>>31360181>>31360220>Thus, we do not treat uses of ‘‘fag’’in our data as clear instances of the ‘‘fag discourse’’ (cf. Pascoe, 2007), but rather as
discursive constructions of identity that need to be understood in context.
Kudos to them for this, takes a certain level of lurking, empathy and understanding to make that distinction. 15 hours a week for 8 months is legit, no lurk moar from me.
>Unlike a traditional ethnography, we are unable to distinguish between specificposters. This makes the inference of bodily identity impossible, which we acknowledge
as a potential limitation of our data.
Very true, good to see it acknowledged.
>Additionally, we take an explicitly profeminist stance in drawing conclusionsfrom our data and in suggesting its political implications. Because misrepresenting
subjects’ lived realities is a key concern in feminist research, particularly when
subjects have different politics than researchers themselves (Borland, 1991), we
acknowledge that /mlp/ members may interpret their performances differently
than we have. However, as our perspective is grounded in a feminist tradition
that seeks to reduce the harms patriarchy does to men (hooks, 2004), we
believe our research may disagree with, without disregarding, the accounts of
our subjects.
Yeah, this is to be expected. No way around it in academia, and I don't think it's an explicit problem. At least they are aware.
>‘I can clop to that’fucking lmao
>Regular threads are devoted to erotic or romantic fiction, with eager audiences clamoring for ‘‘writefags’’ to finish their story.It sounds more pathetic when it's spoken of objectively, yet that is exactly what 70% of this board is. I'm not gonna keep quoting their quotes in the article, but holy fuck an academic journal article quoting anons is fucking killing me. Although I would have preferred screenshots with reaction images included.
Maybe we'll get a monograph next, horsefuckers.
