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.
“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.'”
Then I’m oinking right along with you, Anthony.
These clowns are in-freakin’-SANE.
(Apologies to circus clowns everywhere.)
A contrarian point of view: When I was in school, we would have called this study “History of Consciousness”. The purpose is not to study ice per-se, but to study how people think about ice. It’s an interesting way to look at almost any subject. We think about the world of the Arctic and Antarctic primarily through story-tellers like Jack London, and through the adventures of Peary, Shackleton and the like, that anyone would have to admit are heavy on the masculinity. Think of the story about the outcast Eskimo boy who proves himself to his hide-bound village by embedding coiled up fish bones in frozen fat and using them to kill a bear. It’s really a story about good old American ingenuity triumphing over all, not about the way Eskimos really lived. With that sort of thing as our guide, we down here in temperate climes have no conception of how a family and community would really survive in polar conditions. I don’t think there’s anything particularly “feminist” about trying to get people to see things in other ways, but it gets cast that way because it’s a contrast to the testosterone-driven stories we’ve heard all our lives.
Huh?
Do you think “feminist” was edited into the paper for “testosterone-driven” reasons? Or do you think the authors used “feminist” for “testosterone-driven” reasons?
This is a “sexist” paper that taxpayers payed for to promote “feminist political scatology”.
To paraphrase Tina Turner “What’s feminism (or gender) got to do with it?”
That said, the study makes absolutely no sense.
On behalf of men everywhere I apologize- for having a scientific opinion contary to yours, now shut the f**k up and go get me a beer!
Don’t drink the beer if the can is already opened.
Don’t even touch the beer can if your “mate” is wearing those plastic gloves.
And put ice in it.
Straight out of the gibberish generator.
Mr. WATTS wrote:
“After all, millions of husbands and wives battle over the home thermostat setting daily.”
MY COMMENT:
Those battles are a crisis, and a subject worthy of a government grant for further study, in my opinion!
Imagine all the energy wasted turning up and turning down the thermostat too many times a day.
Imagine all the marriages broken up by “thermostat wars”, which are actually the sixth leading cause of divorce.
After 33 years of fighting with my wife over the thermostat, we have finally agreed to a “thermostat war’ cease fire at home.
A few years ago I bought a new thermostat that’s so complicated neither the wife or I can figure out how to change the temperature.
I told the wife not to touch any buttons she doesn’t understand.
I don’t understand any of the buttons either, so I don’t touch them..
So our house has been at the same temperature for years, and we have had to find other things to fight about, which every good marriage needs.
Too bad you resolved your “thermostat war”. The Storm Channel might have made it their next reality show.
If you want something new to fight about buy a TV remote
Another one is how to load the dishwasher. My beloved Libby is totally inept at this. Just ask me..
Stan Stendera:
Real men don’t load dishwashers.
That’s woman’s work.
Real men shovel snow.
And have heart attacks.
You can look it up.
The wife and I now fight about “other women”.
In a restaurant or store she’ll whisper in my ear:
“Look at that hot chick !”
Of course my head spins around like the head on a bobble doll,
since I am a man and can’t help myself … even though I know …
I’m going to see a 350 pound woman sweating profusely.
Then the fight starts.
We watch old Honeymooners TV episodes to hone our fighting skills.
Prepares me well for the climate change character attack wars.
Hey I just landed a spacecraft on an astroid, is my shirt okay?
Most effectively deconstructed by using “Find & Replace” to correct “Feminist” to “Leftist”.
I was already laughing but when I read the comment
“Those darn manly men with their masculinist discourses!”
I had to pause for eye-watering laughter.
Thanks for including this fun nonsense.
Lewandowsky will have a field day analyzing all these comments. But what do I know? I’m a masculinist satanist clearly out in the cold without a grant to support my humble life.
I was more concerned about what “gendered science” was?
” I might actually pay to see that.”
Could we not set up a crowd fund for the very purpose?
For a supposed critique of current science, you neglected to do your homework well enough this time. This paper was computer-generated. A quick search reveals that over 100 similarly generated papers have made their way into various publications, so please don’t take it seriously. No one actually wrote this and the supposed authors likely don’t exist or have no involvement in its creation. http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
The point is, it generated a grant…
..Sorry, they do exist and it is for real !!
http://phg.sagepub.com/search?author1=Mark+Carey&sortspec=date&submit=Submit
Do you mean that this paper is really a Climate Model?!
