Re-imagining Reproduction: The Queer Possibilities of Plants

submitted by xoenix from (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]clownworlddropout 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I find this kind of navel-gazing nonsense kind of demoralizing, it's just so foolish. Nothing of value can be gained by "queer-lensing" every damn thing.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Haha, that’s not actually true.

It generates publications and that’s all that matters in academia.

They turned publication into a metric to justify funding and therefore opened it up to gaming. It was the most retarded move and has utterly destroyed universities.

If you naively believe that the universities should examine the universe and contribute to the sum total of human knowledge then you have missed the point of the modern university. The modern university is a make work for over educated middle class work shy twats who have manipulated the noble pursuit of knowledge into a job for life (with or without tenure, no tenure in the UK, same problems).

There are good researchers out there, but I am convinced they are now the minority.

[–]clownworlddropout 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I had an inkling of this... so write a nonsense paper that ticks all the checkmarks for publication, then use that publication as justification for another nonsense paper to be funded. And the bullshit you can sling about gender-woo is endless... ugh, I'm even more demoralized now.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah and it’s even more insidious.

They have made up their own journals where they and their friends in their tiny little field are the editors and reviewers so that they can publish any old guff without having to worry about actual peer review.

The grievance studies affair shone a bright light into how easy it was to publish utter bollocks in feminist, queer studies etc journals because as long as you didn’t disrupt the accepted narrative they were not going to reject your article.

So they not only publish bollocks because it’s the metric by which they gain funding, they control the journals in which they publish.

We are also starting to see the top tier science journals (Nature, Science etc) fall to the nonsense too, as the graduates of the grievance studies disciplines take over all the positions in academic publishing.

The other problem this causes is that by being able to publish any old shit, they now have a growing body of publications to cite when anyone asks for evidence, hence why you have people now arguing over whether men and women are physically different in sport and anthropology is currently trying to convince everyone that women were the big game hunters and men stayed in camp to look after the children (latest edition of Scientific American).