Penetrating Insights
October 31, 2016
Lifted from the comments, another visit to academia’s Clown Quarter, where issues of deep and pressing import are probed good and hard:
In turning attention to this understudied and overdetermining space — the black anus — “Black Anality” considers the racial meanings produced in pornographic texts that insistently return to the black female anus as a critical site of pleasure, peril, and curiosity.
Hey, I’m just reading what it says here.
And in other, entirely unrelated news:
82 percent of articles published in the humanities are not even cited once. Of those articles that are cited, only 20 percent have actually been read. Half of academic papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.
A mystery, it really is.
"Anal ideologies"...
Posted by: Liz | October 31, 2016 at 22:22
Black Anality? Not just jumped the shark but definitely in low earth orbit ... You couldn't make it up. Oh, wait. She just did ...
'A course it is the eeeeeeevil white man doing it. Up the bum apparently.
Posted by: Phil B | October 31, 2016 at 22:44
In turning attention to this understudied and overdetermining space — the black anus — “Black Anality” considers the racial meanings produced in pornographic texts that insistently return to the black female anus as a critical site of pleasure, peril, and curiosity.
You've got to be shitting me.
Posted by: The original Mr. X | October 31, 2016 at 22:51
Admit it, David: you like black female anuses.
Posted by: Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA | October 31, 2016 at 23:00
"The Banality of Anality," is next, I suppose.
Posted by: R. Sherman | November 01, 2016 at 01:02
She's "departing" from something. How did she get there in the first place?
Anyways (my bad), some people have "...long examined the buttocks" as representing something or other. You betcha....
"Analytics"? That's not a word according to Scrabble™, otherwise I'd score 400+ every time.
"Understudied and overdetermining space"? Your call.
..."(P)ornographic texts that insistently return to the black female anus as a critical site of pleasure, peril and curiosity....
That "critical site" thing- thankfully Franklin W. Dixon himselves ran out of ideas in the end (no pun intended). God alone knows what they'd have made of the 21st century.
Posted by: Lancastrian Oik | November 01, 2016 at 01:55
I don't believe for a minute the peer reviewers and editors read that crap. Skim it maybe, for something juicy about black anuses.
Posted by: Wilbur Hassenfus | November 01, 2016 at 02:59
Wasn't there something of a scandal a while back where editors or maybe even peer reviewers were not actually reading the submitted papers?
Posted by: WTP | November 01, 2016 at 03:14
How am I ever supposed to order a steak again without giggling?
Posted by: Hopp Singg | November 01, 2016 at 04:42
Penetr... what?
I see what you did there.
Posted by: Spiny Norman | November 01, 2016 at 05:02
the black anus
It’s not just a question of the, um, marginal subject matter – in this case, presumably, the author’s pornographic browsing habits. It’s that the scholarship, such as it is, appears so thin and question-begging, so absurdly subjective. Even the abstract is badly done. There are no statements of fact, no specifics, no questions raised by said facts and specifics – just a series of sweeping and loaded assertions, lots of strained associations, and conclusions arrived at well in advance. Because, hey, it saves so much time and effort.
I was briefly tempted to parse the whole paper. But then I remembered that I don’t want to spend an entire morning reading about black ladies who take it up the chuff and what this supposedly means.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 07:35
Christ almighty. You could lose a day poking through Real Peer Review.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 07:44
Has anyone asked Rachel Dolezal for her thoughts on the black anus?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/31/rachel-dolezal-memoir-in-full-color-race-black-white
Posted by: Anna | November 01, 2016 at 09:00
Heh. What a time to be alive.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 09:23
Dear Lord. Someone tweeted to Real Peer Review, "You should retire this account, nothing you post will reach this level of insanity". I am tempted to agree, but David's site seems to prove that the supply of academic bullshit is infinite.
I'd laugh more if this nonsense wasn't state-funded.
Posted by: MC | November 01, 2016 at 10:06
the black anus
This is what gets you a job at Harvard...?
Posted by: rjmadden | November 01, 2016 at 10:10
This is what gets you a job at Harvard...?
I suspect this will be one of those evergreen tweets.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 10:12
understudied
Thankfully.
