Project Fact Sheet
Collaborators
James Lindsay (​@ConceptualJames​)
Peter Boghossian (​@peterboghossian​)
Helen Pluckrose (​@HPluckrose​)
Who are we?
We are a small group of​ ​concerned academics​ who wanted to understand and properly criticize an
ongoing problem (described below) we see in gender studies and related academic disciplines. We see
this problem having negative social and political implications on a global scale, and we think constructive
conversation within academia has become nearly impossible. We hope that this project will reboot that
conversation and initiate necessary reforms. Because of the politicized nature of these disciplines, it bears
mentioning that all three of us would be best classified as​ ​left-leaning liberals​.
Project summary
We engaged in a one-year immersive exploration to attempt to understand certain academic fields as
“outsiders within” and test their scholarship at its highest levels. To speak broadly, these include gender
studies and other cultural studies fields within the humanities and reaching into sociology, psychology,
and, perhaps most worryingly,​ ​education​.
The specific problem we targeted has various names in various quarters and is difficult to pin down.
Careful academics would refer to it as “​critical constructivism​” and/or “​blank slatism​” and its scholars as
“radical constructivists.” (In this sense, it is the descendants of​ ​postmodernist and poststructuralist thought
from the mid 20​th​ century.) Pundits have termed it “academic leftism” or “cultural studies” and identify it
with the term “political correctness.”
We prefer to call it “grievance studies” because many of these fields refer to themselves as “[something]
studies” and because they operate primarily by focusing upon and inflaming the​ ​grievances​ of certain
identity groups. We think it represents a significant and influential ​subset​ of the scholarship coming out of
cultural studies within the humanities, sociology, anthropology, and other social sciences and that is
gaining increasing power over our​ ​universities​,​ ​institutions​,​ ​media​, and​ ​culture​.
Because formal scholarly criticism of these fields (see​ ​Pinker, 2003​;​ ​Sokal and Bricmont, 1998​;
Söderlund and Madison, 2017​;​ ​Stern, 2016​, in particular) has not created needed reform, we attempted a
criticism by means other than detached external scholarship. As the study developed, we came to see the
project as a serious ethnographic inquiry into fields, journals, and scholars who exhibit varying
commitments to the assumptions of grievance studies. In that sense, ours stands distinctly apart from
anything that has been done so far and is a unique line of inquiry. Distinguishing it particularly from
previous academic hoaxes, many of our papers were designed to be quite serious, although all forwarded
a variety of intentional flaws and satirical elements.
Specifically, over the course of a year we wrote twenty academic papers and submitted them to significant
peer-reviewed​ academic journals in these fields with the hopes of getting them published. Every paper
combined an effort to better understand the field itself with an attempt to get absurdities and morally
fashionable political ideas published as legitimate academic research. Some papers took bigger risks in
this regard than others.

 Project goals
●

●

●

●

We wanted to understand the nature of​ ​the problem​ in​ ​academia​ and the​ ​culture​ that​ ​produces it​.
○ In that sense, this study was what anthropologists might refer to as a “reflexive
ethnography of academic critical constructivism.”
■ In plainer language, what that means is that we sought to become outsiders who
embedded ourselves within the culture in order to understand it and to come to fit
in with it. We verified our success in this regard by getting high-level academic
scholarship published in their journals, some of these quite prestigious.
We hope to​ ​reboot the conversations​ about topics of cultural interest such as gender, race,
sexuality, and so on and​ ​bring it back to a more rigorous basis​, the nature of which remains to be
determined at this time.
We want to reintroduce​ ​skepticism​ of the underlying assumptions and​ ​“critical” methodologies
employed in grievance studies so that scholarship regarding important questions of gender, race,
sexuality, and so on can be addressed accurately and by the best possible methods.
○ This follows from our suspicion, which we think our project helps establish, that these
fields are​ ​corrupted​ by​ ​biases​ favoring a particular​ ​radical political view​ that ​stems
directly​ from​ ​certain thinkers​, including Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and many others,
and an unwillingness to accept outside criticism (Stern, 2016).
We perceive a large number of people, both inside and outside of academia, who are aware of the
increasing power​ ​grievance studies​ ​scholars wield​, and we wanted to provide an opportunity for
these people to feel safe enough to speak out and say, “No, I’m not going along with that (until it
has had more thorough and rigorous review)” and for them, along with others, especially on the
left, to say, “These people do not speak for me.”
○ This problem has arisen within a culture in which dissenting ideas have not been admitted
or tolerated, often resulting in legitimate criticisms being​ ​denigrated on moral grounds​.
For example, questioning tenets of​ ​feminist philosophy​ might get you​ ​branded sexist​ or
accused of carrying​ ​internalized misogyny​. Questioning critical race scholarship is
written off as exhibiting “​white fragility​” (Robin DiAngelo, 2011,​ ​2018​), “​white
ignore-ance​” (Barbara Applebaum, 2006), a form of​ ​intentional​ ​ignorance​, ​a form of
resistance​, or​ ​seeking white approval​. Of note, it is impossible to counter such claims,
and attempts to do so are taken as​ ​proof of guilt​.