Haven’t you seen what is walking the runways in Paris this year? Ugly!
I mean that the paper is meaningless.
A little Freud helps here. Hyper-feminism and Lesbianism is robustly linked to “cold or absent mothering.” A study of icebergs (!) needing a sexual framework to be correct? The tail doth wag the dog.
Never stand between an academic and a pot of money.
The lead author historian Mark Carey:
He doesn’t hide is light under a bushel:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mark+carey+university+of+oregon&tbm=vid
Thanks for the interesting link.
Whatever the issues with the feminist glaciology article, his performance here strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Future water issues and hydro-electric power generation are issues of great practical relevance. If there is a touch of condescension around indigenous people, it is only a touch.
The normalcy of this interview simply throws into greater contrast the ludicrous nature of feminist glaciology article.
The most severe glacial lake outburst flood in Peru ‘during the past half-century’ resulting in over 20,000 deaths was nothing to do with climate change™, but caused by the 1970 earthquake when part of Huascarán collapsed.
Chris, I don’t doubt that you are right. Mounds of earth and /or concrete holding back millions of tons of water need to be constantly monitored. My point is that the video does not explain where this really strange article came from.
Carey’s an IPCC contributing author.
That explains a lot.
Feminists are always in search of something .. anything that is even colder than they already are.
I see the truth of it.
“Feminists are always in search of something”
Yes, because equality of rights is boring and glyphosate in tampons is funny for about 5 minutes.
And that “culture of rape” that was found in Cologne, and not in a university…
I think this would be an ecumenical matter. The authors of the article are cordially invited to discourse your way out of that. Preferably by using normal everyday English language.
London,
“I think this would be an ecumenical matter.”
Ahh….as said by that arch-feminist Father Jack….
jones , thanks for supplying the clip
Welcome,
I am simply trying to educate and enlighten.
There can only be so much grant money available for Feminist Glaciology. I hope this doesn’t come at the expense of Black Glaciology and Gay Glaciology.
Black glaciers are very angry with white glaciers. Black glaciers matter!
This is not surprising at all. Consider the budding field of ” Feminist Fluid Mechanics” mentioned by Chris Essex!!
Climate and Punishment
Dr Chistopher Essex
It is popular in some circles to despair over how corporate money can corrupt. But corruption can arise from any large pile of money. Government-directed money can and does induce distortion and corruption, too—far more than many realize.
They incentivize academic nonsense, for example. No modern university would be complete without its well-funded Department of Angry Studies, or its Center for Unsustainable Reasoning. Let’s not even get into the budding field of feminist fluid mechanics. You may wonder what that is. Think of identity politics and differential equations. What? Didn’t you know that physics and mathematics are just social constructs?
In the modern world of academia, if you want recognition, plum positions, and the adoration of the illuminati, forget about proving exotic mathematical theorems, advancing quantum gravity, or finding things out about the Universe that no human, living or dead, has ever known. Unless it impinges on the most darling popular passions, you are out of luck
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/climate-and-punishment/
Climate and Punishment — i never would have thought of that in a million years — Eugene WR Gallun
Did the science just retreat faster than its namesake?
Lets all take a night off and recharge the batteries ?
I am trying to figure out “human-glacier dynamics.” The only one that I can think of is that when you put your tongue on a glacier, it will stick to the glacier.
Glaciology is apparently about men talking about men. What about ice and snow? First start understanding the definition of Glaciology.
And I thought that feminism is a hot topic. Or maybe a hot flash topic.
Why stop at “feminist glaciology”? How about “feminist science”, feminist math”, and “feminist economics”?
The MO here appears to be to hide behind feminism to push an ideology, and if you disagree then you are either a male chauvinist pig, or a female sellout. This is actually nothing more than feminist chauvinism.
“The MO here appears to be to hide behind feminism to push an ideology, and if you disagree then you are either a male chauvinist pig, or a female sellout”
And a racist Nazi rapist surely?
Hundreds of ‘big’ words strung together without any meaning, must be computer generated prose. Clever though.