Posted by: GC | November 01, 2016 at 10:18
There appears to be general agreement here that the paper is terrible and the clown quarter is terrible, so let me raise another question:
What would you wish to say if you were on the review board for this?
I figure a serious approach might go like this: "Rejected. Not for particular errors, but for general incompetence, so please do not resubmit after corrections. This is half you making shit up, half you talking about your unsavory personal habits. Neither are fit subjects for study. Please quit your job and stop eating taxpayer money. Failing that, write about something else, and write in such a manner that I can expect people who disagree with you to replicate it."
Comic version: "I am billing you for the taxpayer money of mine you spent writing this nonsense, my time spent reading this nonsense, the cost of brain bleach and cute kitten pictures I needed to restore a healthy state of mind afterwards, the paper and work spent compiling this invoice, and a 15% service fee. Total comes to £613.40, please pay promptly to avoid late charges."
Posted by: Microbillionaire | November 01, 2016 at 10:26
I still haven't totally gotten over Wilbur's use of the words, 'juicy' and 'anuses' in the same sentence.
Which was probably the intent.
Posted by: PiperPaul | November 01, 2016 at 11:00
I used to live near a town that was often described as "the arsehole of the universe."
Perhaps that would be a good place to begin any in-depth probing survey of the anus. Just rather it was someone else and not me.
Posted by: watcher in the dark | November 01, 2016 at 11:26
Posted by: PiperPaul | November 01, 2016 at 12:09
I'd laugh more if this nonsense wasn't state-funded.
Quite so. Brexit, however, provides an opportunity to cleanse the Augean Stables of UK academe over the next decade.
Posted by: Theophrastus | November 01, 2016 at 12:22
Has anyone asked Rachel Dolezal for her thoughts on the black anus?
No need to, Anna: she lives up there.
Posted by: Theophrastus | November 01, 2016 at 12:24
"The Banality of Anality," is next, I suppose.
Followed, perhaps, by "The Anality of Banality". Because these fearsome 'critical thinkers' often imagine that some verbal inversion makes them look profound.
Posted by: Theophrastus | November 01, 2016 at 12:30
Why do the humanities get such a bum rap?
Posted by: Lord Bob | November 01, 2016 at 12:38
That'll teach me to think twice before following links! To be frank, I couldn't make head nor tail of most of that verbiage. In Ms Nash's own words: "waste, toxicity and filth".
Posted by: Lisboeta | November 01, 2016 at 13:52
I see we're giving the "The Politics of Buttocks" tag another whirl. It'll need another two entries to catch up with "Giant Vaginas", however.
Posted by: Sporkatus | November 01, 2016 at 13:57
It’ll need another two entries to catch up with “Giant Vaginas”, however.
I’m still quite taken aback by how much mileage we got out of that one.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 14:02
Don't sell Giant Vaginas short. I'm quite certain we're not done there.
Posted by: Sporkatus | November 01, 2016 at 14:10
I’m still quite taken aback by how much mileage we got out of that one.
For future reference, for those of us on "Team Hetero," the words "Vagina" and "mileage" are not ones which we like to see linked in any way.
Posted by: R. Sherman | November 01, 2016 at 14:15
I’m quite certain we’re not done there.
Indeed. It’s rather like the numerous ephemera items regarding exploding toilets and aggressive flatulence. I find one of these things, assuming it’ll be an amusing one-off, and then you heathens take it as a challenge to find more. And before you know it, we have a running gag.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 14:18
*googles "aggressive flatulence"*
You're the number one result. :-)
Posted by: Alice | November 01, 2016 at 14:25
You’re the number one result.
Well, there’s a thought to treasure.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 14:27
So it's a giant vagina vs an army of Davids? What's the spread?
Posted by: Hopp Singg | November 01, 2016 at 14:54
The spread of the giant vagina is probably a meter or so, depending.
(and so the descent into even greater filthiness begins)
Posted by: Sporkatus | November 01, 2016 at 15:27
Btw, re the "penetrating insights" of this post ... what did you use for a light source, David?
Posted by: Hopp Singg | November 01, 2016 at 15:31
Why do the humanities get such a bum rap?
I see what you did there, Lord Bob.
