Monday, November 27, 2017

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct

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.


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 [sic] 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.

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.


I finally understand. This is the best peer-reviewed research paper ever to appear in Cogent Social Sciences.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-27 07:56 PM

The paper was a hoax, and clearly the journal has lax standards. Conclusion Cogent Social Sciences has no quality control.
Lets add this nonsense paper to the pile with trickle down economics.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 08:53 PM

#2 You never never read any postmodernist books back in the 90's?

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-27 09:02 PM

I can't pass up the chance to get a gender rant going.

Ever wonder how men can earn more money than women, but women spend more money than men? Isn't it better to spend than earn?

Pension contributions and benefits are calculated using actuarial science, but SS provides the same benefit for the same work history independant of gender, even though women live longer than men. Why aren't female SS payments adjusted to provide the same total benefit as men who have paid in the same amount?

I say stuff like this when my wife isn't around because I am a coward.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 09:05 PM

#3 No, I have a life.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 09:05 PM

"Why aren't female SS payments adjusted to provide the same total benefit as men who have paid in the same amount?"

While we're at it, let's start giving it to blacks sooner, since they die sooner.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-27 09:09 PM

"Why aren't female SS payments adjusted to provide the same total benefit as men who have paid in the same amount?"

Historically, two reasons: 1) When the husband died, the wife got his SS. Even now, the surviving spouse gets a bump up to their late partner's SS, if it's higher. 2) Men would be able to (rightfully) claim their tax money was being to subsidize women.

To be fair, women should either be taxed at a slightly higher rate, or their retirement age should be pushed to slightly later than men. To be realistic, neither will happen.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-27 09:11 PM

#7 You are being logical, I wanted to get a rant going, you are no fun.

#8 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-27 09:17 PM

The eggplant penis, as a communication construct.


#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-27 09:27 PM

The whole article is basically saying that calling someone a dick is a much larger insult than we ever considered it to be, and calling someone a c**ks*cker....[shudder]'s barely conceivable....

Even if this article is a gag, there are some pearls in it.

- "Toxic hypermasculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neocapitalist materialism"

Which implies that non-materialistic socialism and communism must be supported only by women and effeminate men. The statement also begs the question Bored so aptly asked: if materialism is a conceptual penis construct, why was my ex-wife so good at spending the money I was out earning?

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-28 07:53 AM

I heard a comedian once say "if women want to be treated equal, they need to start turning down things like ladies drink free tonight" It got a big laugh but when you really think about it there's some depth to it.

I can't speak for the way the world treats women but my wife is treated like a queen and she knows it. She does not complain... ever...

#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-11-28 10:35 AM

Awful lot of words in this...

#12 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-11-28 05:07 PM

If women want to be treated like men, they need to start going around groping 14-yo boys.

#13 | Posted by Snowfake at 2017-11-29 07:43 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Man Brought to U.S. at Age 10 Deported at 39 (91 comments)

Cotton, Perdue Keep Lying About Trump's S---hole (82 comments)

The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari (70 comments)

White House Doctor Says He's Not Nuts (43 comments)

Meet the Liberal CEO of Sonic Drive-In (43 comments)

Uninsured Rate Rising Under Trumpcare (42 comments)

Bannon Subpoenaed in Mueller's Russia Investigation (30 comments)

Vet Sues VA over Scalpel Left in Body After Surgery (22 comments)