I am a bit ticked off, but I have no one else to blame but myself. It should have been quite clear to me by now that pretty much all feminists, no matter what stripe, political, academic etc. etc. are quite simply fabulists and frauds.
Lisak for example is someone who I trusted, despite not trusting others, like say Kimmel. That did not end well either.
This is the final straw ... I read this book
The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction and accepted it at face value more than a few years ago.
Now apparently it turns out to be a fraud (my term, the author does not use that term though he comes close)
A Failure of Academic Quality Control: The Technology of Orgasm (Link is to a PDF)
Yet none of these more critical reviews questioned Maines’ core claim, that physicians
routinely masturbated female patients to orgasm, both with and without vibrators. Blank, despite
her surprise, accepted Maines’ factual claims, while suggesting that some physicians knew
exactly what they were doing and “were sexually aroused by it.” Lunbeck (2002) who pointed
out the clear visual evidence of penetrative devices in Maines’ own illustrations, did not contest
the core argument about “genital massage to orgasm.” Marsh was skeptical about the extent of
the practice, but affirmed that vibrators and hydrotherapy devices “in fact had to have been
Journal of Positive Sexuality, Vol. 4, No. 2, August 2018 © 2018 Center for Positive Sexuality
sometimes used” to provide women with orgasms as a treatment for hysteria (Marsh, 2000, p.
599). Marsh was the only reviewer to comment that Maines sometimes “quoted out of context”
(Marsh, 2000, p. 600). Aside from Marsh, none of the reviewers with historical expertise noticed
the pervasively sloppy citation practices in the book.
...
The most serious challenge to Maines in the scholarly literature was Helen King’s 2011
article in Eugesta, an open-access journal focused on gender in antiquity.24 King, an expert on
ancient obstetrics and gynecology, makes a frontal assault on Maines’ argument that genital
massage was a staple of medical practice from antiquity into the early modern era. King
highlights Maines’ sloppy citation practices, including her habit of making “gratuitous use” of
references that do not support her claims. King notes that Maines’ “book may look authoritative,
superficially conforming to the scholarly rules of the game,” but that her use of sources, both
primary and secondary, raise “serious questions” (King, 2011, pp. 207, 209, 211).
...
Yet the book’s appeal isn’t just sexual. Maines’ story fits narratives of progress in sexual
knowledge, allowing readers to see themselves as worldly sophisticates in contrast to the
clueless, desexualized Victorians. Physicians look particularly ignorant in this account, having
no clue what the clitoris was, let alone an orgasm.29 Maines also portrays women as victims of
profit-hungry physicians. Such victim narratives were a staple of feminists critiques of medical
care in the 1970s (e.g., Frankfort, 1972). Women have no real agency in Maines’ account, as the
historical actors are all male physicians, and women’s voices are completely absent. However,
readers can still view the female patients as heroes who subvert patriarchy by procuring orgasms
under the guise of medical treatment. The story is thus paradoxical—women are victims, but the
tools used to victimize them bring them orgasms, a delicious irony.
...
The conclusion:
We believe that there are several lessons to be learned from this story. First, manuscript
reviewers in the humanities should be encouraged to do at least some fact-checking. With so
many books and articles now available online, much fact-checking can be accomplished in the
home or office, which was not the case when Maines’ book was published. Editors and peer
reviewers should also encourage critical assessments of established works. Journal editors in
particular need to avoid assigning such manuscripts to reviewers who are invested in the work
being criticized. Finally, scholars everywhere need to maintain their skepticism, not by rejecting
surprising results out of hand, but by critically examining all research and being willing to
challenge it when it is found wanting. Unless a spirit of fact checking and fearless critique is
built into the culture of scholarly publishing, false historical narratives like Maines’ will continue
to be published and even praised.
I get it. This is an issue not confined to one specific field.
But I have had it. This is my tipping point. As far as I am concerned, anything written/said by any type of Feminist in any sphere is not to believed.
Fucking liars, all of them.