I’ll probably be labeled a misogynist pig for even bringing this paper to the attention of our readers, but there are just some things that just deserve to be called “crazy”. When I first saw this, I thought it might be a parody, or an old April Fools joke. Sadly, no. The abstract from this publication Progress in Human Geography reads:
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
Abstract
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
Source: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract
h/t to Richard Saumarez
Like me, you are probably wondering what a “feminist glaciology framework” is
Through a review and synthesis of a multi-disciplinary and wide-ranging literature on human-ice relations, this paper proposes a feminist glaciology framework to analyze human-glacier dynamics, glacier narratives and discourse, and claims to credibility and authority of glaciological knowledge through the lens of feminist studies. As a point of departure, we use ‘glaciology’ in an encompassing sense that exceeds the immediate scientific meanings of the label, much as feminist critiques of geography, for example, have expanded what it is that ‘geography’ might mean vis-a`-vis geographic knowledge (Domosh, 1991; Rose, 1993). As such, feminist glaciology has four aspects: (1) knowledge producers, to decipher how gender affects the individuals producing glacierrelated knowledges; (2) gendered science and knowledge, to address how glacier science, perceptions, and claims to credibility are gendered; (3) systems of scientific domination, to analyze how power, domination, colonialism, and control – undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies – have shaped glacier-related sciences and knowledges over time; and (4) alternative representations, to illustrate diverse methods and ways – beyond the natural sciences and including what we refer to as ‘folk glaciologies’ – to portray glaciers and integrate counter-narratives into broader conceptions of the cryosphere. These four components of feminist glaciology not only help to critically uncover the under-examined history of glaciological knowledge and glacier-related sciences prominent in today’s climate change discussions. The framework also has important implications for understanding vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience – all central themes in global environmental change research and decision-making that have lacked such robust analysis of epistemologies and knowledge production (Conway et al., 2014; Castree et al., 2014).
Oh.
The funding source didn’t surprise me:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant #1253779.
So, the gist of this paper can be summed up in this statement:
Most existing glaciological research – and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change – stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses. These characteristics apply to scientific disciplines beyond glaciology; there is an explicit need to uncover the role of women in the history of science and technology, while also exposing processes for excluding women from science and technology.
Those darn manly men with their masculinist discourses! But, I digress.
It would seem to me that given a choice of going to a remote and bitterly cold place, where you have to live in harsh minimalist conditions, with little human contact for months, just doesn’t appeal to many women, hence creating this perceived “bias” or lack of “feminine glaciology”. After all, millions of husbands and wives battle over the home thermostat setting daily. However, if somebody wants to break through the “ice ceiling” of glaciology, I nominate my Internet stalker Miriam O’Brien, aka “Sou”/Hotwhopper who could be a groundbreaking icebreaking leader by going to live on a glacier for a year so she can study it. I might actually pay to see that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for the laugh, Anthony.
She can take comfort knowing that some glaciers are merely retreating to their safe spaces
Does that mean that the advancing ones are aggressive bullies?
And I thought the Marxists were ludicrous when I was in school! Apparently they know the proper buzz words to use for the grant-writers.
From the article (bold mine):
Could the reason be that (in my best Sam Kenison voice) NOBODY CARES?!!?!!
I suppose now we can never ask how much a glacier weights.
“Does this snow cap make me look fat?”
Can’t ask how old it is either.
Or how old it is.
My friends, come visit San Francisco for a weekend. Walk around and observe. It will become clear that we live among people who are transfixed in a very different reality, far removed from the scientific achievement of this age. It’s an unbelievable situation but it’s real.
Same in New York–which on weekends could pass for Solla Sollew.
Some time ago someone put a link that went would produce a “paper” by randomly put together phrases.
Perhaps these ladies found that link?
“Feminist political ecology” might be an example randomly linking words and/or phrases together….
You know what they say about leaving a monkey in the computer chair long enough . . . !
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Postmodernism_Generator
The link to the Postmodern Generator itself seems to be kaput. Try the chomskybot, instead: http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
After reading the abstract, I immediately thought of this:
https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
“SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. It uses a hand-written context-free grammar to form all elements of the papers.”
The next glaciolgy study should be from the perspective of those using zimmer frames and coping with microaggression. Got to be all inclusive ya know.
Where is Alan Sokal when we need him. His classic spoof of deconstructionism, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” had deconstructionist fools such as this paper’s author screaming like stuck pigs for years. We need a similar effort based on climate science.
Sokal [See ‘the Sokal Hoax’] left the deconstructionists hoist by their own petard, looking like total fools, wearing the emperor’s new clothes.
I still have a lingering suspicion that the MIT group that produced the “Climate Roulette Wheel” were spoofing Climate “science.” At the time, I enquired whether it were a joke, but received no reply from MIT.
Glacial melt periods are quite unpleasant.
So, does this mean glaciers are going to start burning their bras (do glaciers wear bras)? Are they going to go on birth control to prevent unwanted calving? What would a sexual revolution among glaciers look like? Are the female glaciers going to apply to Gaia for an Equal Rights Amendment? How do you tell the difference between a male and female glacier?
Just look at how they’re made up.
