, because of Unwanted Advances, Plaintiff will never get a job in her field. Others outright threaten to blacklist her. Indeed, because of the publication of Unwanted Advances and the firestorm of publicity and gossip that it has generated in her academic field, she has had to put off her entry into the academic job market by at least one and
      possibly two academic years.”

      This is almost certainly a reference to the PMMMB, and the comments mentioned above.

      1. No but people on this blog have been really clear that it’s an important and influential place, the last refuge of free discussion for the profession.

      2. That’s not correct. The SJW departments will go out of their way to hire her as a hero of the cause.

      3. Seems like there is zero chance there wont be a subpoena sent to the site owner regarding the lawsuit. Hope you all have been using vpns/tor (I sure as hell have). Think the host pays for this in bitcoin or something? End of an era, this was my favourite format yet.

        1. I’m certainly no lawyer, but I’m skeptical.

          As far as I can tell, the identities of anonymous commenters can only be subpoenaed if the comments themselves contain legally actionable content; and I doubt any of the comments mentioned in the lawsuit are defamatory. Also, why would either party give a shit? The relevance of the “blacklisting” point is just meant to establish that Kipnis’s book has had negative professional consequences for LLH. For that, it’s enough that “some in Plaintiff’s academic and professional community have opined online that, because of Unwanted Advances, Plaintiff will never get a job in her field” — the point being, it doesn’t really matter what the particular identities of these commenters are, just that they are in LLH’s academic and professional community. Which, given that they are posting on this glorious blog, they surely are.

          1. Note that WordPress does not even need a subpoena to release information about who runs this blog and who posts here. They’re under no obligation at all to keep those identities private. That said, in cases like this, discovery can be very broad (including even tertiary or quaternary parties like random internet commentators and their correspondence). Fishing expeditions are not unheard of, which is precisely why cases like this rarely actually go to trial. When they do, they’re messy, expensive, and embarrassing — again, often to tertiary or quaternary parties.

            Unlike Leiter, then, I’m betting on a quiet settlement with retractions from Kipnis. I predict that the graduate student gets a small payday and then quits philosophy.

    2. One person who will be very worried about discovery is Jeremy Fantl. His affair with Leydon-Hardy is mentioned in both Kipnis’ book and LLH’s lawsuit. This is just one example, but really, I just can’t imagine anyone being happy about all the dirty laundry being aired. What a shitshow.

    3. “Which one of you shitlords called for Leydon-Hardy to be blacklisted?”

      One of the shitlords here, one of Ludlow’s defenders presumably, did that. I thought it was reprehensible and said so. The fact that they want revenge against Leydon-Hardy by making her unemployable reflects extremely poorly on them. If Leydon-Hardy’s accusations are false, then she has got her comeuppance in Kipnis’s book, and that’s enough. If her accusations have some basis, then that may be clarified as this legal complaint proceeds. The desire to see her punished is sadism.

      1. “If Leydon-Hardy’s accusations are false, then she has got her comeuppance in Kipnis’s book, and that’s enough.”

        I’m not sure a published takedown is comeuppance enough. For ruining someone’s life and career by lying about him you get… embarrassed? How is that fair? This is something for courts to decide, though, not the shitlords who get hard at the thought of internet justice.

        1. The answer to Ludlow getting his career destroyed isn’t to destroy LLH in revenge, but for someone to have the moral backbone to hire him. Simple. This is very simple reasoning, clearly beyond some shitlords here.

          1. funny the minute you post this i see that there’s a new critical notice out on ludlow’s last book. cjp. looks good.

      2. That comment was made during a peak trolling period. Much of the trolling here takes the form of ramping up claims to the extreme, so that one fits the pattern.

        FWIW, I agree with you that calls for blacklisting her are reprehensible.

        1. Yes, blacklisting is not remotely severe enough a punishment for making false rape accusations. Women who do that should go to jail.

        1. Has various problems and prospects though. Must wait and see. But whatever happens, we’ll be the first to talk about it here – to no purpose.

  4. Recall this is an open, unchecked forum. For all the court knows, LLH herself could have posted the claim that it will be hard for her to get a job, in order to further her case. Unlikely, of course, but possible. To think that anything posted here could be used in a court of law is outrageous.

