Saturday, 22 April 2017


I got a letter today from Spec Savers informing me that my eye-test is long overdue. They're right, but I can't afford new specs until summer. I found myself at Leeds station the other day idly wondering why it said 'heartburn' on the departure board. On closer inspection I worked out that it said 'northern'.


Extraordinary title here for an article by (who'd a thunk it?) a 'femme woman of color'. I thought at first 'Chatroulette' must be a French or Belgian town, or maybe a Parisian arrondissement: might be worth going there to expect a few penises. It's actually a web site. (chat + roulette - sometimes us educated types are too clever for our own good.) All the usual preoccupations are here: race, gender, sexuality, along with all the familiar jargon - autoethnography, embodied self, marginalized communities. I'm beginning to think that Women's / Gender Studies articles are generated by algorithms rather than by sentient beings.


Midnight yesterday was the deadline for my MA students' dissertation proposals. I looked on the University's VLE this morning to check that all were safely gathered in. Three were late and one was showing 80% similarity to something submitted to a university in the US. I felt a familiar rolling sensation in my guts and it took two hours to talk myself out of thinking this was all my fault. Teaching doth make paranoiacs of us all.  

Saturday, 11 March 2017

Ask, and ask often.

This video Feminism for Bros lasts less than two minutes but I defy anyone to watch it through to the end without cringing in embarrassment. It's sphincter-winking stuff. Consent in sex, it tells us, must be explicit and elicited for every move, especially if you're male. Note, though, that the woman recklessly touches the man's chest without requesting prior permission, then asks 'do you like that?' He does not remonstrate but, you know, did he really want that and did she really respect his autonomy here? Not every touch and grope from either party is explicitly sanctioned by the other, so the ambiguity is pretty chilling. It's a good job the video finishes where it does. Imagine if it went on a bit longer, and after the two of them have had further intervention from their campus Consent Counselor:

'Can I introduce my penis into your vagina?' (Be explicit about what goes where.)
'May I make an initial pelvic thrust?'
'I guess.'
'I did not feel that consent was explicit enough there. Let me pose the question again. May I make an initial pelvic thrust to push my...'
'Yeah, I know what you meant. Go ahead.'
'There. Can I make another? '
'That'd be two in total so far.'
'Yeah, look, just do it, right?'
'I have to say at this juncture that I have concerns about your tone. Of voice, I mean. Is it OK if I...'
'Dude, is this a fuck or a Q and A? Just fuckin do it, already.'
'You wanna watch a movie instead?'

Even if every sexual encounter proceeded in this stultifying manner, in the event of an accusation of assault, how would anyone demonstrate that consent had or had not been given? Nobody could, as anyone can lie. We are no further forward, then. Next step I suppose will be to make it mandatory to video all sexual encounters, and the chillingly-named Panopto software, now found in most lecture theatres, could be installed in all student bedrooms. Meanwhile go here, where Jeff E. Brooks-Harris & Christine A. Quemue of the University of Hawaii have prepared a seminar on how not to rape someone. Not only is consent fun, you can make a few bob out of promoting it.

Sunday, 5 March 2017

Mad Metaphors #3

Slightly confused here. 'Women of all genders' - isn't that exclusionary in SJW terms? I mean, what about biological females who menstruate but don't identify as women - or men, or human? And wasn't the pink triangle a gay male symbol back in the days before we were adjudged to be too close in privilege to straight men to be in the running for the Oppression Olympics?

Mad Metaphor #1
Mad Metaphor #2

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Deep Joy in the Peerimost Reviewal of Academic Articloaders

Back in November I marked a literature review from an MA candidate. This was a short, not terribly important practice exercise for the real thing and carried only a small percentage of the total marks for the module. I could make no sense of it and gave it 0%. A colleague suggested this might be too crushing for a first assignment: could I not whack it up to 10%? I suppose the candidate had sat down and at least tried to organise the material, however inappropriately, so I agreed. Here is a sample of her style: 

Natural order hypothesis is imperfect because of methodological consideration. In my point of view, lack of collegiality and the personal nature of suffered via the years are noticeable and prove that there is something close than the traditional argue with to the leader. The grammar was the basic knowledge of the language. There are six factors to decide whether the theory is right or not suitable. He scored more because of his clarity and simplicity in the tongue. This method is extremely susceptible on the grounds of scientific insufficiency. It is recycled theory ideas. The second language acquisition theory is more delegate of the intuition and personal understanding of pre-systematic times.

