If you think what passes for academic courses is hooey, then you haven’t read any academic journals lately.
In his latest colum, Mike Adams reviews — okay, hacks apart — a sterling example of what passes for “academic research” these days, “Animals, Women and Weapons: Blurred Sexual Boundaries in the Discourse of Sport Hunting,” by Linda Kalof.
No, he didn’t make it up. In fact, if you have a masochistic streak, you can read the whole thing here, published in (wait, I have to stop snickering) Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies (Vol 12, Num 3, 2004).
I love Mike Adams, and read every column he writes. But he’s humorous (though always with a serious undertone), and I’m afraid I’m not, at least not here, not now. I’ve seen too much of this nonsense to laugh and shake my head.
This was my biggest problem in grad school: reading tripe like this, and being expected to discuss it seriously. How can you take a “study” seriously that calls reading magazines and picking out a word, oh, like “target” and declaring it to be a “sexual reference,” and that turns around and calls that process “empirical evidence”?
The first time I inadvertently started a maelstrom in a grad class was when we read that feminist classic that started it all, Robin Lakoff’s Language and Women’s Place. Now if you’re not familiar with this, er, not so scholarly work, it’s basically a long essay, and started the “feminist scholarship formula” we see today: Pick out a few words and use lots of gooey-gushy hot-button words like “power” and “patriarchy” around them, declare them “oppressive” in some way, and then call the whole thing empirical research.
So what did I do to start this firestorm in that particular seminar? I asked a simple question.
“Where is the evidence for her conclusions?”
Before you jump to any conclusions, the faculty I had for my graduate work were all extremely fair, and I’ve gotten to know them all quite well personally since. Yes, I started a lot of hot discussions, but that’s why they liked me — even if they didn’t agree. So if you thought this was going in that direction, you’re wrong.
The answer to my question, of course, is that there is no evidence of any kind. Feminist scholarship doesn’t require evidence — just a lot of “interpretation” (which means unsubstantiated personal opinion), and the phrase, “empirical evidence” thrown in just for good measure.
“Feminist scholarship” (and yes, those are sneer quotes) is anti-empirical.
What I find really depressing, however, is not that these idiots do this sort of thing and call it research. What gets under my skin is that peer-reviewed academic journals publish this equine excrement. Given that these journals are peer-reviewed, and universities are full of UACJOBs like this, that is hardly surprising. The problem, however, is that “academic” carries weight in the general public, weight it doesn’t deserve.
Okay, now I have to go take a shower.
mahndisa says:
11 30 05
Hello Prof: your male, patriarchal, hegemonic statements are bothersome to me; I think you are contributing to my oppression and I will tell the UN to write you a letter stating this:) You’re good; real good. When I put my new blogroll up, I will have you as a news source. Thx for offering some sanity here:)
November 29, 2005, 7:36 pmjimmyb says:
Heh.
Sneer quotes.
The chicks are wacked!
November 30, 2005, 4:40 pm(Am I allowed to say chicks?) ;)
Alien-Abuducted Elfs Enraged! — Right Wing Nation says:
[…] gems of feminut idiocy guaranteed to have you busting your gut with laughter, see here, here, and here. There’s a reason “feminist scholarship” is an […]
December 28, 2007, 4:51 pm