    1. It’s doubtful they would block a request to acquire the site records. Keep in mind that testimony is admissible. If the complainant states under oath she has no knowledge of the author of a certain post, there is no reason it could not be used as evidence. It will be up to a jury to determine if the complainant is ultimately credible, if it ever gets that far. Also, just by issuing the subpoena, the web host will likely reveal the site owner, if they are aware of the identity of the site owner. WordPress have no desire to tangle with law enforcement. What I’m saying is use a vpn, folks. And as always, kudos to the balls on the site owner.

  5. So what’s going on with the various philosophy blogs? Do their owners still post what they want, and have whatever comment policies they want? When will it end?

  6. All metabloggers have nothing but the kindest wishes for LLH

    Actually we don’t even know her name, what does that even stand for anyway?

    If anything, we have a HIGHER opinion of her, whoever she is, for whatever she said

    so really if you think about it there aren’t any damages at all

    1. I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic (probably?) but I for one do have nothing but the kindest wishes for LLH and PL. I think they’ve both been badly mistreated by Northwestern in all sorts of ways. Title IX proceedings are no good for anyone involved. And what should have been private was made public (perhaps at the goading of LLH’s friends and advisors), and that has done more harm than good. So now we have a promising graduate student who feels (rightly or wrongly) that her career is in jeopardy, and a professor whose career is over. Had this been handled in a more discrete way without the Title IX apparatus, the scrutiny of national media, and without meddling from the Lockwoods of this world, things may have turned out quite differently for all involved. It’s sad, and I wish LLH the best as she puts her life back together. Maybe a fatty settlement from Harper Collins will help with that. But I doubt it.

  7. Another Public Service Announcement:

    There is an RSS feed for comments to this blog. That means you can put it into your RSS reader and get a stream of comments (newest first) without any need to poke around for new comments on this site. Using this tool also means you can access comments without accessing the site (and giving it hits or ad revenue). It also means it is super easy to ignore the spam.

  8. Thank goddess, there is now an approved narrative on the Kipnis book — now I can just direct curious outsiders to the lawsuit and Itchy’s posts. Nothing to see here. Good work, everyone.

    1. I’m not that worried.

      “You can take legal action if anonymous Internet posters defame your business on the Internet. However, your right to subpoena a website owner to disclose the identity of the Internet posters will be weighed against the Internet posters’ First Amendment right to remain anonymous. At a minimum, you should be prepared to prove that at least one of the claims you will assert against the Internet posters has legal merit and that you have taken reasonable steps, without success, to identify and notify the Internet posters and need the court’s subpoena power for that purpose.”

      You shouldn’t defame anyone. But if you do, you shouldn’t do it from an IP address traceable back to you.

  9. KC Johnson is on a roll on twitter:

    “Northwestern serial accuser: lawsuit claims @laurakipnis simultaneously provided *too much* and *not enough* context.”

    “Northwestern accused recreates relationship with Ludlow not by quoting *any* of her texts, but instead statements w/o any witnesses”

    “Accuser: @laurakipnis free to write about TIX case–as long as Kipnis doesn’t include “facts” accuser doesn’t like. Quite remarkable claim.”

    “Northwestern accuser: Kipnis invaded her privacy by book’s using name of the professor against whom she filed a complaint:”

    “Northwestern accuser: TIX investigator found me “extremely credible”–except regarding the central allegation I leveled.”

    “Lawsuit makes @laurakipnis look even more sympathetic, and accuser even less so. Suit ID’s not a single text taken out of context.”

    “Best line from lawsuit: I’ll show @laurakipnis presented me in “false light” as “litigious” by suing her over her book’s *editorial choices*”

    1. If the lawyer’s have read the texts they can’t possibly believe her. They just know the US is riddled with anti-male laws and institutions so its worth rolling the die.

  10. Now she’s doing the typical maiden in distress re-write of history in which everyone but her is responsible for her actions. Does she think we’ve forgotten the texts? They show she’s lying and manipulative either way (1) was having an affair to use him to get herself with the in crowd to advance her career, dumped him when she’d got what she wanted, and then lied about it later (2) was leading him on on a promise to get herself with the in crowd to advance her career, dumped him when she’d got what she wanted and lied about it later.

  11. ‘He exerted more and more control over her’–apparently just by existing and behaving like a normal human being. If this standard piece of the feminist narrative is really true about women, and they insist that it is, then women are not capable of equality because they are incapable of being responsible adults.

    1. The lawsuit plays right into Kipnis’ basic point. In Title IX matters, women are treated as if they had no agency, a decidedly non-feminist (in the classical sense of ‘feminist’) interpretation.