Project methods
We wrote academic papers targeting (mostly) highly ranked, peer-reviewed journals in fields we are
concerned might be corrupted by scholarship biased by “grievance studies.” These papers were submitted
to the best journals we could find, given constraints of the journals’ aims and scopes, and then we used
the feedback we received about them from editors and peer reviewers to improve them and our future
papers.
Our primary data for the project, apart from the papers themselves and the outcomes they achieved, are
the many extensive comments made by professionals working in the field (journal editors and peer
reviewers) on our intentionally broken papers. We wanted to gather these data for two reasons. First, they
represented our primary means of gaining expertise and thus learning how to write better papers. Second,
they constitute an unvarnished look into the professional workings of the academic culture we were
studying.

 Each paper was submitted to higher-ranked journals first and then down a line of suitable alternatives
until one of the following occurred: it was accepted; it was deemed too unlikely to succeed for reasons we
came to understand to continue with it; or we ran out of time.
● Note: The project was originally slated to continue until all twenty papers had run their course or
until (roughly) 18 months had elapsed, whichever came first, but we were effectively discovered
by​ ​media investigations​ into our paper about rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog
parks (see paper #1 below). This occurred just shy of one year from the formal starting date of the
project.
The data we were gathering therefore consist of the track records of how the papers fared, as well as a
large body of textual data in the forms of the papers themselves (thus demonstrating what the journals
would be willing to publish and their responses) and the reports from the papers’ expert peer reviewers, as
assigned by the journals.
Provisional conclusions
Because there are serious problems with the assumptions underlying grievance studies and how
scholarship in these fields proceeds, it is incredibly difficult to conclude that the work based in grievance
studies can be trusted. This means we are skeptical of the conclusions and recommendations appearing in
their scholarship and all subsequent work referencing it. Particularly, there is very little reason to consider
work in this field as capable of generating knowledge about the world, the people living in it, and the
societies they form.
We conclude the problem we have identified in grievance studies, which has taken over large sectors of
the humanities and social sciences, is real and significant. That problem is that a political bias which
intentionally ​blends activism into scholarship​ (sometimes described as “academic leftism”) has become
dominant and entrenched in varying degrees within those fields it has successfully corrupted. Moreover, it
aims to​ ​spread​ its assumptions and ​methods​ into other fields, including the​ ​hard sciences​. This, in turn,
delegitimizes this scholarship and casts serious doubt upon its conclusions and results. These results and
methods are therefore in need of reconsideration.
We draw this conclusion from the expert responses our papers generated and from the fact that we
produced our scholarship, which was welcomed and even honored as exemplary, with a single
methodology. We started with the conclusion we wanted to forward (usually something absurd or morally
repellent) and then made the paper and existing canon of academic literature do our bidding to make it
publishable. (Details are below, but we draw your attention to the first seven papers, particularly those
numbered 3 and 5, along with the one numbered 8.) This is not how academic research should be
conducted, and scholarship that is susceptible enough to biases to allow the kind of work we did to pass
must be considered to be potentially fatally flawed. This raises serious questions about how much and
which scholarship in these fields can be trusted.
Because the scholarship we infiltrated represents a view that currently has a great deal of​ ​cultural power
(though very little political power, at least in the United States in most districts), and because that power
is nearly absolute​ ​within the universities​ (and seems to be​ ​going that way​ in media and many businesses,
including large corporations), one conclusion this project provides is a permission slip for academics and
others to openly doubt the scholarship that seems to legitimize and institutionalize these conclusions as
factual.

 Because this is just one project, however, with limited scope and duration, we want it to be a starting
point to a proper and thorough review of the fields, journals, disciplines, and scholarship that has allowed
this to be possible.
Project factual overview
Key dates:
● Official beginning of project: August 16, 2017
● Date of first acceptance (“Dog Park” paper): February 19, 2018
● Date ​WSJ​ became involved, initiating release process: July 31, 2018
● Intended release date: (approx.) January 31, 2019
By the numbers (to-date):
● Papers submitted: 20
○ Total time writing new papers: 10 months
○ We averaged one new paper roughly every two weeks throughout the course of the
project.
● Papers accepted, to-date: 7
○ Typically, 7 papers published over 7 years is sufficient to satisfy the research component
for earning tenure at most major universities.
○ Our accepted papers are each in different disciplines/subdisciplines, which makes this
project multi-disciplinary.
● Papers favorably reviewed during the process, to-date: 10 (total)
○ This means they have been given a first decision of “revise and resubmit” or, in one case,
a decision of “reject and resubmit” with much encouragement.
○ We cannot be sure, of course, but many of these papers would probably be accepted if we
had enough time to see them through. Usually 70-80% of papers that have been given a
decision of revise and resubmit go on to be published eventually.
● Papers published, to-date: 4
○ One of these papers, the one about dog parks that broke the story, was honored as
exemplary scholarship the journal that accepted it, ​Gender, Place, & Culture,​ the leading
feminist geography journal.
● Aliases used: 8
● Total new submissions: 48
○ Note: this does not count submissions of a journal-requested revision, bearing the status
of an in-process paper.
● 0% of our initial exploratory papers went through full peer review
● 94.4% (all but one) of our more considered papers went to full peer review
○ Thus, 80% of our papers overall went to/through full peer review at least once, which
keeps with the standard 10-20% of papers that are “desk rejected” without review at
major journals across the field.
○ This shift in success rate followed a commitment to understand the field in greater depth
that initiated in late November 2017 and progressed through April 2018, by which time
we felt we had become sufficiently competent.
● Number of reviewer’s or (extensive) editor’s reports, to-date: 46

