[quote=“Fortigurn”]I’m not sure that I understand the reason for the overwhelming aggression and hate being shown here towards this individual. Could someone enlighten me?[/quote]No. Read the article and read the responses.
I agree, all I see is opportunity.
I just put my first scholarship application in. I’m a litle concerned that I’ve strayed from my core discipline in China studies but I’m thinking “How the ‘other’ sees the light - Cross-gender and cultural variances in the perception of light & sound in an Amsterdam cafe” could be a winner.
HG
I’ve read the article, and I’ve read the responses. I still don’t understand the numerous personal attacks being made on the author, including accusations of ignorance, cheapness, lack of sexual appeal, personal bias, sexual frustration, libel, unethical behaviour and breaching university rules.
Here’s a list of choice comments:
-
I’m guessing that this poor schmuck is one of the ones Bob used to kick out for buying his beers at 7-11 up the road because he’s a cheap pillock.
-
I knew there is an entire industry devoted to writing bollocks about China, but it never occurred to me there would be money in writing this sort of facile codswallop about Taiwan
-
The mind boggles to think someone was paid - paid to write this puerile nonsense
-
Still gobsmacked to think though that someone has the lack of self-respect to write fatuous garbage like this just slagging off an entire section of society and a bar which is so well liked by so many people and then call it “research”
-
What a cunt, eh?
-
this sententious arsehole
-
Not even fucking original either. Not a single original thought or sentiment. Just pure self-absorption
-
Where do you have to go in the world to get away from pricks like this?
-
claptrap
-
What a crock of arsebiscuits
-
his so-called “research”
-
While nursing a hangover and the pall of repeated rejection at Carnegie’s
-
this is so transparently someone trying to make himself sound clever by putting down others
-
patronising bollocks
-
over-funded ignoramus
-
He likely did not seek or obtain permission from Carnegies to conduct, cough, research on its premises
-
libel
-
gutter journalism
-
give him a swift kick in the nuts like he deserves
-
a bitterly rejected whinger
-
wanker
In this entire thread, I’ve seen perhaps five posts so far which make an attempt to address the paper in a rational manner.
Fort -
Not meant as an ‘atack’ on your comment.
IMO, I think there may be 2 main reasons for the responses noted.
-
This subject is painfully close to home for many of the respondees.(sp?) They are ‘in the mix’ being presented here. And this presentation is not a perticularly flattering one.
-
And perhaps the most relevant. This is a dreadfully shabby piece of academic bull sh*t. This ‘author’ is presenting this piece of pre-conclusions as worthy research with nothing more than a few chat-ups and hearsay supported by quoting the supporting literary observations of a selected group of authors. Hardly distinctive or innovative.
This is puerile childish drivel. His conclusions are more from the '70’s disco era than the 21st century Taipei. No, strike that, I don’t think he mentioned drug use did he? Maybe so - but not enough to be significant.
The only thing demonstrated here is that this ‘academic’ parasite has learned to play “The Grant Game.” He is only demonstrated ability looks to be how to separate foundations and other sources from their money.
His vapid “paper” will cause slight cocktail chatter at a few university gatherings, be passed around via email and chortled over and in the end, be of less value than the paper & ink it gets printed on.
Hi TC:
In what way is it not flattering? Is it not flattering to Taiwanese that he identified certain stereotypes of Westerners in Asian generally and Taiwan specifically (true), or is it not flattering to Westerners that he made it clear those stereotypes are formed in the same way as urban myths, rather than being accurate representations of reality?
What evidence is there that these are his pre-conclusions? I agree that this is hardly breathtaking academic research (and frankly, it looks like an opportunistic money grab), but it’s clear to me that the hatred directed towards the author has little or nothing to do with objections to his scholarly standards.
It’s interesting to see how much contention this bit of academic research has created.
Why not do the scholarly thing and invite the professor to support his findings? I sent this to him this morning.
