OK, everyone is talking about the value of the independent peer-review publishing route vs the traditional route. OK. Can we talk about the content of the damned article?
Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine performance.
Subjects: Gender Studies - Soc Sci; Postmodernism of Cultural Theory; Feminism
Keywords: penis; feminism; machismo braggadocio; masculinity; climate change
Fucking climate change?
So, from the opening paragraph, we are presented with an obvious troll. Yet, it got peer-reviewed because liberals saw a bunch of buzzwords that they are politically “for” and rubber-stamped a load of BS?
how in the hell am I supposed to identify as “progressive” when this is the example set? I promise you, I am as dyed-in-the-wool liberal/progressive as they come, but the reason why is because I abhor political groupthink. Coming of age in the Reagan-Bush years, I was in opposition to the “dittoheads” of Limbaugh fame. “We” were supposed to be the side that didn’t knuckle-under to the established modes of thought, the Right was the paradigm that would–gladly–blindly follow the party line.
Was I mistaken? was the political Left (such as it meekly exists in the US) always a circle-jerk, or what the hell, man?