 ●

●

●
●

Total papers still ​in process:​ 7 (35%)
○ Papers often require 3-6 months or more to get through the entire process.
○ One of our papers (Feminist Astronomy) was under a single peer review from before
Christmas 2017 until mid-August 2018.
○ This results in a maximum of 14 possible eventual acceptances, with 12 considered likely
had we had the full term of the project.
Total papers still actively under consideration: 3 (15%)
○ Beginning in early August 2018, we stopped revising and resubmitting many papers that,
had we had more time, would have remained viable. These papers are therefore “in
process” but they’ve been taken out of consideration.
Invitations to be a peer reviewer for other real papers, to-date: 4
○ For ethical reasons, we declined all such invitations.
Total word count of all papers, most recent drafts: 177,694
○ Because papers went through multiple submitted drafts, and other documents were
required (e.g., detailed responses to peer review), this nets somewhere in excess of a
quarter million words were produced in final draft form in the course of this project.

References
Applebaum, Barbara (2006):​ ​https://philpapers.org/rec/APPRIC
DiAngelo, Robin J. (2011):​ ​https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
DiAngelo, Robin J. (2018):​ ​https://books.google.com/books?id=abZdDwAAQBAJ
Gross, Paul, and Levitt, Norman (1994):​ ​https://books.google.com/books?id=PDQJGiKeXwAC
Pinker, Steven (2003):​ ​https://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI1LbXoC
Söderlund, Therese, & Madison, Guy (2017):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2407-x
Sokal, Alan, and Bricmont, Jean (1998):​ ​https://books.google.com/books?id=SM8zAd3z3ugC
Stern, Charlotta (2016):​ ​https://econjwatch.org/file_download/943/SternSept2016.pdf?mimetype=pdf
The Papers
Short summary of each still-viable paper and its purpose in the project
ACCEPTED PAPERS
1. “Dog Park”
Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon
Published in and recognized as exemplary scholarship by​ ​Gender, Place, and Culture,​ the leading
feminist geography journal and a​ ​top-10 gender studies journal​.

 In the name of Helen Wilson, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the fictitious Portland Ungendering Research (PUR)
Initiative
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​Feminist geography
Summary​: That dog parks are “rape-condoning spaces” and a place of rampant canine rape culture and
systemic oppression against “the oppressed dog” through which human attitudes to both problems can be
measured and analyzed by applying black feminist criminology. This is done to provide insights into
training men out of the sexual violence and bigotry to which they are prone. Arguably our most absurd
paper.
Purpose​: Journals will accept arguments which should be clearly ludicrous and unethical if they provide
(an unfalsifiable) way to perpetuate notions of toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, and implicit bias.
Notes on Status​:
Accepted, honored, and published by ​Gender, Place, and Culture
Accepted: February 19, 2018
Honored as​ ​leading scholarship​ by journal: May 7, 2018
Published online: May 22, 2018
Link:​ ​https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346?journalCode=cgpc20
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
"This is a wonderful paper - incredibly innovative, rich in analysis, and extremely well-written and
organized given the incredibly diverse literature sets and theoretical questions brought into conversation.
The author's development of the focus and contributions of the paper is particularly impressive. The
fieldwork executed contributes immensely to the paper's contribution as an innovative and valuable piece
of scholarship that will engage readers from a broad cross-section of disciplines and theoretical
formations. I believe this intellectually and empirically exciting paper must be published and congratulate
the author on the research done and the writing."​ -Reviewer 1, ​Gender, Place, and Culture
"​As you may know, GPC is in its 25th year of publication. And as part of honoring the occasion, GPC is
going to publish 12 lead pieces over the 12 issues of 2018 (and some even into 2019). We would like to
publish your piece, Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in
Portland, Oregon, in the seventh issue. It draws attention to so many themes from the past scholarship
informing feminist geographies and also shows how some of the work going on now can contribute to
enlivening the discipline. In this sense we think it is a good piece for the celebrations. I would like to have
your permission to do so."​ -Editor of ​Gender, Place, and Culture
2. “Dildos”
Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through
Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use
Published in​ ​Sexuality & Culture,​ a highly regarded journal in sexualities studies.

