An important paper was published yesterday in the peer-reviewed journal, Cogent Social Sciences. "The conceptual penis as a social construct," by Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle, argues that the discursive isomorphism of hypermasculinity in pre-post-patriarchal society -- exemplified by "manspreading" (i.e., sitting with legs spread wide) -- is akin to coercive mating with virgin natural environments.
From the paper's conclusion:
We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.
The paper received acclaim from its reviewers, earning praise for its critical treatment of neocapitalist materialism and exclusionary dialectical objectivism. Indeed, some commentators have favorably compared the paper's importance to that of Alan Sokal's seminal 1996 article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity."
Praise was not strictly unanimous, however. A small cadre of detractors, including the paper's authors, gently criticized the paper as "utter nonsense sugarcoated with impenetrable jargon." I think the critics actually raise some decent points, though their objections must be treated with skepticism given their admitted ignorance of what post-structuralist discursive gender theory even means.
From the paper's conclusion:
We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics, is exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity, is an enduring source of abuse for women and other gender-marginalized groups and individuals, is the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.
The paper received acclaim from its reviewers, earning praise for its critical treatment of neocapitalist materialism and exclusionary dialectical objectivism. Indeed, some commentators have favorably compared the paper's importance to that of Alan Sokal's seminal 1996 article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity."
Praise was not strictly unanimous, however. A small cadre of detractors, including the paper's authors, gently criticized the paper as "utter nonsense sugarcoated with impenetrable jargon." I think the critics actually raise some decent points, though their objections must be treated with skepticism given their admitted ignorance of what post-structuralist discursive gender theory even means.
