Amanduh talks bollocks to power

At first blush, these two stories don’t seem much alike. The first is a lurid right-wing conspiracy theory and the latter is an academic prank to spoof the sometimes abstruse discourse associated with postmodern cultural theory. But scratch the surface and it’s easy to see that these two stories are deeply rooted in misogynist fears about allowing women access to the halls of power. Both stories serve as warnings that feminism leads to decay, destruction and even death.

Eh?

Both these stories were popular for a very simple reason: They resonated with the sexist desire to believe that bad things will follow if women are allowed access to power. The “conceptual penis” story speaks to the fear that letting women, especially feminists, into the halls of academia will degrade intellectual standards. The implication is that feminist academics are incapable of rigorous thought and are using “political correctness” to intimidate others into not noticing that they are imposters.

No, not really. It was an attempt, not all that good a one, to show that vast amounts of the social sciences are bollocks. As Sokal’s rather better attempt showed some years back.

19 comments on “Amanduh talks bollocks to power

  1. “The implication is that feminist academics are incapable of rigorous thought and are using “political correctness” to intimidate others into not noticing that they are imposters.”

    Very close toThird Law: SJWs always project.

  2. “feminist academics are incapable of rigorous thought and are using “political correctness” to intimidate others into not noticing that they are imposters.”

    A very rare statement of the truth from a piece of prime Marxian femmi-scum. Well done Amandumb.

  3. What’s all this fear about women? I meet them everyday as politicians (local ones), business people, cleaners, friends, academics etc and some of them are nice, some aren’t, some are brighter than me, some are thicker and so on and so on….

    In general (with notable exceptions), I find women’s company pleasant (sometimes exceedingly pleasant..). Men? Pretty much the same without the exceedingly pleasant bits

    However, I dislike wimmin, but I’m neither challenged by them nor fear them. They are like aliens and occupy a world I do not inhabit.

  4. This isn’t your common-or-garden bullshit like what you’d get from Asda. This is automatic, systematic, hydromatic bullshit. It’s a hypercube of bullshit, spinning madly in dimensions hitherto unknown to science, showering multiple adjacent universes with glittery feminist poo-poo.

    two obnoxious hoaxes: a conspiracy theory accusing Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee of having a young staffer named Seth Rich murdered, and the false claim that the entire field of gender studies had been exposed as a fraud by two male scholars.

    Well, Seth Rich is still dead and the cops still say they have no suspects or evidence of motive. Though they did grab his laptop before his bullet-riddled corpse cooled off. That’s just standard procedure when you think someone is the victim of a robbery gone wrong, right?

    Obviously it’s absolutely crazy and insane to suspect that – given the trillions of dollars and thousands of DC insider livelihoods at stake in presidential elections – political murder is within the bounds of realistic possibility. Anyone who thinks that must be a victim of Vladimir Putin’s top secret psionic mind control technology.

    Similarly, we already knew that gender studies is a fraud. Nobody who isn’t a moron thinks otherwise. Even the beefy lezzers who teach it know it’s a scam to avoid having to work for a living. That’s why they deliberately serve up obfuscatory pomo word salad.

    The conceptual penis guys weren’t exposing feminism as nonsense, because you can’t “expose” that which is patently bloody obvious. They were mirth-making.

    Both stories serve as warnings that feminism leads to decay, destruction and even death.

    She wrote, as her dessicated womb finally collapsed into a sad little puddle of dust.

    “I love you, Mommy!”, said no child ever to Amanda Marcotte.

  5. Jeez…

    “Obviously it’s absolutely crazy and insane to suspect that – given the trillions of dollars and thousands of DC insider livelihoods at stake in presidential elections – political murder is within the bounds of realistic possibility.”

    Yes, yes it is, when the person supposedly assassinated was found alive and conscious, and was interviewed by police before he died, and never mentioned it or anything of the sort.

    In general, when you find a richer sort of person in a poorer part of town, having been robbed and yet not obviously missing anything, the null hypothesis is that they were robbed of the drugs they’d just bought. We know Seth Rich was a recreational drug user (and there’s nothing wrong with that). We know he told the police he was robbed, and didn’t want to say what was taken. Come on. Sometimes the simple, obvious explanation answers every question.

    It’s not like it’s so unlikely Hillary would try an assassination, but there’s just nothing here that can’t be easily explained away. Do you really think it’s plausible that she organised one so competently that anyone suggesting the idea sounds completely batshit insane? Frankly, that’s the really laughable idea here. Surely only Hillary fans think that if she tried to assassinate Seth Rich, she’d have got him and not e.g. Phil Roth?

  6. “We know he told the police he was robbed, and didn’t want to say what was taken”

    IIRC, wasn’t the guy shot at the time? So much so that he died? A bit strange that what he was worried about was some drugs?