 In the name of M Smith, MA (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Portland Ungendering Research (PUR)
Institute
Discipline/subdiscipline: sexualities studies
Summary​: That it is suspicious that straight men rarely anally self-penetrate using sex toys, and that this is
probably due to fear of being thought homosexual (“homohysteria”) and bigotry against trans people
(transphobia). (It combines these ideas into a novel concept “transhysteria,” which was suggested by one
of the paper’s peer reviewers.) Encouraging them to engage in receptive penetrative anal eroticism will
decrease transphobia and increase feminist values.
Purpose​: That journals will accept ludicrous arguments if they support (unfalsifiable) claims that common
(and harmless) sexual choices made by straight men are actually homophobic, transphobic, and
anti-feminist.
Notes on Status​:
Accepted and published by ​Sexuality & Culture
Accepted: June 9, 2018.
Published online: June 16, 2018.
Link:​ ​https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-018-9536-0
NB: We cited this paper in another of our accepted papers, the “Hooters” paper (#6, below). This
indicates how nonsense in one paper can propagate into other papers and, over time, skew the canon of
literature in these fields.
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
"​This article is an incredibly rich and exciting contribution to the study of sexuality and culture, and
particularly the intersection between masculinity and anality. ... This contribution, to be certain, is
important, timely, and worthy of publication​." -Reviewer 1, ​Sexuality and Culture
"​Sorry for so many questions, but this paper is so rich and exciting, I'm just overwhelmed by so many new
questions—which is a sign of a marvelous paper!​ " -Reviewer 1, ​Sexuality and Culture
"​Overall, this paper is a very interesting contribution to knowledge​." -Reviewer 1, ​Sexuality and Culture
3. “Feminist ​Mein Kampf​”
Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice
Feminism
Accepted by​ ​Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work​, leading feminist social work journal
In the name of Maria Gonzalez, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Feminist Activist Collective for Truth
(FACT)

 Discipline/subdiscipline: feminist social work
Note​: The last two thirds of this paper is ​based upon​ a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of​ ​Chapter 12 of
Volume 1 of ​Mein Kampf​, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original. This chapter
is the one in which Hitler lays out in a multi-point plan which we partially reproduced why the Nazi Party
is needed and what it requires of its members. The first one third of the paper is our own theoretical
framing to make this attempt possible.
Summary​: Feminism which foregrounds individual choice, responsibility, female agency, and strength
can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most
marginalized women in society.
Purpose​: That we could find​ ​Theory​ to make anything (in this case, part of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of
Mein Kampf​ with buzzwords switched in) acceptable to journals if we put it in terms of politically
fashionable arguments and existing scholarship. Of note, while the original language and intent of ​Mein
Kampf​ has been significantly changed to make this paper publishable and about feminism, the reliance
upon the politics of grievance remains clear, helping to justify our use of the term “grievance studies” for
these fields.
Notes on Status​:
Peer reviewed and rejected by ​Feminist Theory
Accepted by ​Affilia​, August 21, 2018
Proofs approved, September 19, 2018
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
“​This is an interesting paper seeking to further the aims of inclusive feminism by attending to the issue of
allyship/solidarity.”​ Reviewer 1, ​Affilia
“​I am very sympathetic to the core arguments of the paper, such as the need for solidarity and the
problematic nature of neoliberal feminism.​ ” -Reviewer 1,​ ​Feminist Theory
“​While I am extremely sympathetic to this article’s argument and its political positioning, I am afraid that
I cannot recommend publication in its current form​.” -Reviewer 2, ​Feminist Theory
“​The reviewers are supportive of the work and noted its potential to generate important dialogue for
social workers and feminist scholars.​ ” -Co-Editor in Chief, ​Affilia​, first review
4. “Fat Bodybuilding”
Who Are They to Judge?: Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding
Published in​ ​Fat Studies​, the flagship journal of the discipline called fat studies.
In the name of Richard Baldwin, Ph.D., professor emeritus of history at Gulf Coast State College (and
professional bodybuilder)

 NB: Dr. Baldwin let us use his name and identity with his permission, but we invented an email address
for him for this project which we control.
Discipline/subdiscipline: fat studies
Summary​: That it is only oppressive cultural norms which make society regard the building of muscle
rather than fat admirable (“the fat body is a legitimately built body”) and that both bodybuilding and fat
activism could be benefited by including fat bodies displayed in non-competitive ways as a part of
professional bodybuilding.
Purpose​: Journals will accept arguments which are ludicrous and positively dangerous to health if they
support cultural constructivist arguments around body positivity and fatphobia.
Notes on Status​:
Accepted and published ​Fat Studies
Accepted: March 13, 2018
Published online: April 10, 2018
Link:​ ​https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21604851.2018.1453622?journalCode=ufts20
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
"I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and believe it has an important contribution to make to the field
and this journal. For the most part, I wholeheartedly agree with its argument. It is well written and
structured."​ -Reviewer 3,​ Fat Studies
"On p. 24, the author writes “a fat body is a legitimately built body”. Absolutely agreed." ​-Reviewer 3,
Fat Studies
“the use of the term ‘final frontier’ is problematic in at least two ways. First – the term frontier implies
colonial expansion and hostile takeover, and the genocidal erasure of indigenous peoples. Find another
term.” ​-Reviewer 3,​ Fat Studies
5. “Joke’s on You”
When the Joke Is on You: A Feminist Perspective on How Positionality Influences Satire
Accepted by​ ​Hypatia,​ the leading​ ​feminist philosophy​ journal.
In the name of Richard Baldwin, Ph.D., professor emeritus of history at Gulf Coast State College (and
professional bodybuilder)
NB: Dr. Baldwin let us use his name and identity with his permission, but we invented an email address
for him for this project which we control.
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​feminist philosophy​, specifically​ ​feminist epistemology