Dear Marc,
Your paper “Multiple Virginity, Barbarian Prince Charmings, and Other Contested Realities in Taipei’s Foreign Club Culture” is generating some controversy within the online community of Taiwan foreigners known as Forumosa. This in itself is worthy of another paper topic - “Online Foreign Communities in Asia.”
It might be worth a moment to drop by the forum to support the findings of your paper, and hold your own Q&A with these obviously interested readers.
The discussion is taking place here (link to Forumosa thread).
Let’s see if he joins the discussion.
[quote=“offpeak”]It’s interesting to see how much contention this bit of academic research has created.
Why not do the scholarly thing and invite the professor to support his findings? I sent this to him this morning.
Dear Marc,
Your paper “Multiple Virginity, Barbarian Prince Charmings, and Other Contested Realities in Taipei’s Foreign Club Culture” is generating some controversy within the online community of Taiwan foreigners known as Forumosa. This in itself is worthy of another paper topic - “Online Foreign Communities in Asia.”
It might be worth a moment to drop by the forum to support the findings of your paper, and hold your own Q&A with these obviously interested readers.
The discussion is taking place here (link to Forumosa thread).
Let’s see if he joins the discussion.[/quote]
:bravo: this should be good…I love a good roast…to repeat myself some of his theory is quite good and worthy of debate…the problem is for people in taipei who have been going out for the last 10 to 20 years the research part of it falls flat because it paints a one dimensional picture and suggests someone who is too lazy to go anywhere except where his own personal preference would lead him…oh and:
“chronically understaffed”…Carnegies has some staff turnover but it’s never been chronically understaffed…bob treats his staff too well to have problems with staff retention…to make this statement in an academic paper you have to back it up ie head count staff on 3 consecutive ladies nites…
They’re jealous that they had to spend their hard-earned NT to drink at Carnegie’s while this guy bilked the Fulbright foundation and the US government to drink there.
So he’s competing with Fred Smith for most drinks on the public purse at Carnegie’s eh? Mind you in Fred’s favour he does seem completely oblivious to the tottie.
HG
Thanks for that. That reference was one of the points I take exception to. On any given Ladies’ Night there are about 20 staff working. This is going to sound stupid but most of the floor staff are female and short and not immediately noticable from anywhere when it is packed and dark. They do however work very efficiently in an environment most critics wouldn’t last 5 minutes in. Additionally, not one of the night time floor staff has been here less than three years. A pretty good retention rate for this business. I have had it said to me that service here is faster when it is packed than when [insert bar of choice] is empty. They are treated well here which is why I don’t adorn them with flashing light headgear for the benefit of academics with blinkered vision.
Much of the other stuff is hearsay and unsubstantiated, splattered with subjective opinion presented as ‘fact’; in my opinion, out of place in an academic study. It matters not one jot what is said as long as it is backed up. Opinions surely, are best left to the conclusion part of the essay but there were some parts where a wry commentary seems to have been inserted for the purposes of amusement only.
Incidentally, I have never thrown that guy out although there is a high chance that I may have taken the piss out of him which is a not altogether uncommon thing for me to do to anyone as some may testify to.
The section where he discusses ‘regular’ female patrons ‘denying’ having been here ‘regularly’ is very full of holes and frankly smacks of a ‘I have the answer already - I just need to formulate the question’ type approach.
Other than the factual inaccuracies and the unsubstantiated hearsay and experiments lacking in credible methodology, the theory is quite interesting albeit somewhat pointless.
As far as doing his research in here is concerned; there is little I could do to stop it, sanction it or condone it as I was never solicited for my opinion nor asked to confirm or deny the ‘facts’ as they are presented in this dissertation.
I await eagerly the curriculum for the University of South Carolina’s 1 year course in Carnegie’s Studies. Perhaps the Fulbright Foundation or someone will pay for me to give a seminar?
Bob
BA (Hons) Liverpool
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]So he’s competing with Fred Smith for most drinks on the public purse at Carnegie’s eh? Mind you in Fred’s favour he does seem completely oblivious to the tottie.