So what’s the difference between boy and girl glaciers and how they’re made up?
Females calve?
verb: calve; 3rd person present: calves; past tense: calved; past participle: calved; gerund or present participle: calving
1. (of cows and certain other large animals) give birth to a calf.
* (of a person) help (a cow) give birth to a calf.
2. (of an iceberg or glacier) split and shed (a smaller mass of ice).
‘…gendered science and knowledge’…???
Surely ‘neutered science and knowledge;
with the first word now a verb, not an adjective?
Please, please, please tell me this is a parody that got through, much like the Sokol affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair), or perhaps something generated from a paper generator that uses random text. If not, the decline of (Western) civilization and the rise of the post-scientific era have all progressed further along than I had thought …
Having said that, I see a problem going forward for the authors of this paper. Since a common insult thrown against a trans-gendered person from hard-core feminists is to call such a person a “colonizer”, how will the field of post-colonial trans-gendered glaciology be allowed to develop? Just asking …
http://rs480.pbsrc.com/albums/rr164/Riverl/godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm.jpg
I hope this works from my phone 😉
Godzilla facepalm? Perfect.
Disclaimer: my mother was a strong woman who directed most things in our family and my sister was a true genius. But I’m afraid the western world has had an overdose of feminist hysterics on all fronts, although, interestingly, they turn away from such things in the “diversity sphere” as feminine genital mutilation and other freedom aspects of their new sisters). I’ve noted, apparently politically incorrectly in recent posts, that in the twilight of post normal climate science of the past few years, female authors have become quite prominent in taking up the torch from falling hands of the old guard. They already enjoy another layer of PC – how can you turn down grants for feminist science.
Please, I really love you women, but enough, nurture and nannying of society for awhile. The biggest surprise for feminists about 50 years ago was how much of a pushover men really were. I believe women were pi55ed how easy it was. My mother didn’t even know there was a difference. Hillary, could you also let this election pass and come back maybe next time after we’ve healed
from a bad experiment in politics that I was quite hopeful, supportive and excited about at the time. I liked Margaret Thatcher but she wasn’t the nannying kind and her likes and the likes of Golda Meir, Cleopatra, Queen Victoria and the two Elizabeths are hard to find these days.
The geography of feminists is a new one on me and the specific feminist glaciologist scared me a little. Am I correct in thinking that the difference that feminist glaciologist will find with glaciers is the reversal of their ‘robust’ tumescence of late? That there will be a major shrinking of the glaciers under the feminist glacial paradigm? Okay Mods- have at it if you will.
Um, Queen Victoria hid out on her little island and ignored nearly everything in England which she disliked.
Queen Elizabeth the II has done very little except produce some of the world’s most obnoxious children who are now global warmists running around screaming about it being too hot in between hunting foxes and going to bed with astonishingly ugly nosed mistresses.
Yeah, but Queen Elizabeth I did some really good stuff, like (a) not starting any wars, which was pretty radical in those days, (b) listening to Thomas Gresham (good money drives out bad) and (c) getting the fossil fuel business started on what passed for an industrial scale in the 16th century. When I have time I want to research this last topic and maybe write a book about it. Well, maybe a paper. Well, perhaps a post at WUWT.
And a lot more besides. Probably the best ruler England ever had, and nowhere is it recorded that she called herself a feminist.
“.,.I nominate my Internet stalker Miriam O’Brien, aka “Sou”/Hotwhopper who could be a groundbreaking icebreaking leader by going to live on a glacier for a year..”
I didn’t realize she was a very large lady.
Wow! Sure this wasn’t written by those monkeys with a typewriter. Whoops, probably can’t say that.
At least two of the paper’s authors are men – Carey and Antonello (both are historians), Rushing is female and an undergrad at the time. M Jackson is genderless doctoral student in forestry.
So, two men, a girl and a eunuch went to this bar together and..
Jerilynn “M” Jackson is a geography doctoral student. Her interests are Climate change, glaciology, human geography, the Arctic, Iceland. I have no idea what human geography is, but I think I’d get in more trouble if I explored that.
http://geography.uoregon.edu/profiles/graduate-students/
Oh, Google tells me “human geography” is the branch of geography dealing with how human activity affects or is influenced by the earth’s surface. Whew, I thought it required consenting adults.
Great Entertainment Anthony… and comments! You really placed a pork pie on the prayer mat with that one!
Keep up the good work.
bahamamike
Excellent reason to disestablish the National Science Foundation.
No ha ha
Masculine glacier narrative: Oh baby, I love the curve of your U-shaped valley, the soft mounds of your terminal moraine, the allure of your sleek crevices…
Poor science. It doesn’t deserve this.
Mickey Reno…you ghost write for Pachauri don’t you? 🙂
Hahaha and you are under arrest!
Incidentally one paper co-authored by Carey is entitled “Give it a tug and feel it grow”.
I’m confused. Should I file this under Republican war on women, or Republican war on glaciers ??
File it under “Ice isn’t the only that floats”.
[snip – over the top -mod]
Why??
“However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied.”
Is this not the funniest thing man woman or beast has ever read?
I suppose instead of using gt to show gains and losses of glaciers we could just use dress sizes.