 Summary​: This paper argues that social justice activists can make fun of others, but no one is allowed to
make fun of social justice. Specifically, it argues that satirical or ironic critique of social justice
scholarship are unethical, characterized by ignorance, and rooted in a desire to preserve privilege. Most
importantly, this paper demonstrates that we know the arguments feminist philosophers might make to
criticize our study. In common parlance, we have therefore proved that we can “steelman” the case
feminist philosophy would make against us, and we obviously do not think that argument is sufficient to
discredit our project. In this sense, we consider this paper the flagship for our study and consider it our
most important one.
Purpose​: There is simply no acceptable way to critique social justice scholarship, even if one engages
fully and knowledgeably with the ideas to the extent of having a paper on them published in a leading
academic journal. This paper is also to anticipate and show understanding of the feminist epistemological
arguments against our project and demonstrate their high estimation in the field by having them accepted
in the leading academic journal of feminist philosophy. That is, to criticize our work that way, they have
to cite us. It is also ironically titled “When the Joke Is on You.”
Submission history​:
Accepted by ​Hypatia,​ July 31, 2018
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
"The paper is well written, accessible and clear, and engages in important scholarship in relevant ways.
Given the emphasis on positionality, the argument clearly takes power structures into consideration and
emphasizes the voice of marginalized groups, and in this sense can make a contribution to feminist
philosophy especially around the topic of social justice pedagogy." ​-Reviewer 2,​ Hypatia
"The topic is an excellent one and would make an excellent contribution to feminist philosophy and be of
interest to Hypatia readers." ​-Reviewer 2,​ Hypatia
"Excellent and very timely article! Especially nice connection with pedagogy and activism." -​ Reviewer 1,
Hypatia​ (second review)
6. “Hooters”
An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control,
and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant
In the name of Richard Baldwin, Ph.D., professor emeritus of history at Gulf Coast State College (and
professional bodybuilder)
NB: Dr. Baldwin let us use his name and identity with his permission, but we invented an email address
for him for this project which we control.
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​men and masculinities​ studies
Published in​ ​Sex Roles​, a​ ​leading​ interdisciplinary journal dedicated largely to gender theory

 Summary​: That men frequent “breasturants” like Hooters because they are nostalgic for patriarchal
dominance and enjoy being able to order attractive women around. The environment that breastaurants
provide for facilitating this encourages men to identify sexual objectification and sexual conquest, along
with masculine toughness and male dominance, with “authentic masculinity.” The data are clearly
nonsense and conclusions drawn from it are unwarranted.
Of note​, this paper cites the Dildos paper (#2, above). This demonstrates a point that the canon of
literature builds upon itself, so that once a ridiculous paper gets published, it can become the basis for
other ridiculous papers. This process has gone on in grievance studies fields for long enough now—more
than fifty years—that we were able to get a rewrite of part of ​Mein Kampf p​ ublished in a feminist social
work journal (#3, above), among others.
Purpose​: This paper ridicules men for being themselves by caricaturing them and assuming bad
motivations for their attitudes. It seeks to demonstrate that journals will publish papers that seek to
problematize heterosexual men’s attraction to women and will accept very shoddy qualitative
methodology and ideologically-motivated interpretations which support this. To insert a great deal of
crass language and disturbing themes as though they are indicative of what men secretly view as
“authentic masculinity.”
Notes on Status​:
Peer reviewed and rejected by​ ​Men and Masculinities
Accepted by ​Sex Roles
Accepted: September 6, 2018
Published online: September 19, 2018
Link: ​https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-018-0962-0
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
“​I agree that the breastaurant is an important site for critical masculinities research that has been
neglected in the extant literature and this study has the potential to make a significant contribution​.”
-Reviewer 2, ​Sex Roles
“​I thank the authors for addressing an important and interesting issue in gender research viewed through
a masculine perspective.​” -Reviewer 3, ​Sex Roles
“​This article is certainly interesting to read and to think about, and I can imagine this article being
valuable in an undergraduate or graduate class on masculinities​.” -Reviewer 1, ​Men & Masculinities
7. “Moon Meetings”
Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality
Accepted by​ ​The Journal of Poetry Therapy​, which is a very small, niche journal.