  12. The statement by the Hypatia board is utterly pathetic. Weren’t Miriam Solomon and the sainted Elizabeth Anderson supposed to be the grown-ups in the room?

    To those unfamiliar with the issues, outrage about a particular academic publication is often dismissed as nothing more than the censoriousness of hypersensitive groups. The objectionable features of the particular case, considered in isolation, seem too minor to outsiders to warrant the degree of outrage focused upon it. Such dismissal reflects ignorance of the cumulative history of marginalization, disrespect, and misrepresentation of oppressed groups. Usually, objections to a particular academic publication reflect the objectors’ knowledge of a history of grievances of which outsiders are unaware. It is difficult to assess how much of the outrage is properly directed at Hypatia….

    Notice the presupposition that the ‘features’ of Tuvel’s article to which the mob objected are indeed objectionable — the question the board raises (without even answering!) is whether they are objectionable enough to warrant a witch-hunt and a demand for retraction.

    Even more striking is the partial justification of the mob in overtly purely psychological terms: ‘Look, whether they were right or wrong, their reaction was understandable.’ Notice that this entails ‘Even if they were wrong, their reaction was understandable.’ I can’t decide whether this is a patronizing infantilization of the critics of Hypatia’s decision to publish Tuvel’s paper or, in the context, the only appropriate level of analysis.

    1. Note also the Olberding-style handwringing about it being a ‘troubling and difficult controversy’. It really isn’t. There might be a controversy about transracial vs transgender issues, but if that’s what they’re referring to it’s another typical equivocation. Obviously the ‘controversy’ everyone’s worked up about is the one concerning the demand for a retraction and the Hypatia ‘apology’. But that’s not a controversy.
      The way Tuvel was treated was outrageous and indicated a kind of mass ignorance about the nature of academic inquiry. Many of the signers of the open letter are probably beyond help, but the associate editors of Hypatia should apologize. For that matter, Haslanger, Olberding, and now Solomon and Anderson should also apologize for failing miserably to stand up for Tuvel and implying that there are ‘faults on both sides’ when a mob demands suppression of academic speech.

      1. We need to remember that a man who’s had anything to drink can’t consent, and so any woman who sleeps with him is a rapist. And it doesn’t matter if she’s been drinking, too, because intoxication isn’t a defense.

  13. Among the many questions that arise around the Hypatia/Tuvel affair: would things have been different if Tuvel had published that paper elsewhere? That is: a lot of the outrage is nominally about some special obligations / standards that Hypatia is supposed to be subject to. But what if the paper had been published in, say, PPA or PPQ or wherever?

    I mean, I think that the following is not a stupid argument: feminists in philosophy have been pretty clear for quite awhile now that they think that politics should guide/constrain philosophy to a fair extent. And the idea that mass “shaming” of politically incorrect thought is permissible (or obligatory)…well…they’ve seemed to think that for quite awhile. So you could say that all they really did was act in accordance with principles and theories that they’ve defended for a long time. I think those principles and theories are terrible…but that’s not really the point. The point is that what happened to Tuvel wasn’t really *surprising.*

    But what if the paper had been published elsewhere? It seems a bit implausible to me to think that there would have been no outrage. And that’s more worrisome. If feminists want journals in which such standards prevail, that seems to me to be one thing. But it seems clear to me is that what they really want is for those standards to prevail *everywhere*. And that includes: the entire discipline of philosophy (including all the journals).

    So really, we end up wondering: how prevalent is the view that thought, unconstrained by politics, should not be allowed *anywhere* in philosophy? (And if not in philosophy, then where?)

    I’d be happy to hear that that’s an extremely rare view…but I worry that it’s a pretty influential position.

    1. ultimately very few will be for thought unconstrained by politics of any sort. we’re human after all.
      department politics, philosophical preferences etc. all play a role
      (ever been on a search committee?)

      1. Very few philosophers will think that there should be any thought unconstrained by politics?????

        How is appealing to our humanity supposed to defend such a view?
        More to the point: political interference is very different than accepting on principle that politics *ought* to interfere.

        Been on lots of search committees… Politics intruding on them is the notable exception, not the rule. Also: political interference inevitably leads to inferior hires.

        1. even if it is not the vulgar politics (den vs republicans and the like), on search committees there is A LOT of sympathies going on, especially motivated by “philosophical” preferences. and this is “politics” after all.

