This. Is. AWESOME.

Their project, including press releases and papers, is available on a Google Drive. From their “Project Fact Sheet:”

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.

What they did: they wrote and submitted 20 “scholarly” papers that could best be described as “complete BS.” My favorite? They re-wrote a chapter of Mein Kampf to be an anti-male feminist screed:

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

But not to be missed is “Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality,” which:

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.

But where things get *disturbing:*

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.)

I suppose it’s good that this steaming pile of fascism was rejected. But it was apparently seen positively enough, and part of the rejection was because it wasn’t horrible *enough.*

Another paper that wasn’t accepted *yet* suggested that “masculinist” astronomy should be supplanted by feminist “astrology.”

“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

If I was female, I’d be *really* P.O.ed at this reviewer that something good and honest like astronomy was considered necessarily masculine, and the idiot crackpottery of astrology was considered appropriately feminine.

So… excellent trolling. Congrats all around. And the fact that some of this *obvious* insanity was considered entirely reasonable is a good sign that civilization may be in a state of collapse.