I understand the publish-or-perish mentality in academia. It is unfortunate because it causes mostly lucid and rational people to produce stuff like this:
To date, most interpretations regarding the agency of maritime workers in the late eighteenth century have posited the seamen as a united working-class body. However, the application of gender as a mode of analysis illustrates that a division existed amongst the working-class seamen in their vision of what it meant to be a worker, specifically a maritime worker. These differing ideas of masculinity drove a wedge between the seamen of the British Royal Navy, thus weakening their class solidarity. One faction of seamen favored the existing social contract accepted a society based on inequality, even amongst men, but in return demanded that their contributions as workers and as men be acknowledged by their rulers through both material and symbolic rewards. Similarly, another element of the seamen sought a more revolutionary solution in seeking rewards for their masculine contributions, which included acknowledgement of their roles as workers and rights as men through political equality. What it meant to be a seaman and the contestation of that definition motivated and limited the historical agency of seamen in the greatest labor dispute during the Age of Sail: the British seamen’s Spithead and Nore mutinies of 1797. As a new approach to labor history, the examination of the power of internalized gendered definitions to limit the actions of workers’ agency offers powerful new insights.