  7. How many more have to die before Hillary’s reign of terror is brought to an end?

  8. Wait . . . what? How do you leap from Hillary et al might have killed Seth Rich to misogyny?

  9. Yes, yes it is, when the person supposedly assassinated was found alive and conscious, and was interviewed by police before he died, and never mentioned it or anything of the sort.

    What Monoi said, but also:

    How the fuck would Seth Rich know? Do you think hitmen are in the habit of telling their victims why they’re killing them?

    You mongo.

    We know he told the police he was robbed, and didn’t want to say what was taken.

    We know nothing of the sort. Wipe your mouth, Dave.

  10. TIS:“How the fuck would Seth Rich know? Do you think hitmen are in the habit of telling their victims why they’re killing them?”

    Blimey, TIS, have you never watched a film?

  11. The “conceptual penis” story speaks to the fear that letting women, especially feminists, into the halls of academia will degrade intellectual standards.

    That is not a fear. That is an observed reality. As I have said before – and been toasted nice and brown for saying so – every institution dominated by women is a failing institution. It applies to academia just as much as it applies to schools or the NHS. The only way the vast majority of women can hold down positions in academia is by dumbing down enormously.

    The implication is that feminist academics are incapable of rigorous thought and are using “political correctness” to intimidate others into not noticing that they are imposters.

    Well yes. Another observed reality. Amanda is on fire today. After all, she wouldn’t have a career without both of these factors.

  12. every institution dominated by women is a failing institution

    Well, only if you count the failing ones, yes.

    I personally don’t think it is the nurses that are causing the NHS to fail. I wouldn’t prefer it if most of my nurses were male. Nor do I ever get the sense that the female teachers of my acquaintance are worse than the male ones (the very worst teachers I have met were all male, with one very notable exception).

    Businesses where women run the show included: prostitution (at least in NZ), which is notoriously lucrative; fashion, which again has a lot of people making a lot of money; and event organising.

  13. Do women run fashion? I thought it was men.

    Re Seth Rich, fucked if I know or care what happened to him, but the fact that he got to hospital conscious and chatty and then died the next day would – in a film – be inculpatory of Hillary and her reach, not exculpatory.

  14. Chester Draws – “Well, only if you count the failing ones, yes.”

    And a White Knight rides to the rescue.

    “I personally don’t think it is the nurses that are causing the NHS to fail.”

    I am sure that is, at least, partially true. It is all the female administrators too.

    “I wouldn’t prefer it if most of my nurses were male.”

    That’s just homophobia!

    “Nor do I ever get the sense that the female teachers of my acquaintance are worse than the male ones (the very worst teachers I have met were all male, with one very notable exception).”

    Which is besides the point. I do not doubt that the men who remain in female-run institutions like schools are just as bad.

    “Businesses where women run the show included: prostitution (at least in NZ), which is notoriously lucrative;”

    I bet they do not. I bet that there are men with large motorcycles there somewhere.

    “fashion, which again has a lot of people making a lot of money; and event organising.”

    Event organising? Yeah. Fashion is virtually entirely run by Gay men. Donatella is an exception.

  15. I disagree with Amanda Marcotte about its being “easy to see that these two stories are deeply rooted in misogynist fears”. But she’s a lot less wrong than the commentators here who are clinging to the Seth Rich nonsense even after Fox has given up on it.

    The hoax paper was submitted to a minor journal, which rejected it. So the authors paid for it to be published in a vanity journal. I can’t see how that’s supposed to reflect badly on the field of gender studies.

  16. @SJW – That journal didn’t simply and straightforwardly reject the paper – they were the ones who recommended that it be submitted elsewhere. Despite it intentionally being complete and utter gibberish, there’s no indication that they actually identified it as a hoax before it was published.

    Having said that, considering the utter lunacy spewed out by gender studies departments and published in the ‘credible’ journals of that field, the hoax just seems a little redundant. It’s a bit like getting a paper on the moon being made out of cheese published in a flat Earth journal.

    Show people who aren’t part of the cult real gender studies papers on things like ‘feminist glaciology’, or ones condemning the scientific method as a tool of male oppression, or any papers that deny obvious examples of human sexual dimorphism, and they’ll likely think those must be hoaxes too.

    The real papers are what really reflects badly on the field of gender studies. They’re why it deserves to be taken about as seriously as Young Earth Creationism or Scientology.

  17. It was an autogenerated reply, which, shorn of academic politesse, said “your paper is rubbish. This journal (with the same owners) publishes rubbish for cash: try them.”

    You might not approve of that, but it’s standard practice at the seamier end of academic publishing, because profits. It says nothing about gender studies in particular: see for example this hoax.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.