Two academics have published a paper about the social construction of…you guessed it…the penis, the most hated entity in the feminist universe. The paper is: Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle, “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,” Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1330439 .

And here is the abstract, and what a wacker of a fuckin’ abstract it is:

“Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. 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.”

Now, by way of interpretation, an exercise in hermeneutics which one would employ in an attempt to understand some exotic primitive tribe engaging in bizarre behaviour, what all this means is that men are oppressive, and their genitalia are symbolic representations of that. But, one has to be careful while running over the thin ice of political correctness here because some “women,” in the trans world, also have physical penises, so the male penis must be a social construction, made of pure sociology, as wretched as that sounds.

What about climate change? Well, that too is a product of toxic machismo, as the authors explain:

“Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the conceptual penis. Our planet is rapidly approaching the much-warned-about 2°C climate change threshold, and due to patriarchal power dynamics that maintain present capitalist structures, especially with regard to the fossil fuel industry, the connection between hypermasculine dominance of scientific, political, and economic discourses and the irreparable damage to our ecosystem is made clear. Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear. At best, climate change is genuinely an example of hyper-patriarchal society metaphorically manspreading into the global ecosystem. The deep reason for this problematic trend is explained, in its essence, by McElwaine (1999), where he writes, “Pickett suggests that we have to choose between capitalist rationalism and cultural subcapitalist theory” (Pickett, 1993). Contemporary capitalist theory, a.k.a. neocapitalist theory, derives its claim on rationalism directly from the hypermasculine focus in science and society that can best be accounted for by identification with the conceptual penis. Paxton and Scameron (2006) seem to agree, noting that, “neocapitalist materialist theory holds that reality comes from the collective unconscious, but only if the premise of dialectic objectivism is invalid; if that is not the case, sexuality has significance.” Toxic hypermasculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neocapitalist materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon-emitting fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments. We need not delve deeply into criticisms of dialectic objectivism, or their relationships with masculine tropes like the conceptual penis to make effective criticism of (exclusionary) dialectic objectivism. All perspectives matter. One practical recommendation that follows from this analysis is that climate change research would be better served by a change in how we engage in the discourses of politics and science, avoiding the hypermasculine penis-centric take whenever possible (Kaijser & Kronsell, 2013).”

Did you enjoy that as much as I did? What it is saying is that just as pricks like you and me oppress women, the eternal victims, with our patriarchal power sticks, so do we rape mother earth, fucking her up the butt with our SUVs (almost typed “SVU,” Special Victims Unit, already being mind-fucked by feminism), our guns and weapons of war. Don’t worry about other consumer goods like cosmetics and household durables, for those things are for the victims, and produce no pollution.

This sort of postmodern analysis is not particularly new, and is found ubiquitously in the Social Sciences and Humanities. But, what is delicious here is that the paper is a hoax: the authors did not seriously mean what they said:

.

The real tricksters are the brilliant team of Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, who set out to write a paper full of nonsense, which they were able to get published in a peer-reviewed Social Science journal. I have to confess that my whole academic career as a white Anglo-American male has only been possible by producing this sort of bullshit, just to keep my job in New York.

However, the real worry here is that the paper is not pure nonsense. What they did was follow the lines of thought of postmodern feminism and social constructionism and they ended up with the paper. The beginning philosophies are complete nonsense, but once one enters the nonsense world, and plays by it anti-rules, it is possible to produce papers that get one an academic position. Given feminist assumptions, the paper is actually coherent. The conclusions do follow logically from the basic feminist premises. So it is a REDUCTIO ad absurdum of feminism and associated frog shit.

This is an excellent argument for closing down the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities in all universities, as social constructionism has rotted the foundations of these disciplines, like white ants moving through a soft wood floor. This will mean that my job will go, but so what, they can ram it up their ass. I have had enough.

Why should ageing warriors be interested in this pile of horse shit? Because most of you are hard working men who diligently pay taxes, and much of the nonsense produced in the universities is funded by your taxes. I think taxpayers should have a say in what they finance, and if their own money is used by assholes who shit all over them in their writings, they should have a say in closing off the funding anal hole:

.