Reviewers

Now, this will sound narcissistic of me, but hear me out!

I was sitting on the couch reading some dissertation stuff, when I mentioned to my husband that a book review I did is up on the journal's website. I noted that I hadn't look it over yet because I was a little apprehensive. They published it without a revision process, so I'm a little bit scared of this thing with my named attached to it!

Suddenly -- oh shit! -- I remembered that I DO have revisions due back to an editor for an article. And the revisions are due on MONDAY. I go into my e-mail and pull up the reviews. The one wants me to articulate that I am describe the tensions of a borderland, and that it is intentional that I do not describe the steps that I will take to resolve the described tension. Okay. Makes sense. The reviewer suggests a particular article that I read.

The other reviewer only wants one change. This reviewer tells me that I can't use a certain French theorist whose name starts with an F to talk about a woman, because F was a gay man. Ummm....WHAT THE HELL?!? First of all, F couldn't have written a damn thing if he could only write about things written by other gay men because there were not many published openly gay men. Plus, DEAR GOD, the naivete! So, a theory of knowledge developed by a gay man only applies to gay men?

(BTW, the objectionable passage includes a reference to a female client internalizing the control of HER body. That's not allowed, b/c F was not a SHE.)

I had assumed that my reviewers would be much more sophisticated than I am. The first reviewer indeed may be, but the second....wow.