Do you know what collegiate area of study is absolutely full of lies, deception, weird science, and exaggeration? There are probably several, but the one that jumps out most is Gender Studies. Students flock to these classes to learn that all women are potential victims, that all men are potential predators, and that "all sex is rape." (Yes, that's actually taught.)
That's why a hoax that philosopher Peter Boghossian and mathematician James Lindsay perpetrated is so funny. They wanted to reveal to the rest of America what most academics already know: Gender Studies is a farce.
To demonstrate their thesis, they wrote a fake academic article that blamed global warming on penises and then submitted it to a peer-reviewed academic journal. According to Heat Street, they hoped to show that this area of study is "shallow, credulous and painfully politically correct," and they succeeded. The editors at the journal, unable to tell the difference between what's real and what's completely stupid, published the article.
They did it again with a piece on “the conceptual penis,” which stated that when a man sits with his legs apart, he is “raping the empty space around him." Cogent Social Sciences published that one (archived link). The authors revealed their trick in Skeptic Magazine, by explaining their motives:
“This already damning characterization of our hoax understates our paper’s lack of fitness for academic publication by orders of magnitude. We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.”
In addition to all of the intellectual jargon, they also slipped in some rather lewd (and funny) descriptions of male anatomy. This is an actual excerpt from the published piece:
(The National Coalition for Men “compile[d] a list of synonyms for the word penis [sic],” these include the terms “beaver basher,” “cranny axe,” “custard launcher,” “dagger,” “heat-seeking moisture missile,” “mayo shooting hotdog gun,” “pork sword,” and “yogurt shotgun” ). Based upon an appreciable corpus of feminist literature on the penis, this troubling identification results in an effective isomorphism linking the conceptual penis with toxic hypermasculinity.
Isn't it time that we get rid of all of these programs? In fact, if "gender" is actually a social construct and is no longer a thing, then all of these programs should be eliminated immediately.