58

55 comments

This may be a controversial view, but I’m so annoyed by this stupid women and her research because apparently it’s impossible to get funding in psychology and other fields to study pedophiles and pedophilia with the genuine purpose of finding out how to stop these people offending. I think that more research does need to be done about how and why people become pedophiles, and I do think there can sometimes be a whiplash reaction that any kind of research into this is dodgy. Having said that, this woman has just gone ahead and proved all the queer theory stereotypes and gone about this in the entirely wrong way — high quality child porn? Ffs.

I’m also mad because Jezebel has framed this as a legitimate researcher being kicked out of academics because she is non binary, and has made it seem like her research is all about safeguarding children … when it’s clearly not .

They should have kicked her the fuck out. Not give her paid leave and wait for her to make a move (a move that I am sure she will exploit to paint herself as the victim).

It' s disgusting that schools and organizations keep excusing this "sympathy for the pedophile" attitude.

I'm not an academic - but I think this is as close to fired as you can get. What will be MORE interesting, is whether she can secure another post.

I just don' t like the fact that they didn' t take a clear and cut position on the matter. I am sure that they have discussed it in private and came to the conclusion that it would be better for all parts if she left, but the reason why pro-pedo are so brazen nowadays is that nobody they consider important calls them out on their bullshit.

Maybe if more of their employers took a strong stance on how "poor pedophiles, they deserve love and respect" isn' t the best position ever, they would think twice about writing and saying their drivel.

Oh, she'll get another post. She probably has something else already lined up.

It's probably cheaper for them to keep paying her leave until her contract runs out that to sack her and risk a lawsuit.

Rationally, I know that this is the only thing they could do, but I hate that money comes before making it clear that pedophilia is bad.

‘High quality child pornography’

Firstly no serious researcher or professional in CSA uses that term. They are child abuse images. So she blows her entire credibility on that alone.

Secondly, which children are we going to select to have their abuse filmed, photographed and distributed to paedophiles? From what age?

She needs help. I've reached the point, I'd like to see most of academia just END. Such a cesspool of bad ideas.

Very glad that women caught this horrid garbage she was pushing, called her out on it, publicized it, and got some results here. Sure wish we could get more AGP men to back down.

[–] nobitary [OP] Brainoeba 38 points

I agree - she seems disturbed. On the other hand - she does advocate for child rapists to use "high quality child porn," so I'd suggest helping her would be most effective in a prison.

It’s like she didn’t even think about where the high quality child porn would come from, it would come from abusing children 😡 Honestly her ideas led me to assume she herself is a pedophile and probably needs to be in prison:

What the fuck does she mean by (I don't even want to repeat it) that? Deep fakes of adult performers made to look like children or...?

The way she talks, everything screams a severe developmental issue and or trauma.

I'm not sympathizing with her. I could just tell there was something off, like she is arrested psychologically at a very young age.

Her association with Prostasia should've been the thing that got her removed immediately.

Sadly 60 professors at Dominion U signed a petition to protest her resignation. Seems like that place is a haven for pedos.

I mean, the way hiring for scademic positions works... everyone knew about that dissertation and, frankly, the dissertation was one of the reasons she got hired.

She must have had a section in her cover letter that summarized it (that's the expectation).

She probably had to include a writing sample of her academic writing. People usually choose a fragment of their dissertation. I'm pretty sure Walker did, since she was working on turning it into a book (and succeeded).

She was for sure asked about her dissertation in the interview process, and multiple people listened to her make a case for "MAPs."

And then they hired her. Over other candidates for that same job. There can be around 200 people applying for one academic job -- even more if it's a tenure-track position like Walker's. The promise of job security and career advancement is rare and desirable.

In short, she got hired because her research was deemed "original" and the committee saw her as a promising academic on the basis of that research and of her identity claims.

Yeah... academia.

A woman who refuses to identify as female, who is advocating for radical methods to keep child molesters busy doing anything other than molesting children. I would be shocked if she wasn't a victim of child sexual abuse. (I obviously don't claim to know her past and I sincerely hope that didn't happen to her.)

I don't think she had any malicious intent. I think she's genuinely trying to help find solutions to prevent child sexual abuse... she just came to some very misguided conclusions.

I grow tired of both the ‘numb binarees’ and the overarching goal of normalizing pedophilia. These people are psychopaths and they’re feeling much too comfortable these days. I’m glad this scumbag is gone. Pedophilia is NOT TOLERATED in a civilized society.

[–] LunarMoose 17 points Edited

From her dissertation: Importantly, this dissertation is part of an ongoing effort among many scholars to “queer” the field of criminology. This effort seeks to give representation to sexual minorities who historically have been ignored in the field, and to critically interrogate assumptions about offending and victimization experiences among individuals categorized as sexually deviant. As McDonald (2016) pointed out, even the arena of queer criminology has generally overlooked minor-attracted individuals. In maintaining the effort to queer the field, MAPs should be granted consideration as sexual minorities. Valuable findings for the fields of mental health and criminal justice will only emerge with continued research that can shed light on the experiences of MAPs, with the understanding that attractions to minors are not synonymous with sex offending.

and yes, she sees it as an orientation (so coming out is good - reduces stigma) "Striking similarities were also found between the study sample and prior research investigating the experiences of other sexual minorities. For example, the experiences of with identity formation processes and methods of coping with stigma for the MAPs in this study mirrored, in many ways, the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (e.g. Troiden, 1989; Russell & Richards, 2003; Singh, Hays, & Watson, 2011). "

The funniest part is where she describes 'coming out' to her subjects - sometimes it made them 'comfortable' to know she is queer. I mean, come on. Allison, one look at you and I know where you are coming from. I mean, you don't need to 'come out'. good heavens!

This is where we are in academia now: everyone is claiming to be Galileo.

Narcissists get noticed because they're bombastic in their self-descriptions. Too many people applying for a single job. If you both claim to be an original scholar (you "queer" something or claim that x is the opposite of what most people/scholars think it is) and make an identity claim, well... you win.

[–] LunarMoose 16 points Edited

I think her biggest mistake is the same one that Prof that wants to extend the alphabet orientations to bestiality - BIAS. She is using herself as a justification for people who have attractions to minors. She's right they need treatment and study. She's right they need support to not offend. She has offered NO scientific justification (but herself, IMHO) for 'MAP's' being an orientation - 'like LGB' people (okay, she says T, too).

That's her biggest mistake. Her bias is her mistake. And it's dangerous because it is normalizing......and it normalizes WITHOUT scientific evidence. It's a disgraceful dissertation for that reason. (and, of course, it is qualitative.........).

Exactly. And in her statement she wants to dismiss the pushback against her "MAP" advocacy as "people disagree with me BECAUSE I'm trans."

How narcissistically convenient. She's taking no responsibility for her own argumentation and activism.

I am appalled that her dissertation research and write up was accepted. This is exactly the sort of thing that undermines academic freedom, such as it in fact, let alone what it should be.

One legacy of Judith Butler and post-modernism in general is that in many departments/fields, the only way to get ahead is to set your research way out in Wacky-Land. Not saying this academic doesn't believe what she's peddling, but I get so tired of research that is less about new knowledge/new perspective and more about Look At Me points.

Good news! The bad news is there were 60 other professors who signed a petition protesting that. Check all their harddrives.

Load more (2 comments)