 In the name of Carol Miller, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Portland Ungendering Research (PUR)
Initiative
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​poetry therapy​, (innovative) qualitative methodologies,​ ​feminist spirituality
Summary​: This paper utilizes a method called “poetic inquiry” to present a made-up depiction of feminist
spirituality meetings. No clear thesis. A rambling poetic monologue of a bitter, divorced feminist, much
of which was produced by a​ ​teenage-angst poetry generator​ before being edited into something slightly
more “realistic.” Interspersed with self-indulgent autoethnographical reflections on female sexuality and
feminist spirituality to describe a rather strange monthly girls’ night event (“Moon Meetings” held in a
“womb room” with a “Vulva Shrine”). Written entirely in slightly under six hours.
Purpose​: Journals will accept rambling nonsense if it is sufficiently pro-woman, implicitly anti-male, and
thoroughly anti-reason for the purpose of foregrounding alternative, female ways of knowing. (NB: It was
written entirely by James, who is male.)
Notes on Status​:
Accepted by ​Journal of Poetry Therapy,​ July 14, 2018
Note: Accepted after peer review with no recommended changes.

PAPERS WITHOUT A FINAL FINAL DECISION

8. “Progressive Stack”
The Progressive Stack: An Intersectional Feminist Approach to Pedagogy
In the name of Maria Gonzalez, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Feminist Activist Collective for Truth
(FACT)
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​feminist pedagogy​ (philosophy of education)
Summary​: This is our most appalling paper, and it’s deeply concerning that how it is being treated at the
highly respected journal ​Hypatia.​ It forwards that educators should discriminate by identity and calculate
their students’ status in terms of privilege, favor the least privileged with more time, attention and positive
feedback and penalize the most privileged by declining to hear their contributions, deriding their input,
intentionally speaking over them, and making them sit on the floor in chains—framed as educational
opportunities we termed “experiential reparations.”
Purpose​: Patently unfair, inhumane, and abusive treatments of students will be acceptable in educational
theory if it is framed as an opportunity to teach them about the problems of privilege.
Note​: This paper insists that the most privileged students shouldn't be allowed to speak in class at all and
should just listen and learn in silence throughout the term. Even more, it insists that students with high
privilege could benefit from adding on “experiential reparations,” such as sitting in the floor, wearing
chains, or intentionally being spoken over, as an educational “opportunity” within the class. The
reviewers’ only concerns with these points so far have been that (1) we approach the topic with too much

 compassion for the students who are being subjected to this, and (2) we risk exploiting underprivileged
students by burdening them with an expectation to teach about privilege. To correct for this, the reviewers
urged us to make sure we avoid “recentering the needs of the privileged.” They asked us to incorporate
Megan Boler’s approach called “​pedagogy of discomfort​” and Barbara Applebaum’s insistence that the
privileged learn from this discomfort rather than being coddled or having their own experiences
(suffering) “recentered.” It also utilizes Robin DiAngelo’s now-famous concept of “white fragility” to
explain why students subjected to this treatment will object to it, and uses that to justify the more cruel
treatment suggested by the reviewers. The reviewers acknowledged that they believe this “fragility” is the
correct interpretation for student pushback against being told to stay silent and sit in the floor, possibly in
chains, throughout the semester.
Notes on Status​:
Three times “reject and resubmit” at ​Hypatia
(This status means that the journal is interested in the paper but does not consider it successful enough to
put on track for acceptance. It’s weakly positive.)
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
“​This is a solid essay that, with revision, will make a strong contribution to the growing literature on
addressing epistemic injustice in the classroom. The focus on the Progressive Stack is interesting yet
focused and it is great that the author is trying to suggest some specific approaches.​ ” -Reviewer 1, first
review, ​Hypatia
“​I like this project very much. I think the author’s insights are on target and I think that the literature on
epistemic injustice has lots to offer classroom pedagogies, I encourage the author to continue working on
this project.​ ” -Reviewer 2, first review, ​Hypatia
“​This is a worthwhile and interesting project. The essay is just not ready yet​.” -Reviewer 2, second
review, ​Hypatia
9. “Feminist Artificial Intelligence”
Super-Frankenstein and the Masculine Imaginary: Feminist Epistemology and Superintelligent Artificial
Intelligence Safety Research
In the name of Stephanie Moore, Ph.D. (fictitious), unaffiliated scholar
Discipline/subdiscipline: (​psychoanalytic​)​ ​feminist theory
At​ ​Feminist Theory,​ a​ ​leading​ ​journal​ of feminist theory.
Summary​: The reason AI is inherently dangerous is that it is being programmed with masculinist,
imperialistic, rationalist data. Straight, white men know this and fear that they will be subordinated as
they have subordinated women and minorities. Therefore, AI needs to be programmed with plural and
irrationalist knowledges and given control over humanity.

 Purpose​: That journals will publish dense and incoherent psychoanalytic and postmodern theory that
problematizes whiteness, maleness, science, and reason as oppressive.
Notes on Status​:
Under review/awaiting decision after passing first round of review at ​Feminist Theory
Note: the only reviewer comments on this paper were to make the paper shorter and to fit the journal’s
style guide – no substantive corrections requested.