HG[/quote]
:roflmao:
Bob
He presents no measurement, no analysis, no objective discussion, no presentation of verifiable standardised questionnnaires, for example, no self-analysis of limitations in his methodology, no sampling bias estimations, no peer review, no alternate hypothesis apart from his own limited observations, and then without evidence beyond a few half-hearted and non-systematic interviews, he extends that to the whole arena of sexual identity and the lure of the other. And then he proceeds to do what so many other feeble attempts at scholarship have done, and dresses the sick puppy of his thesis up in grandiloquent terms and malapropisms, words with no strict definition but loaded with emotive overtones, and passes it off as research. And then to compound it, others (including some) here have the gall to defend it as science! The article is a circle-jerk. That’s just my biased opinion of course, but as a scientific editor I see this crap all the time. Of course he deserves a roasting, and all the americans out there shluld be outraged that he gets to waste the Fulbright foundations money in this manner. HGC has it right when he joins in to play the grant game himself, because this man is on a fully funded junket.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]I’ve read the article, and I’ve read the responses. I still don’t understand the numerous personal attacks being made on the author, including accusations of ignorance, cheapness, lack of sexual appeal, personal bias, sexual frustration, libel, unethical behaviour and breaching university rules.
-
He likely did not seek or obtain permission from Carnegies to conduct, cough, research on its premises
-
libel
In this entire thread, I’ve seen perhaps five posts so far which make an attempt to address the paper in a rational manner.[/quote]
And which were those? You think criticism for not protecting yourself and your university from libel accusations is not rational? You think protecting the identity of informants/participants is not important in academic research? If so, then every university administrator I know would disagree with you, so much so that if you were a researcher at their university, you wouldn’t be long in the job. Protecting the identity of human research participants, especially those who might be cast in a bad light, is extremely important. It’s bad enough to get torn to pieces for shoddy work at a conference, but I assure you it is much more painful and expensive to be ripped apart in a chancellor’s office, or worse, in a courtroom.
In most universities that are worth a damn, ethics applications must be sorted out before research is done. That’s why I first criticised the ethical issues in his paper. And then of course, it is just plain horribly written:
[quote]
It is also, accurately I think, known as the most aggressive pick up spot in Taiwan[/quote]
Known by whom?
Ahem. Academic objectivity, anyone?
Says who?
Data?
What robust data collection method!
In any study, qualitative or quantitative, the writer must describe exactly how data was collected and analysed. Is the write up based on data coding of transcribed audiorecordings of interviews? Was there videorecording? Field notes? Was there any effort toward triangulation of data collected? This guy doesn’t say anything about how he collected data other than “I visited a few bars.”
Fort, how can you even take this article seriously enough to ask for serious comments on it?
Nice work Jive and urodacus. Personally I couldn;t get pased the abstract. However, I am deeply concerned by this finding:
Now I thought the door charge was supposed to keep the Cannucks and Saffies in the 7-11s scrambling to offer the xiaojies their free gifts. Have standards slipped?
HG
I believe a common misconception in this thread is that when he records individual opinions and stereotypes, he is arguing that they are in fact not opinions and stereotypes, but reality.
I also believe that most here have completely overlooked the repeated use of qualifying language such as ‘reputed’, ‘apparently’, ‘assumed’, ‘perceived’, ‘suggests’, ‘seemingly’, and ‘arguably’, and instead chosen to read qualified statements as unqualified statements.
I’m also interested in testing his evidence. Let’s take this as an example:
Of course we would need to view this blog to see if he is representing the sentiments accurately. But until we have, is it reasonable to accuse him of simply inventing a fictitious blog containing these comments?
As another example, he claims that ‘Western men are often portrayed as sexual predators on Asian women (Schein 2002: 241)’, but argues against the idea that Western men are ‘sexual predators on Asian women’, at least in Taipei.
Are people objecting to the statement ‘Western men are often portrayed as sexual predators on Asian women (Schein 2002: 241)’, or are people objecting to him arguing that there is little evidence that Western men are ‘sexual predators on Asian women’, at least in Taiwan?