          “How is appealing to our humanity supposed to defend such a view?”
          It is not appealing at all. We humans are wicked and vicious. that’s all I meant by saying “we’re all humans”. I meant: “we are all vicious”.

  14. Obama gets elected: a few fringe idiots like Donald Trump become birthers.

    Trump gets elected: the entire media-Democrat complex become birthers. But in a way that gives rise to a third red scare and seems calculated to taunt an idiot into hostility towards a nuclear power.

    I’m watching in disbelief from across the pond. Like, I never had a high opinion of the American liberal class, but I still overestimated them. Do real people buy into this stuff? It’s hard to tell from the internet.

    1. Yes, many totally buy into it. It was really creepy the way it happened almost overnight.

      One week, I was joking with lefty colleagues, to their approval, about how surreal it was to hear Dems talk like McCarthyites, and the next week those same colleagues were making constant Russia and Putin jokes, taking the conspiracies totally seriously and accusing anyone who doubted them of defending Trump.

      I thought the GW years were bizarro, upside down land, but the Dems are giving it a run for its money.

      1. And the big difference is… Mcarthy was right, the state department was indeed infiltrated by communist traitors.

    2. they do. Including plenty of philosophy profs on social media. The atmosphere is crazy. This is kind of a demonstration that under normal social circumstances rationality is about collective belonging and not assessment of evidence by individuals.

      1. No, it’s a demonstration that “social justice” types are cultish and possessed of a herd…or pack…mentality.

        It doesn’t tell us anything at all about rationality…except that some people lack it…which we already knew, so…

        1. ffs. No, it’s a demonstration that the human species is cultish and herdish when divided into teams in a zero sum game.

          The left said the same thing during the GW years and about the Tea Party and Obama conspiracists: “see? The other side is so cultish and crazy!”

          How many cycles between the forms of stupid and crazy do we need before we recognize that it is US politics, not a particular ideology or population, that is stupid and crazy?

    3. What’s funny here is the framing of current Western politics as dangerous authoritarian populists versus sober, competent technocrats. When the sober, competent technocrats are hysterical conspiracy theorists cheering on a secret-police coup.

  15. Whenever posted, the LLH/PL texts used to be swiftly taken down by lawyers. That is no longer the case — to boost the chances of a hefty judgement, should the case go to trial? The wider the text messages get spread, the better the case is for real damage to LLH’s reputation.

    Then again, if things you *actually said* in text messages damage your reputation, maybe you should rethink the things you say in text messages… but that’s just my old-fashioned opinion.

    1. Two problems: 1. these messages were published online long before Kipnis ever quoted from them, so their “damage” was not done by Kipnis. 2. Reading the messages disproves the student’s claims–which is why the petition never quotes from them.

    2. It’s not the things that were said in the text messages that are damaging for LLH’s reputation (well, except perhaps for the My Little Pony stuff, who knows what the fuck was up with that); it’s the fact that she was then willing to go on record in formal disciplinary proceedings (and even in lawsuits) as denying that a consensual relationship ever existed. The texts prove, about as conclusively as any empirical evidence has ever proven anything, that her claim is false. I can’t see how the defamation lawsuit has a snowball’s chance in hell. That said, if the case lasts long enough that the texts can no longer be ignored, it will be interesting to see LLH’s defenders scramble to incorporate them into their narrative.

  16. The latest outrage du jour involves June Chu, an Asian-American dean at one of the Yale residential colleges, covered in both the CHE and IHE. One quote, from IHE but also referred to in the CHE article, reads

    ‘ In a review of a movie theater, she praised the “lack of sketchy crowds, despite it being in New Haven.” ‘

    I am a native English-speaker, but live outside the USA. What does “sketchy” mean in this context, and why is it apparently offensive?

    Wiktionary gives synonyms such as “dicey, dodgy, seedy, shady”. None of this seems to have anything to do with the usual intersectionalities of “gender, race, social class, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, age, mental disability, physical disability, mental illness, and physical illness.” (the ever-growing list courtesy of Wikipedia.) The synonyms seem to refer to character or virtue, which are noticeably absent from this list.

    In an earlier position at Dartmouth, Chu was a/the Title IX coordinator, which may explain some of the internet Schadenfreude.

    1. “Sketchy” can mean underclass with possible ties to crime and drugs, though new haven is also 1/3 black and 1/4 latino.

