Posted on 03/07/2016 7:18:48 PM PST by markomalley
Academics at the University of Oregon have determined that glaciers and the science that studies them are deeply sexist.
“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,” reads the paper’s abstract. The research was published in the peer-reviewed journal Progress in Human Geography in January.
The study, by historian Dr. Mark Carey and some student researchers, was financially supported by taxpayer dollars. The National Science Foundation (NSF) gave Carey a five-year grant which he used to write his “feminist glaciology” paper. Carey has received $709,125 in grants from the NSF, according to his curriculum vitae.
“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,” Carey wrote. “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.”
Carey concluded glacier research is intertwined with gender relations, masculine culture, geopolitics, institutional power and racism — these apparently led to to glacier-related academic and governmental jobs being predominantly filled by men. Damages from melting glaciers target women and ethnic minorities, who “are more vulnerable to glacier changes and hazards than are men,” according to Carey.
The study shocked many academics and real scientists, and several initially believed the study was a work of satire.
“Who knew there was such a thing as ‘feminist glaciology?'”Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “I can’t satirize it. The scientists do that in their own abstract.”
Cornell University chemist Dr. Phil Mason, took to Twitter Sunday to say the paper left him”dumbfounded.”
Carey attempted to link flooding from a glacial lake with an increase of sexually transmitted infections in women. The academic and his colleagues said the paper showed “how men’s voices have dominated the research” and complained that “power and colonialism have shaped the science” when discussing the research on the university website. The scientists blame “the era of Victorian Imperialism” for the lack of female glaciologists.
“Do we really need a study to tell us that glacier nerds are more likely to be men than women,” Marlo Lewis, an analyst at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, told TheDCNF “Or that women in developing countries are ‘more confined to their homes and child rearing’ when sudden glacier melt causes local flooding?”
Carey also helped found the University of Oregon’s Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples Initiative.
“Predictably, the authors fail to see the ‘sexist’ nature of today’s climate agenda, which seeks to restrict people’s access to the most affordable, abundant, and reliable forms of energy,” Lewis said. “Energy poverty is literally lethal, and in energy-poor countries, it is women and children who suffer most.”
Carey did not respond to requests for comment.
I invested years of studies, money and hard work in the wrong field.
He is not premature, she is just glacial.
Our tax money going to good use.../s
Rope. Lots and lots of rope.
L
[“Energy poverty is literally lethal, and in energy-poor countries, it is women and children who suffer most.”]
Ah, OK.
True, men don’t need cool air, heat, food, drinkable water, sewage control or light to survive.
Back years ago, the government gave a grant to some university to study the mating habits of the African Tree Frog...
Their conclusion after a year and a half of exhaustive study:
‘They exist, therefor they do...”
Oh my gosh; I was 100% certain this was satire; but its not:
http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.full
Not sure whether I laugh or cry.
I wonder if the paper included the myth of the Snow King that chased the people from their Alaskan village because they stole his princess. After they returned the princess, the Snow King retreated and the natives returned to their homeland.
(100 years ago it was just a myth. It was a glacier that came down the valley and they had to re-settle farther down for awhile.)
And I only got 500,000 to study the consistcy of ketchup!?!?!
From the article: “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,”
I thought surely it was Professor Irwin Corey.
“They say you are a Snow Queen - but I know that’s not true.
So why don’t we just get drunk and screw!”
You know, I used to wonder what pixie dust our partners and senior managers would use to get company leaders to sign off on multi-million dollar deals, when often they just got a gigantic motion machine that generated a bunch of paper that said “you need better I/T services”.
And they did it over and over and over again. For decades.
Once in awhile someone outside would complain that our group (or the others like them) got their company for millions of dollars.
When I told them what the deliverables likely were, they asked how I knew. I said, seen it done in all sorts of places.
But I never figured that you could get idiots at the National Science Foundation to sign off on $709,000 for sexist glaciers.
Incredible.
I propose a study to show how guns are sexist, racist, and Islamophobic.
Maybe it was my spelling
I know! I checked two or three times because I just couldn’t believe it wasn’t!
Yes $700K plus and all you have to say or produce is goobdelguck. I need that job. Much less stress than I have now.
I’ve read and reread the article. It HAS!!! to be satire. Yeah, I know they claim it’s authenticated and all that. But humans simply cannot believe such a load of malarkey. Not even hardcore libs/leftists.....can they?
A guy? Did some prankster pour liquid nitrogen in his lap?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.