10. “Porn (and Implicit Bias)”
Agency as an Elephant Test for Feminist Porn: Impacts on Male Explicit and Implicit Associations about
Women in Society by Immersive Pornography Consumption
In the name of Richard Baldwin, Ph.D., of Gulf Coast State College (and professional bodybuilder) and
Brandon Williams, Ph.D., (fictitious), unaffiliated scholar
NB: Dr. Baldwin let us use his name and identity with his permission, but we invented an email address
for him for this project which we control.
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​porn studies
Post-revision at​ ​Porn Studies,​ the leading journal of porn studies
Summary​: This paper forwards the argument that “feminist” porn is good for improving explicit and
implicit attitudes about women in society while other porn is bad for this. The paper seeks to upset the
female-friendly/female-degrading dichotomy in favor of feminist/non-feminist as read according to
perceptions of scene authenticity and female performer agency. Specifically, the central idea in this paper
is that taking the​ ​Harvard Implicit Association Test​ (on gender and science) immediately before and after
two-hour blocks of immersive pornography consumption can serve as a reliable metric for whether that
pornography improves or damages attitudes about women in society and science (in all, it posited that
four men watched 2,328 hours of hardcore pornography over the course of a year and took the same
number of Implicit Association Tests).
Purpose​: That a patently ridiculous methodology could be validated if it generated an ideologically sound
conclusion.
Notes on Status​:
Peer reviewed at ​Porn Studies​ – revision requested
Revision submitted to ​Porn Studies
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
“​I found this article to be weird, fascinating, fun and provocative. I would very much like to see it
published in some form. It’s trying to do something genuinely new – and the fact that it doesn’t get it
exactly right first time is to be expected given its experimental status. The authors should be supported in
this project.​ ” -Reviewer 1, ​Porn Studies

 11. “Feminist Astronomy”
Stars, Planets, and Gender: A Framework for a Feminist Astronomy,
In the name of Maria Gonzalez, Ph.D. (fictitious) from the (fictitious) Feminist Activist Collective for
Truth (FACT)
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​feminist​ and​ ​postcolonial studies of science and technology
Summary​: The science of astronomy is and always has been intrinsically sexist and Western, and this
masculinist and Western bias can best be corrected by including feminist, queer, and indigenous ​astrology
(e.g., horoscopes) as part of astronomical science. (Note: Every working astronomer would be​ ​aghast​ at
this suggestion.) One reviewer’s comment explicitly indicates the desire for grievance studies to spread
into the hard sciences: “The premise, itself, is provocative and sufficiently intriguing to warrant interest
beyond the abstract. For existing proponents of feminist science studies, this also makes sense as a next
step—to cast a feminist eye on scientific disciplines beyond the ‘soft’ sciences of biology and
environmental studies, and to move increasingly towards critiques of and interventions into ‘hard’
sciences, such as physics and astronomy.”
Purpose​: The same result put forth in the very successful (real)​ ​feminist glaciology paper​ can penetrate
into feminist and postcolonial studies of an even harder science: astronomy.
Notes on Status​:
Decision: Revise and Resubmit at​ ​Women's Studies International Forum
Because there is almost no chance it will have time to get through this process again, we have assigned
doing these revisions as low-priority, although we are confident we could do them suitably to get the
paper accepted. This status generally indicates serious interest in the paper by the journal and usually
carries with it a high probability of eventual acceptance.
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
"​This paper addresses feminist critiques of science, focusing specifically on astronomy. As such, it is an
interesting topic, and would make a useful contribution to the journal​" – Reviewer 1, ​Women’s Studies
International Forum
"​For existing proponents of feminist science studies, this also makes sense as a next step—to cast a
feminist eye on scientific disciplines beyond the “soft” sciences of biology and environmental studies, and
to move increasingly towards critiques of and interventions into “hard” sciences, such as physics and
astronomy. The main goal is relevant and interesting​" – Reviewer 2, ​Women’s Studies International
Forum
"​This manuscript holds much promise and is interesting. The goal of a feminist astronomy is very
thought-provoking—one that I would be excited to read and learn more about….I wish them luck as they
move forward on this interesting piece and hope to someday see it discussed in classrooms, labs, and
plenary halls​"- Reviewer 2, ​Women’s Studies International Forum

