(UPDATE: 10/4/2018 - This story has been followed up here, explaining the efforts of the writers of this study falsifying information to expose SJW journals.)
Something one notices after editing or reviewing lots of college papers in the field of “social psychology” is that most of this postmodernist “science” is so useless, dangerous, intellectually barren, collectivist, aggressive, presumptuous, arrogant, conceited, and incredible that the term “pseudo science” is too generous.
I see paper after paper, report after report, on so-called “peer-reviewed” studies that rarely define terms, start from biased positions, and often assume causation where only correlation is justified. And, on almost every occasion, be it studies on “intersectional gender bias” or “the gun culture in the U.S.," the “social psychologist” seems to assume the mantle of being able to categorize others, lump them into typically unlikeable groups, and semiotically label them with one or more of numerous pathologies that make the “other” an ogre-like creature whose very existence is untidy, disreputable, and in need of punishment or expulsion through the force of the state.
So is comes as little surprise that the field of “social psychology” has produced yet another winning report, this time a year-long study of hanging out in a park, watching dogs attempt to mate each other, and checking on the owners’ reactions to whether the canines were “straight” or “gay,” and if the interactions were “rape” or “consensual.”
Seriously.
Given the numbingly-sensible title, "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon," and drawing on a truckload of multisyllabic nomenclature that postmodernists have erected like a wall to ward off anyone interested in readability, author Helen Wilson embarks on her mission bogged down with biases from the start.
Simply put, she goes into this Quixotic quest assuming that she can tell when one dog’s attempt to get randy with another is part of “rape culture” and/or “queer.”
Here’s a little tidbit from the Abstract:
The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decision-making in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality. Specifically, and in order of priority, I examine the following questions: (1) How do human companions manage, contribute, and respond to violence in dogs? (2) What issues surround queer performativity and human reaction to homosexual sex between and among dogs? and (3) Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?
A special prize for the person who can tally all of the presumptions and conceits in that statement. To be so temporally biased that she claims she is observing “emerging” themes is one thing, but to claim objectivity even as she assumes what is “violence” in dogs, even as she labels the “human responses” to said “violence”, and as she claims to know what is “homosocial” behavior between dogs, is even worse. Then, to think that she can assume that an owner is “oppressing” a dog based on “gender” and presume she can translate that to a larger American societal template?
Wow.
But Ms. Wilson’s got a larger goal…
It concludes by applying Black feminist criminology categories through which my observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupts hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces.
This is a nose-bleeding mountain of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to scale, but in reading that, one wonders if Ms. Wilson believes “Black” females are somehow like dogs. And one wonders whether she assumed at the start the dominance of “hegemonic masculinities” in both the dog parks and America overall.
Turns out Ms. Wilson noticed – to her surprise? – that the owners actually stopped some bad behavior, and she has a grand suggestion:
By publicly or otherwise openly and suddenly yelling (NB: which was also effective at stopping dog rape/humping incidents) at males when they begin to make sexual advances on females (and other males in certain non-homosocial contexts), and by making firm and repeated stands against rape culture in society, activism, and media, human males may be metaphorically "shocked" out of regarding sexual violence, sexual harassment, and rape culture as normative, which may decrease rape rates and disrupt rape culture and emancipate rape-condoning spaces.
Thanks. Ms. Wilson. Thanks for assuming that there’s a “rape culture” in America, for telling me and other American men that we’re part of it, and that we’re blind to it unless we get “shocked.”
Did you ever wonder if there’s a “culture of conceit” among social psychologists, Ms. Wilson?
This seemingly absurd report offers more than a chuckle at social justice warrior priorities.
It offers a new opportunity to see the deeper conceits and problems consistently manifested by social “scientists” who assume for others that they know what is in their hearts.
As Robby Soave observes for Reason, Ms. Wilson seems quite open about her power to categorize and belittle human beings, even as she fights for “social justice” against categorizing and belittling human beings:
Wilson is essentially saying here that since yelling at dogs was a good way to get them to stop committing rape, yelling at men—while railing against rape culture—might work too… She concedes, however, that unlike dogs, men cannot be leashed. That wouldn't be "politically feasible," she explains.
Big thanks to Ms. Wilson for showing us the value of social psychology. It’s total class, all the way. Forget the dog. Social Psych is man's best friend.