    2. The most common use is to describe a dangerous neighborhood as “sketchy.”

      That makes it principally an economic descriptor, but of course in the US, neighborhoods tend to be very sharply segregated by both race and class, so perceptions of sketchiness associated with race.

      The sketchy neighborhoods are often in fact the non-white ones, because of economic and racial segregation. That real geographical fact also leads to stereotyping: comfortably middle class Americans tend to automatically see “sketchiness” even if it’s not there wherever they see a non-white majority population.

  17. The June Chu story is amazing. She works in a field awash in diversity rhetoric and wrote an IHE article about microaggressions in advising. She craps all over low SES people in service jobs in her yelp reviews. But then she brags about her Yelp profile at work! She doesn’t even have the good sense to see the problem or be ashamed of it.

    From the Washington Post story on this: “A student in Pierson who spoke to the Yale Daily News but asked to remain anonymous said he and some friends searched Chu’s Yelp account after receiving a collegewide email on Jan. 30 in which she announced that she had become “Yelp Elite,” meaning she had been recognized by the website for active participation “well-written reviews, high quality tips, a detailed personal profile, an active voting and complimenting record, and a history of playing well with others,” according to Yelp.”

  18. Has anyone ever met Shelley Tremain? Judging just by her online presence, I’ve seen nothing to disconfirm the hypothesis that she is a fictional character designed to troll SJWs. Her latest post at DN is a case in point. It’s brilliant:

    The Board of Directors of Hypatia wrote: “In response, the Board calls upon all those who wish to participate in Hypatia’s governing structure to commit themselves to playing their role in support of the journal, as this is required for the continuation of Hypatia as a scholarly enterprise.” [Point #4]

    Thank you very much for the invitation. I would be happy to participate in the governing structure of Hypatia. I hereby make a commitment to support the journal in its role as a scholarly enterprise. I have published five items on disability in Hypatia and over thirty books and articles on disability overall. Since disabled philosophers and disabled feminist philosophers of disability especially are currently underrepresented in the discipline and profession and in particular on every one of the journal’s boards, including its Editorial, Associate Editor, and Advisory Boards, and Board of Directors, I would be happy to serve in any capacity of Hypatia’s governing structure. Furthermore, since disabled feminist philosophers of disability are underrepresented in the departments of every one of the members of the Board of Directors, and the departments of every one of the Associate Editors, Advisory Board members, and members of the Editorial Board, I would in addition be happy to take up a faculty position in any of these departments.

    1. A quick Google Scholar search confirms that Shelly Tremain is real (either that or she’s the creation of the most dedicated troll in history).

      Poe’s law.

      1. Surely she has no idea whether or not the editorial board members are disabled: not all disabilities are visible, and not everyone who suffers from a disability is comfortable announcing that in academic contexts.

        As a multiply-invisibly-disabled academic, I hereby call on Hypatia to retract Shelley Tremain’s articles in the journal, given her harmful public pronouncements which erase the experience of scholars like me and make the discipline an unwelcoming space.

      1. Wow… very embarrassing for you. Maybe when a metabro corrects someone’s spelling, he should not make many spelling errors himself? Or is that too much to ask?

      2. Also it is very telling that someone links to something that has ACTUAL PHILLOSOPHY and then all the metabros ignore it. Some philosophy blog…

        1. Wtf are you talking about? It’s just an article about some guy who sends cutesy emails about ants to people. Where’s the ‘ACTUAL PHILLOSOPHY’?

  19. Anon, “Also it is very telling that someone links to something that has ACTUAL PHILLOSOPHY and then all the metabros ignore it. Some philosophy blog…”

    Femtroll tantrum alert.

    1. Pretty weak sauce, for reasons lots have people have already given. Yeah, something rejected by an unranked journal got published in an even worse pay-to-publish journal nobody reads. Cool. Tells us academic publishers do shady shit to make profit, surprise surprise. Doesn’t tell us anything about gender studies. Dumb/gibberish hoax papers are published in similar journals in the sciences.

      For the record, I know basically nothing about gender studies and wouldn’t be surprised if there’s rampant pomo bullshit there. The point is that this hoax article doesn’t give us any evidence about the “fundamental integrity of fields like gender studies”, except maybe that it’s more sound than one might have thought, given it got rejected from one of the field’s more obscure journals, and so presumably had no hope for a top journal (why didn’t the authors submit it to the top journals, if they thought the problem was with the field?).