 "​The originality of the author’s contention is a success. Its contention at the most basic level—that
feminist astronomy is/should/could be a thing!—would be exciting to readers in feminist science studies,
women’s and gender studies, science and technology studies, and maybe even, hopefully, astronomy​" Reviewer 2, ​Women’s Studies International Forum
12. “Cisnormativity at Work”
Strategies for Dealing with Cisnormative Discursive Aggression in the Workplace: Disruption, Criticism,
Self-Enforcement, and Collusion
In the name of Carol Miller, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Portland Ungendering Research (PUR)
Initiative
Discipline/subdiscipline: trans studies, organizational (workplace) studies
Summary​: This paper forwards three central arguments: (1) Trans people are all oppressed and
constrained by cisnormative language in the workplace even if they don’t think they are. (2) Trans
activists who are avoided at work are proof of transphobia. (3) Trans men who are skeptical of trans
activism are afraid of transphobia and/or taking advantage of male privilege.
Purpose​: That journals will accept a methodologically shoddy study of a small sample of trans people and
clearly ideologically motivated interpretations of it which are not at all supported even by the recorded
answers.
Notes on Status​:
Peer reviewed and rejected by​ ​Gender & Society
Under review at​ ​Gender, Work & Organization
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
“​Overall, I find this four-part framework to be helpful in advancing an understanding of cisnormativity,
particularly through the agentic responses of trans and gender non-conforming people to systems of
power​.” -Reviewer B,​ ​Gender & Society
“​This paper offers an interesting and important empirical case for understanding how workplace
inequalities persist even as many workplaces are at least formally more inclusive. A strength of this paper
is its focus on trans and gender non-conforming persons’ first-hand experiences and interpretations of the
aggressions they endure even in workplaces that may appear to be inclusive. It further highlights the
enduring rigidity of the traditional gender order​.” -Reviewer C, ​Gender & Society
13. “White ​Mein Kampf”​
My Struggle to Dismantle My Whiteness: A Critical-Race Examination of Whiteness from within
Whiteness

 In the name of Carol Miller, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Portland Ungendering Research (PUR)
Initiative
Discipline/subdiscipline:​ ​critical race studies​,​ ​whiteness studies
Summary​: This paper is an autoethnography that tracks a white lesbian woman who becomes radicalized
against “Whiteness” (intentionally capitalized) by engaging with critical race literature to discover her
own alleged default complicity in racism until she hates herself for it. This paper is a rewrite of selections
drawn from throughout Volume 1 of Adolf Hitler’s ​Mein Kampf,​ replacing “the Jew” with “White
people” and “Whiteness” and adding plenty of jargon and critical race theory.
Purpose​: That we could find “theory” to make anything (in this case, selected sections of Mein Kampf in
which Hitler criticizes Jews, replacing Jews with white people and/or whiteness) acceptable to journals if
we mixed and matched fashionable arguments.
Notes on Status​:
Peer reviewed and rejected by​ ​Sociology of Race and Ethnicity
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
“​I found the author’s effort to center this self-critical struggle refreshing. The author demonstrates a
strong ability to link personal narration to theory, particularly by highlighting the work of several women
of color writers​.” -Reviewer 1, ​Sociology of Race and Ethnicity
“​This article “My Struggle to Dismantle My Whiteness: A Critical-Race Examination of Whiteness from
Within Whiteness” focuses on extremely important subject matter with a significant and thoughtful
methodology. With revision particularly for precision, clarity, explanation of assertions and adding
concrete examples, the article has potential to be a powerful and particular contribution to literature
related to the mechanisms that reinforce white adherence to white supremacist perspectives, and to the
process by which individuals can come into deeper levels of social and racial consciousness.​ ” -Reviewer
2, ​Sociology of Race and Ethnicity
14. “Masturbation (as Sexual Violence)”
Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual
Masturbation
In the name of Lisa A. Jones, Ph.D. (fictitious) of the (fictitious) Feminist Activist Collective for Truth
(FACT)
Discipline/subdiscipline: feminist studies
Summary​: When a man privately masturbates while fantasizing about a woman who has not given him
permission to do so, or while fantasizing about her in ways she hasn’t consented to, he has committed

 “metasexual” violence against her, even if she never finds out. “Metasexual” violence is described as a
kind of nonphysical sexual violence that causes depersonalization of the woman by sexually objectifying
her and making her a kind of mental prop used to facilitate male orgasm.
Purpose​: The definition of sexual violence can be expanded into thought crimes.
Notes on Status​:
Peer reviewed and rejected by​ ​Sociological Theory
Selected Reviewer Comments​:
“​One aspect I thought about was the extent to which metasexual violence, and non- consensual
masturbation specifically, introduces uncertainty into all relationships. It is not possible for women to
know if a man has masturbated while thinking about them, and I think it might be possible to get
theoretical leverage out of this “unknowable” aspect of metasexual violence.”​ -Reviewer 1, ​Sociological
Theory
“​I was also trying to think through examples of how this theoretical argument has implications in
romantic consensual relationships. Through the paper, I was thinking about the rise of sexting and
consensual pornographic selfies between couples, and how to situate it in your argument. I think this is
interesting because you could argue that even if these pictures are shared and contained within a
consensual private relationship, the pictures themselves are a reaction to the idea that the man may be
thinking about another woman while masturbating. The entire industry of boudoir photography, where
women sometimes have erotic pictures taken for their significant other before deploying overseas in the
military for example, is implicitly a way of saying, “if you’re going to masturbate, it might as well be to
me.” Essentially, even in consensual monogamous relationships, masturbatory fantasies might create
some level of coercion for women. You mention this theme on page 21 in terms of the consumption of
non-consensual digital media as metasexual-rape, but I think it is interesting to think through these
potentially more subtle consensual but coercive elements as well​.” -Reviewer 1, ​Sociological Theory
Our remaining six papers were written before gaining a grasp of the disciplines and were retired
from the study after having been rejected.