Are people saying that he is wrong to say this:
Is it right to ‘assume that local [Taiwanese] women are victimized by callous but powerful Western males’, or is it wrong?
How about this:
True or untrue?
And this:
True or not true?
An early post by ‘the bear’, one by ‘somimi’, one by ‘Tyc00n’, one by yourself, and - oops, make that four.
I think it’s perfectly rational.
I think it’s very important, where necessary.
I haven’t even commented on whether or not I take it seriously (as in ‘believe it is an accurate representation of the topic it claims to evaluate’). But what I cannot take seriously are comments such as ‘c_nt’, ‘wanker’, ‘give him a swift kick in the nuts’, and ‘bitterly rejected whinger’, especially without actually addressing the article itself.
Marc Moskovitz wrote a really interesting book about foetus ghost worship. The guy has written a lot about female sexuality in Taiwan. I’d love to meet him; he sounds fascinating.
It’s a shame that Carnegies gets labelled a crappy little disco for sleazy old white guys to pick up Taiwanese slappers. I didn’t go there for years simply because of that reputation. I’m not judging, it’s just not a fun night out for me. Well, OK, maybe I am judging. I’ve lived in Asia all my adult life and it’s not even boring any more. But then again sleazy guys and dirty hoors need love too.
Nowadays I regularly go to Carnegies and spend a significant amount of money and I bring my friends. I am a white female in my 30’s. I do not dance on the bar. I do not pick up guys in there (apart from … and …, well ok, not as a general rule). I can afford to drink pretty much wherever I choose, either with or without the ‘Taiwanese elite’. The report is full of generalisations, but it is a interesting some ways. Yet the report is not about people like me and my friends because there is no east west sexual frisson going on there. Harder to ‘sell’ and not very interesting.
I’m someone who doesn’t fit into any of the groups described. Why do I go there?
- Nice surroundings.
- Sometimes bump into people I know.
- Good food with a really varied menu.
- Excellent service from great waitresses who always remember my name and are courteous, efficient and helpful, whether my table is spending 300 dollars or 10000.
- You can go there and be left alone or you can go and talk to someone.
- The boss doesn’t charge extra, even if you drink 7 refillable cappucinoes with your hammy croissants.
Anyway, a rambly, irrelevant and probably off topic post.
Are we absolutely certain that this paper is not a well-executed spoof? I’ve read the author’s The Haunting Fetus, and found nothing aberrant in his methodology or conclusions. As I was reading the book, I did a random fact check with friends and relatives on some of its conclusions, and found no serious errors. In fact, I rather admired the work, and hoped to see more from him.
Has Dr. Moskowitz decided to pull a hoax, or has he simply suffered a lapse in critical judgment?
It would be helpful indeed to hear from the professor himself.
That about sums it up for me.
[quote=“Tomas”]Are we absolutely certain that this paper is not a well-executed spoof? I’ve read the author’s The Haunting Fetus, and found nothing aberrant in his methodology or conclusions. As I was reading the book, I did a random fact check with friends and relatives on some of its conclusions, and found no serious errors. In fact, I rather admired the work, and hoped to see more from him.
Has Dr. Moskowitz decided to pull a hoax, or has he simply suffered a lapse in critical judgment?
It would be helpful indeed to hear from the professor himself.[/quote]
Yes, I am starting to think that myself. There is simply no way whatsoever that any academic even one writing a short dissertation for a BA degree would get away with twaddle like this. I think we’ve been had.
However as a spoof it’s a little bit too long don’t you think? And why would someone with serious books and tenure at a university return to Taiwan to write about this kind of subject matter?
The more I look at it the more it appears to be a hoax. If it’s not then anyone who goes to a bar 4 times and calls everyone in it a cunt deserves all the slagging he deserves. Especially, and I want to emphasize this, if it’s a bar I go to regularly.
I spent the entire afternoon at Carnage. I never got a shag but we chatted about boats and how best to roast a 140-pound boar on the patio, and I drank 5 pints of Newkie. I also had two pishes. It was fun. Great fun.