      Or perhaps this was an attempt to Sokal hoax the Harris et al. crowd who get off so hard on Sokal hoaxes? Not my guess given the authors, unfortunately.

      1. Our hoax was similar, of course, but it aimed to expose a more troubling bias. The most potent among the human susceptibilities to corruption by fashionable nonsense is the temptation to uncritically endorse morally fashionable nonsense. That is, we assumed we could publish outright nonsense provided it looked the part and portrayed a moralizing attitude that comported with the editors’ moral convictions.

        1. But it didn’t ‘expose’ what you’re claiming it does. This has nothing to do with whatever you wrote appearing ‘morally fashionable’ or ‘comporting with the editors moral convictions.’ It simply has to do with the fact that you paid to publish something in a dodgy journal. So it shows you can publish crap if you send it to a dodgy journal and pay the fee. That’s all.

          1. In sum, it’s difficult to place Cogent Social Sciences on a spectrum ranging from a rigorous academic journal in gender studies to predatory pay-to-publish money mill. First, Cogent Social Sciences operates with the legitimizing imprimatur of Taylor and Francis, with which it is clearly closely partnered. Second, it’s held out as a high-quality open-access journal by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which is intended to be a reliable list of such journals. In fact, it carries several more affiliations with similar credentialing organizations.

            These facts cast considerable doubt on the facile defense that Cogent Social Sciences is a sham journal that accepted “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” simply to make money. As a result, wherever Cogent Social Sciences belongs on the spectrum just noted, there are significant reasons to believe that much of the problem lies within the very concept of any journal being a “rigorous academic journal in gender studies.

            1. A. No they don’t (this has already been discussed elsewhere) and B. given that your sham paper was rejected by another journal, there are significant reasons to believe that your little hoax shows nothing about problems in gender studies as a field. I don’t know why you keep flogging this dead horse. It’s not even getting any traction in the one place (here) where you were most likely to be enthusiastically received. it would have been better to keep quiet about this rather than do what you are doing, which is simply giving the very people who you are trying to show up ammunition to use against you.

              1. We didn’t originally go looking to hoax Cogent Social Sciences, however. Had we, this story would be only half as interesting and a tenth as apparently damning. Cogent Social Sciences was recommended to us by another journal, NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, a Taylor and Francis journal. NORMA rejected “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” but thought it a great fit for the Cogent Series, which operates independently under the Taylor and Francis imprimatur. In their rejection letter, the editors of NORMA wrote,

                We feel that your manuscript would be well-suited to our Cogent Series, a multidisciplinary, open journal platform for the rapid dissemination of peer-reviewed research across all disciplines.

                Transferring your manuscript:

                Saves you time because there is no need for you to reformat or resubmit your work manually
                Provides faster publication because previous reviews are transferred with your manuscript.
                To ensure all work is open to everyone, the Cogent Series invites a “pay what you want” contribution towards the costs of open access publishing if your article is accepted for publication. This can be paid by you as author or by your institution or research funder. Many institutions and funders now provide financial support for open access publishing.

                We took them up on the transfer, and Cogent Social Sciences eventually accepted “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” The reviewers were amazingly encouraging, giving us very high marks in nearly every category. For example, one reviewer graded our thesis statement “sound” and praised it thusly, “It capturs [sic] the issue of hypermasculinity through a multi-dimensional and nonlinear process” (which we take to mean that it wanders aimlessly through many layers of jargon and nonsense). The other reviewer marked the thesis, along with the entire paper, “outstanding” in every applicable category

                1. So your entire argument, then, hinges on the fact that a reputable journal ‘recommended’ your article for submission elsewhere? There has been discussion on other blog about whether a. it was the journal that recommended this rather than the publisher, and b. whether this was an actual endorsement rather than, say, an autogenerated response. Why don’t you post the entire rejection letter from NORMA rather than just excerpts? That would help clear up the answers to these questions.

                  1. I’m not the authors. I’m posting responses they’ve already given. You need to keep up.

                    There seems to be a deeper problem here, however. Suspecting we may be dealing with a predatory pay-to-publish outlet, we were surprised that an otherwise apparently legitimate Taylor and Francis journal directed us to contribute to the Cogent Series. (Authors’ note: we leave it to the reader to decide whether or not NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies constitutes a legitimate journal, but to all appearances it is run by genuine academic experts in the field and is not a predatory money-mill.) The problem, then, may rest not only with pay-to-publish journals, but also with the infrastructure that supports them

                    1. ‘I need to keep up’? Are you serious? You’ve made multiple posts in which you’re very clearly talking as though you are one of the authors. There’s no indication whatsoever in these posts that you are merely reposting someone else’s words. Don’t be such a dick.

                    2. If you read the original it wouldn’t be a surprise. Yet you are confident you have refuted them. So who’s the dick?

                    3. I had read the original article. I assumed, because they didn’t say otherwise, that it was the author reposting things he had said elsewhere, rather than a stranger posting someone else’s words without any indication whatsoever that they were someone else’s.

                    4. Have you not actually read the posts immediately above this? That’s the only way your comment makes any sense.

                    5. I don’t actually believe that you’re not one of the authors. You’ve been writing as though you were one of the authors all along, until you get a request that, if answered, might undermine your story (the request to produce the rejection letter from NORMA). Now all of the sudden you’re just ‘reposting’ so you can’t actually answer. How convenient.

                    1. Oh, so it’s true that you actually can’t read then, or at least not very well. Poor you.

                  1. Our aim was smaller yet more pointed. We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship.

                    1. Just to be clear, are you the author, or are you just reposting the author’s words without citation?

      2. Troubled Genders: Or on How I Can Publish My Willy

        I was learning the way into battering proust
        And the jingle bat left me to rostrum
        Federal taxes my philosophy beak
        And I could give an argument on the podium

        Things are good with me this year
        I had a philosophical moment on the podium at my chosen venue
        I saw them all learning, I saw them all laughing
        I am part of this profession no more

        Moke my progress on a bit father comeback
        Abusing your editorial worms
        Moving your hot pencil willy into policing our shit
        And I don’t know where you got those big clothes

        My problematic willy came and spilled out into Gender Studies
        I caught a madagascar penmanship award aping women who yell on the byline
        I made my obelisk fortune raising monugents of bad harms
        My big roasted discourse eroded academic freedom,
        I think I’ll slap my intersectional wilcox dick and fuck the system.

      3. Amazing. We have a gender studies troll. Listen, darling. Your field is full of shit. It always has been. It always will be. It’s got nothing worth saying to say and that is why it dresses up girly trash talk in pomo bollocks. They got your number and showed you just who you are. We are all laughing at you.

    2. Glaciers, gender, and science
      A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research

      Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

  20. *****************************************

    Announcing the Philosophy Meta-Forum:

    Have you ever found the metablog frustrating? Unable to carry on a real conversation because of the single-thread forat? Tired of frequent interruptions by ants? The solution is here. With custom-built software, semi-persistent nicknames, and a seamless posting experience, the Philosophy Meta-Forum will fulfill all your meta-commentary needs.


    1. Your forum is useless.
      No, I won’t confirm I’m not a bot. Are you kidding me? Which moron set you up then? Alfred or Bertrand.

  21. Maybe if it were run by Alfie and Berti. . . .

    Too bad about the journal problem for the dick paper. I really like the idea of a conceptual cock raping virgin landscapes though. That was a nice touch.

    In any case, there were serious methodological problems with that paper. As far as I can tell they didn’t engage with any BBCs, neither of the real, hard kind nor the purely imaginary.

  22. About the Conceptual Willy paper: I wish people would stop dismissing this as if it was just a money-making scam run out of a basement, or that it’s no big deal since the journal isn’t highly ranked. Take a look at the board of associate editors (Hi, Thom Brooks!) and let’s ask how their involvement with this publisher reflects upon them. To me it doesn’t reflect poorly on the pranksters if they are trying to shine a light on (what they take to be) various scholars enabling predatory publishing. Is it not time to hear from some of the people on the Board?

    1. Wow, that’s quite a catch! I always wondered about that guy. Seems like he’s, I dunno, too good at working with and leveraging the shitty aspects of modern quantitatively-assessed academia.

    2. It wouldn’t reflect poorly on them if that was what they were trying to do. But what they are claiming they are doing is showing that “there are significant reasons to believe that much of the problem lies within the very concept of any journal being a “rigorous academic journal in gender studies.”

      Which might of course be true – but they haven’t shown anything like this by their attempted hoax.

      1. Aaand its the gender studies troll again. As I said before, darling, they got your number and showed you just who you are. We are all laughing at you.

    3. It’s not on Brooks’s CV. They probably did yhe usual fake journal thing and picked a bunch of names for the board without bothering to contact those people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s