Several months ago, an “exposé” came out in Skeptic Magazine about a hoax paper that was accepted in a gender studies journal. The paper was titled The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct, written by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. It’s publication was supposed to expose the gender studies for the postmodern scam it is, that relies on political and emotional truths over scientific ones. Michael Shermer who runs Skeptic Magazine published this, and people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and many of our other favorite thinkers delighted in this hoax except there was one problem. It wasn’t a very good hoax. It was rejected by a mid-tier gender studies journal called Norma, and only accepted in a pay-to-publish journal. Harris has since rejected it as a good hoax after more information came out as to how it was originally presented and published. Sadly Shermer has tried to use some hand-waving to say that well it’s still satire and for him it doesn’t matter where it was published, it’s a fair satirical critique for what passes as scholarship. The style of the hoax is patterned after a hoax in biology committed by Sokal and he seems to still think it was a decent hoax, but even he has admitted that I didn’t actually really prove that gender studies was bereft of scholarship. You can find Shermer’s apologetics and Sokal’s analysis of the hoax here. However, the authors of this hoax claim in their original article in Skeptic Magazine that they have successfully done this. They claim:
There are at least two deeply troublesome diseases damaging the credibility of the peer-review system in fields such as gender studies:
- the echo-chamber of morally driven fashionable nonsense coming out of the postmodernist social “sciences” in general, and gender studies departments in particular and
- the complex problem of pay-to-publish journals with lax standards that cash in on the ultra-competitive publish-or-perish academic environment. At least one of these sicknesses led to “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” being published as a legitimate piece of academic scholarship, and we can expect proponents of each to lay primary blame upon the other.
They also claim that since Norma recommended the pay-to-publish journal that they must have taken it somewhat seriously. However, it’s also possible that Norma played a hoax on them. Maybe they recognize it as low grade garbage and just said, well if you want it published take it over to this other journal. Although I will concede that it still might be a problem if an academic journal is still recommending garbage for publication even in low tier journals. You can read Lindsay and Boghossian’s response to criticisms here.
This issue for me had been put in the past, until I listened recently to a podcast (which I now adore) called Very Bad Wizards, where they interview James Lindsay, one of the co-authors. I recommend listening to the interview (especially if you like watch mathematicians dance) which starts half way through the podcast, but Lindsay comes off as completely unwilling to concede that the paper wasn’t very successful, and in fact comes off someone who was more interested in mockery than making an honest statement. He admitted to have no personal expertise in gender studies and thus couldn’t engage in honest criticism. Despite not having any knowledge of the field still felt that his satire was good satire. He also claims since the journal it did end up in had at least one reviewer with the requisite expertise to judge the paper that point #1 was in fact proven. The hosts of the show made several excellent points:
- The fact that even a mid-tier journal didn’t publish the paper lends some weight to the fact that Gender Studies does have standards of scholarship. And even if gender studies was publishing morally fashionable nonsense, this hoax did not prove that.
- Low tier pay-to-publish journals exist in numerous fields, so this point could have been proven in numerous areas of study.
- The velocity in which many male scholars jumped on the bandwagon of this hoax without giving it the serious critical thought it should have had before getting behind it, makes the reaction to the hoax guilty of the same charge of “morally fashionable”. How are we to take a criticism of gender studies seriously when it I also acts in the same way as they claim the field of gender studies acts?
Given that every field probably has some junk science and some crap journals I asked myself the question, why did these two men pick gender studies? Why was the hilarity all coming from men. I’ll admit, I myself fell into this without the requisite critical thinking that I should have had. I hold Skeptic Magazine in higher regards (that’s dropped a couple notches now) and I’d like to believe that it’s just because I enjoy a good hoax, and that I do think it’s important to point out junk science, but the more I reflected, I thought it’s quite interesting how quick men were to jump on this. There seems to be something else going on, even if somewhat unconscious. I am quite aware of the scholarly work that is done in feminism, but on reflection, even if this hoax had proved what it attempted to prove, I was wrong to post the hoax originally on Facebook, because I don’t believe it represents anything normative about gender or feminist research, and while there may be some bad research out there, given the tilt against women in our society both nationally and internationally if there are criticisms to be had it should be done honestly and in good faith and not in the manner that this was done. At seems at the very least there is still an undercurrent of misogyny in this hoax and it’s unnecessary.
Lindsay also claims that the field of gender studies largely ignores robust scientific evidence of differences between genders. As a follow up to this post I’d like to challenge this evidence in a post later to come. There I will make the case that even if we did find such evidence I’d like to address how minimal and possibly pointless such gender differences are, and that compared to socialized gender constructs, biological differences between the sexes are largely irrelevant.
For now, let’s have less hoaxes that genders that are disadvantaged by society, where many serious problems still exist. I am quite certain that there is a lot of bad scholarship going on out there in academia, and I’d like to believe that this is the main reason I initially delighted in the hoax. On reflection it was in poor taste and upon learning more about it, it didn’t prove what it set out to prove. Let’s be united against bad scholarship wherever it might be and instead of being clueless about the field as James Lindsay claimed he was, let’s have educated criticism.