The writer continues in the same vein for another 950 words or so. English is not her mother tongue, but that doesn't seem to me to be the problem. The language is eccentric but not wildly inaccurate. Vocabulary choice is a bit off sometimes, the writer hitting upon the next word along rather than the one she's aiming for, but individual sentences are mostly well-formed. Trouble is, they seem only vaguely connected to one another. The real problem is that she doesn't know what she's talking about and is simply flanneling. Readers cannot be expected to pore over essays for hours, attempting to construe what writers may or may not be trying to say, so sod it, give it zero. Oh, OK then, if you insist, give it ten.

Today, I found this online:

Critical thinking and critique in new materialist perspectives is all without and diffractive: POST/modern/structural/human/humusist/anthropocene and PANpsychic/semiotic. They are therefore nondebunking and deauthorized immanent critique practices as the/an art of formal negation, curating and dosage opening for new and clinical practices, and quality is seen as tendencies at the origin of forces regardless of the complex that derives from them. They are working/s and writing/s with and beyond the subject: Inner outer always eroding but creative dimensions of life only relationally super-, supra-positioned until something comes to matter, makes happen, and/or decision making. Learning, action, and change beyond assumptions and post-accountability thus fiction as method and school of thought: Method is/as a bridge to philosophy and here my profession entrance. I call it material eco/edu/criticism. It is of a minor type. It is a bi/lingual criticism beyond representation, stumbling between major neoliberal and minor mine languages as in major and minor literatures (Deleuze, 1986) “restoring life to primary life” (p. 108). I ultimately argue for applying philosophy and inter-intrasemiotic thinking to foster and build educational cultures of innovation conceptually, methodologically, and theoretically, social innovation and social enterprise.
That is the first paragraph of a peer-reviewed article. I didn't manage to read it through, so I can only tell you that in the two paragraphs that dribble on from this one, the writer makes my MA candidate's effort look like an essay by Bertrand Russell. This woman's peers actually read it and actually approved it for publication. 'This is good stuff,' they must've said. 'Maybe a tad too cohesive: take a few verbs out, drop a few subject pronouns, maybe muddy the relationship between thoughts here and there to reduce the coherence factor a tad and it'll be right as ninepence.' And there it is: a grey wall of poker-faced drivel, seriously offered up for our serious consideration.

So maybe I was too harsh on my MA candidate's mini lit review. Should I encourage her to submit it to the ELTJ? 


Next up for the MA group is the dissertation proposal. To prepare them for this, I gave them two proposals from previous years, names and other identifying features removed. One of the proposals was carefully thought out and excellently presented, and the other was umm... neither of those things. The writer kept repeating the same small set of threadbare ideas, and kept referring to whiteboards and board pens as 'teaching methods', which pissed me off big time. The candidates were given a set of assessment criteria, read both proposals, then in groups assessed away.

I suppose people who are themselves being continually assessed are often disposed to evaluate their peers' work harshly: they set out with a kind of 'gotcha' mentality. It was dismaying, as I circulated, to hear them shitting all over the first proposal (the good one) and then bigging up the crummy one on the reasonable assumption that I must have chosen a good one and a bad one and then probably given them the bad one first.

So yeah. Maybe that peer reviewed article is actually a model of clarity and it's just my prejudices getting in the way.


Pour faire un poème dadaïste

Prenez un journal
Prenez des ciseaux
Choisissez dans ce journal un article ayant la longueur que vous comptez donner à votre poème.
Découpez l'article
Découpez ensuite avec soin chacun des mots qui forment cet article et mettez-le dans un sac.
Agitez doucement
Sortez ensuite chaque coupure l'une après l'autre dans l'ordre où elles ont quitté le sac.
Copiez consciencieusement.
Le poème vous ressemblera.
Et vous voilà "un écrivain infiniment original et d'une sensibilité charmante, encore qu'incomprise du vulgaire"

Tristan Tzara, 1920.

How to make a dadaist poem

Take a newspaper
Take some scissors
Choose from the newspaper an article of the length you intend your poem to be
Cut up the article
Then carefully cut out  the words that make up the article and put them in a bag.
Shake gently
Next take out each cutting, one after another in the order they come out of the bag.
Copy them conscientiously.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are: 'an infinitely original writer, of charming sensibility, though unappreciated by the vulgar herd'.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin