Fuck Yeah, Gender Studies!

(Link to open letter here)

Dear Geraldine et al.,

You’re very welcome. I’m glad we are agreed in that plagiarism is disgusting. 

Now, you said: 

“We invite you to continue to delve into our archives and we are confident that you will find nothing but authentic, original content.”

Thanks for the invitation—consider this my RSVP. I just had a quick look found anything but “authentic, original content”:

http://www.heruni.com/2011/10/10/so-long-mr-right-the-online-search-for-motherhood/ versus http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047114/Young-women-turn-sperm-donors-online-hunt-Mr-Right.html

The former, from your website, is very clearly more than simply “inspired by” the latter, from the Daily Mail.

Title of Daily Mail piece: “Women as young as 18 are resorting to sperm donors online as they give up the hunt for Mr Right”

First sentence of Her Uni article: “Women as young as 18 have given up the hunt for Mr. Right and are turning to online sperm donors to become single parents”.

If your plagiarism software can’t catch that then i really, really think you ought to find some new software!

Shall we read some more?

The bold text is the Daily Mail. The normal text is from the article on your website where you claim i will find nothing but original content. I have left the Daily Mail article in order and followed each sentence or paragraph with a strangely familiar sentence or paragraph from your website. For that reason, a couple of the sentences are not in the same order they appear on your website (but as you will see it’s not like i’ve jumbled them up loads, and, in any case, that’s beside the point because the article is very obviously plagiarised anyway).

Women as young as 18 are resorting to sperm donors online as they give up the hunt for Mr Right

Increasing numbers of women are turning to internet sperm donors to become mothers after failing to find the man of their dreams.

Women as young as 18 have given up the hunt for Mr. Right and are turning to online sperm donors to become single parents.

Scores of women in their early twenties are logging on to websites such as babydonor.com and co-parent-search.com to find fathers for their children.

The websites, including babydonor.com and co-parent-search.com are becoming more and more popular with women in their early twenties who simply can’t find the right man and want to start a family alone.

Many women, some of whom are as young as 18 or 19, say they are frustrated with relationships and have decided to face the challenge of parenthood alone.
Frustrated women across the country are logging on to donor sites in search of single parenthood rather than settling for a difficult ‘make do’ relationship.

(Picture caption Daily Mail): Donor search: More young women are turning to the web to help them become mothers

(Picture caption HU): Women are choosing the web instead of a husband

According to The Sunday Times, women under 25 make up a quarter of women registering on some sites, where they post pictures or themselves, as well as private information allowing potential donors to get in touch.

Research by The Sunday Times discovered that women under 25 make up a quarter of women registering on some sites, a staggering amount considering the amount of eligible bachelors looking for love. On these sites, women post pictures of themselves with private information for potential donors to look at and get in touch.

One 20-year-old said: ‘I’ve wanted kids for as long as I can remember. I lost a baby when I was with my ex-boyfriend. We broke up shortly afterwards, too devastated to continue. But since then I have known I am ready to be a parent. I am financially secure, I have found a job with flexible hours, I have a house and a mortgage. I know I could offer a child a loving, safe environment, so I don’t know why I should wait.’

One 20-year-old who has posted her profile online, said: “I lost a baby when I was with my ex-boyfriend. We broke up shortly afterwards, too devastated to continue. I know I could offer a child a loving, safe environment, so I don’t know why I should wait.”

According to Christina Hughes, professor of women and gender at Warwick University, having a child is no longer a matter of waiting to find the right man and falling in love. ‘Now there is an emphasis on women waiting until the time is right to have children.’ she said. ‘Even though these women are young, they believe that they have the support structure and feel emotionally and financially independent: for them it is the right time.’

Professor Christina Hughes, who specialises in women and gender at Warwick University, said having a child is no longer about waiting for Mr. Right: “Even though these women are young, they believe that they have the support structure and feel emotionally and financially independent: for them it is the right time.”

Research shows that between one and two per cent of patients at licensed fertility clinics are under 25 but the number of adverts suggests that the number using unregulated channels may be much higher, perhaps due to the cost of fertility treatment, which can run in to many thousands of pounds.

Research suggests that although one to two percent of women using donor sites are under 25, the number of adverts imply that more may be using unregulated channels. These channels are often much cheaper than the official ones which charge around £1,500.

But the unregulated market is fraught with dangers and women who take this route are putting themselves at risk.

The cheaper price is much more appealing to young women on low starting salaries. However these ‘underground’ sites have their risks, financial and health related.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said that there are legal implications as, outside of licensed clinics, the man’s status as the father cannot be waived.

There are also many legal implications as, outside of licensed clinics, the male donor’s status as the father cannot be waived.

There are also health risks because sperm gained over the internet cannot be screened.

Sperm received over the internet cannot be screened; therefore women are facing the risk of blood-borne diseases and STIs, and the child may suffer from genetic disorders like Down’s syndrome.

Although online sperm donors may seem like a quick fix into parenthood for single women, if you don’t have the money it’s too risky. Besides, at our age, Mr. Right is just around the corner!

 I’m sure you’re currently as disappointed as I was to discover that plagiarism is way more common than either of us would like on your website. Perhaps you might consider no longer publishing articles from the “author” of this piece (who is the same woman who “wrote” the piece on cheating during a recession)? I think that would be a good start. I don’t know how far you would wish to take it, but plagiarism tends to be a serial offence rather than something that only happens once—and we can all see that that’s the case with this “writer”: perhaps her university ought to be informed? It’s hardly good journalism—but that may not be your remit. 

What most assuredly is your remit, however, is ensuring that you don’t publish stolen property. And i don’t think that i was wrong in any way to alert the Daily Mail to your stolen content. Like it or not, they do deserve to be made aware and i believe i acted appropriately in that respect. 
I can only reiterate that my writing to the Daily Mail (i did not write to Cosmopolitan until today) was in the interests of ethics and the law. If you knew someone had stolen something from somebody, would you tell the victim first, or would you tell the culprit and give them the opportunity to hide/destroy the evidence? 

Your disqualification from the awards would have been a desirable outcome—but not for the reasons you assume. I had little interest vested in this competition: Was i at the awards ceremony last night? No.Would someone who desperately wanted/expected to win show up? Yes.
Would Cosmo, the magazine that every month tells women how to please men sexually, be likely to present an award to a blog that is concerned with challenging exactly that sort of heteronormative, outdated sexual economy? Probably not.
Does Cosmo, you think, typically like writing that’s littered with swear words? No.
Would Cosmo even be likely to publish the name of my blog in the magazine? I fucking doubt it.
Throughout this competition i have been fully aware that i am least-favourite to win. That’s obvious. 

So, rather than desperately trying to increase my chances of a win, my protest exists because, as a writer, as a student and as an early-career researcher i value creative integrity. The runner up of the competition, My Arched Eyebrow, doesn’t have any plagiarised content on her blog. None of the other bloggers do (to my knowledge). It’s just your one.

You talk about me “discrediting student journalists”, but i’m not: I didn’t put stolen content on your blog, you did. I didn’t go looking for it (until you invited me to today), i found it by coincidence. I was not trying to sabotage you—i simply believe in a) not stealing other people’s stuff, even on the internet; and b) fair competition. And, to me, fair means making the powers that be aware of the facts, not giving cheaters a fair chance to hide evidence of their journalistic malpractice. 

The rest of your blog may be fine. I don’t know. But you nevertheless won (at least partially) on the back of stolen content. And then you assured me that i would find no more of it on your website… and i did, pretty easily. The other blogs don’t have any of that and have done nothing wrong whatsoever. By your own admission, you’ve messed up—accidentally or not, it doesn’t matter. As they say, ignorance is no defence.

You also suggest my primary concern is elevating my profile. “My profile”? I don’t care. I cater to a niche market. I write things that the average person doesn’t care about. Sex workers’ rights; HIV awareness; sexual disorders; transgender rights; critical theory; disability theory; gender theory; not being a total asshole. I’m well aware that my readership would not increase much, even if, i don’t know, someone beamed my URL onto the side of the Houses of Parliament, because most people just aren’t interested in what i write about. And that’s a shame—for them. Not for me. 
 
What to say now?
Sort it out.

Best wishes (for honest journalism),

 Emma 

EDIT: The editor of Cosmo has contacted me; things are happening…