Posted by: Hedgehog | November 01, 2016 at 16:41
Black Anality was rejected as the subject of a doctoral thesis at our local university on the grounds that it was too mainstream to be a valid area of research. They did this instead: http://bit.ly/1USo97n Hey ho...
Posted by: Lionel Ebb | November 01, 2016 at 16:54
Question: Does this count as “social justice”?
Via Julia.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 18:05
Question: Does this count as “social justice”?
Definitely. :-)
Posted by: Min | November 01, 2016 at 18:31
Definitely.
I dare say it’s one of those character-revealing moments.
Posted by: David | November 01, 2016 at 18:35
You sure it's not a mistranslation of black angus? What was the original language in? This may have all been a terrible mistake.
Posted by: Tim Newman | November 01, 2016 at 18:46
Question: Does this count as “social justice”?
It's certainly justice. 'Social justice' is meaningless.
Posted by: Theophrastus | November 01, 2016 at 18:47
This is my first port of call every morning, and today it went down the "stink hole". Coincidentally, I learned today of a racehorse called Two In The Pink, narrowly beaten in the 4:30 at Wolverhampton... well, a coincidence, perhaps, or maybe it's just Teh Patriarchy! at work.
Posted by: ftumch | November 01, 2016 at 23:53
Meanwhile, on another battlefield in the Appropriation Wars. . .
Posted by: R. Sherman | November 02, 2016 at 00:19
Meanwhile, on another battlefield in the Appropriation Wars...
So many questions. Was the man in the Tuskegee Airman outfit black? If not, wouldn't that be appropriation? And how did he know that the man in the American Indian outfit was not, in fact, an American Indian? Did he ask? Did he commission a DNA test? Given that Elizabeth Warren, who is about as white as an American Standard toilet bowl (and has the intelligence to match) built an academic career and now a political career based solely on the claim that she is 1/32nd Cherokee, this is not an idle question.
Halloween was supposed to be fun. Maybe not entirely appropriate (no pun intended) for grown men, but still fun. Now dressing up unleashes the pent-up idiocy of every SJW on the face of the earth. So we have this, for example:
Sometimes I think that getting a bunch of refugees from Syria wouldn't be such a bad idea. They've actually shown that they can survive in the modern world. I'm not sure our Ivy League students are able to.
Posted by: Hedgehog | November 02, 2016 at 01:51
The strobe lights thing is sensible. They can trigger epileptic seizures, even in people with no previous evidence of the condition.
Posted by: Daniel Ream | November 02, 2016 at 15:13
"the strobe light thing is sensible....."
It can,but epileptics would know that and others wouldn't. Do these frightened babies need to be warned about everything?
Posted by: Epidermoid | November 02, 2016 at 16:26
The strobe lights thing is sensible.
Yes, probably, and good for them. It's the bit about explaining to students that they can leave at any time that, erm, triggered me.
Posted by: Hedgehog | November 02, 2016 at 16:48
I'm so very triggered.
This is probably a waste of my time but may I please change the topic onto the more tasteful subject of chocolate starfish?
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/DIY-starfish-chocolate-mold-Korean-soap-molds-food-grade-silicone-moulds-silicone-mould/1182447708.html?spm=2114.40010708.4.60.UduZd5
Posted by: jones | November 02, 2016 at 23:34
Well, if you lot are offended by Black Anality or taking the piss out of this scholarly study, then you may wish to research, ponder the implications and savour the stimulating sexuality of the way of the future: Teledildonics.
What is/are/who/ is Teledildonics you may ask? It is an exciting new invented word to describe spying on you via your sex toys.
History is on the side of Teledildonics. Honest!
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/now-your-sexbot-is-spying-on-you/#comments
Posted by: Phil B | November 03, 2016 at 02:13
"What is/are/who/ is Teledildonics you may ask? It is an exciting new invented word to describe spying on you via your sex toys."
What? Via my butt-plug?
Posted by: jones | November 03, 2016 at 10:24
@Jones ... whatever lights your candle! >};o)
Posted by: Phil B | November 03, 2016 at 22:05
Candles?.....Hmm....
Posted by: jones | November 04, 2016 at 01:57
I used to live near a town that was often described as "the arsehole of the universe."
Greetings from the arse end of the Earth
Posted by: Greg Allan | November 05, 2016 at 05:41