Slashdot Mirror
Reason Excoriates Paper On "Glaciers, Gender, and Science" (reason.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Reason.com's Robby Soave criticizes an article published in the journal Progress in Human Geography, for being "utterly incomprehensible," and "the least essential paper ever written." Entitled Glaciers, Gender, and Science--A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change, the article is authored by researchers at the University of Oregon and funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Despite being filled with "buzzwords -- colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc. -- with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke," the article is accompanied by an enthusiastic press release from the University of Oregon, stating that "glacier research has been intertwined with gender relations, masculine cultures of exploration, geopolitics, and individual and institutional power. That, in turn, led to glacier-related academic and governmental jobs being predominantly filled by men. ... Melting glaciers are today considered a national security risk for numerous countries,' [one of the researchers] said. 'Power and colonialism have shaped the science.' That message is detailed extensively in the paper."
... it's to be published... in the April issue?
The part about melting glaciers and the impacts on the security of countries is legitimate. Even in highly developed countries, water is a highly sought resource. It's essential for power generation, agriculture, sanitation, and human consumption. This has resulted in legal squabbles in the United States, especially in which individuals, businesses, and states have agreements to be allocated a certain amount of water while others have a demonstrable need for the same water. In some states, this has led to laws making it illegal to even do things like collecting rain that falls on your own property. Places like California and the northern Great Plains depend on melting glaciers and snow pack for a significant amount of their water. That's also true elsewhere in the world, such as Tibet and Nepal, where water from melting glaciers in the Himalayas is a hugely important source of water to the region. While there have been significant steps toward gender equality in highly developed parts of the world, there are more traditional gender roles in many less developed parts of the world. This is especially true in places where it's frequent for men to leave their families and take jobs in other cities and countries as migrant workers to provide for their families while women remain in their homes. It's very possible in those regions that the impacts of water shortages will be different for women than for men. The research isn't entirely inexplicable, unlike what the summary author would want you to believe.
If so, how does gender relate to that? It doesn't. So far two answers on what Human Geography is, and both are wrong.
The criticism is groundless. Okay, maybe the paper is crap. You know what? It doesn't take that much time (tax dollars) to write the paper. They got it published in a journal with a good impact factor. Beyond that, who cares?
Now, if you bothered to read the paper, you'd find cool stuff like, "Paterson’s artwork builds on an earlier project where she submerged a phone line connected to Vatnajökull, Iceland and Europe’s largest glacier. People could call the glacier (+44(0)7757001122) and listen to the distinctive pops, trills, and gurgles of the ice. More than ten thousand people called during the installation"
I watch and listen to politicians and commercials which discount this being a hoax. Several times a day I hear the ads about how men need to teach their kids not to beat up women (the assumption of course is that they all do). Several times a day I hear about the gender gap and how men just abuse women and keep them out of the technical jobs. Several times a day I hear about the wage gap and 70c on the dollar myth. Several times a day I hear about how men rape women without ever getting near them. (Today's was some reality TV woman claiming that some Uber driver raped her. But not really, he looked at her lustily and she 'thought' it could escalate into rape because he looked at her. *sigh* I really wish that I was joking.)
We in the intellectual crowd know that this is the upper crust trying to divide us to keep us busy. We have seen proof repeatedly that these are simply myths. The majority of the populous is not intellectual though. They fall for this just like they fall for celebrity gossip and reality TV.
While I certainly hope that this is a hoax, I am quite skeptical.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The NSF is usually very careful about who it gives money to; only something like 10% of funding request are granted. For those who are curious, the basic grant information on this grant is available from the NSF:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch...
The grant was done through the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (specifically the division of Social and Economic Sciences) -- as opposed to the Geosciences Directorate, which I believe normally handles the climate change work. (The NSF is divided into different parts for funding different areas.)
FWIW, the house science committee has long been working to cut the budget for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. I'm sure that good work gets funded by that directorate, but it sure does make me pissed that a BS grant like this gets funded, while more useful grants in applied physics (my area) don't get funded.
I wouldn't pin this bad grant on the NSF as a whole. Hopefully it's the exception for that directorate rather than the rule.
This is what happens when you start off with one faulty deduction.
"Jaclyn found a report that noted how women are more vulnerable to glacier changes and hazards than are men," said Carey, associate dean of the Clark Honors College and a professor of history and environmental studies. "I had never researched these gendered vulnerabilities."
That report linked flooding from a glacial lake with an increase of sexually transmitted infections in women. "I was fascinated by how two seemingly disparate issues could be so intimately linked through glacial ice," Rushing said. "I wanted to know more about the relationship between women and ice, so we pursued the topic from climate-change vulnerability to knowledge."
Unless you're having sex with the wildlife, you get sexually transmitted diseases from, you know, sex with other humans. It's more likely to be a correlation between not being able to adequately dry off inner garbs while moving from flood areas, or staying in those areas, leading to more yeast infections which increases susceptibility to STDs.
People commonly believe that having sex will cause women to develop a yeast infection, but this is not the case. Women that are not having sex can still develop a yeast infection. In most cases a yeast infection occurs when the immune system is weak. Those that are overworked or tired can have a higher risk for developing a yeast infection. If you have just recovered from being ill or using antibiotics may also be susceptible to developing a yeast infection. Those that do not eat a proper diet, suffer from diabetes or are pregnant can also have an increased risk
A yeast infection is not a sexually transmitted disease in spite of the symptoms being relatively similar. However, if you have been scratching the vagina due to the itchiness associated with yeast infections you may have left small cuts on the skin that increase your risk of developing an STD.
Also, one report about flooding and stds around one lake does not good science make.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The whole premise is that people find some some science more credible than other science based on sexist judgments.
The reason people are getting upset about this is:
a) It's not science, it's opinion, with no supporting evidence.
b) It's done under a social sciences grant, but has a "click-bait" title which tries to sound like Climate Science when it's not.
c) The money could have been spent on actual science, instead of throwing grant money at someone for no reason other than their genitalia.
d) We make efforts to get women into STEM and over-come stereotypes, and then this kind of shit happens, which adds nothing to science, and only serves to convince people that most women have no business getting involved in science.
Athen used to be fine and non imperialist until it stopped being an imperfect democracy to embrace Plato's "meritocratic" Republic based on fame and money.
Then, greek civilization disappeared in a war driven by the private interest of a few incompetent selfish people.
Such as Alcibiade, the one described as Socrates lover. Plato's master.
Remember Periclès words that echoes Eisenhower's. Ploutocracy is the ennemy of democracy.
"Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated. I tend to agree,"
In the US, once upon a time, there was a layer of separation between the people and the federal government (the exception being the House of Representatives). Senators were mostly appointed by state legislatures and states would select who they wanted to be President by a popular vote and electors would actually VOTE but their votes were weighted by the number of representatives they had in congress (not quite, but close to populations).
We've been moving away from that and more towards direct democracy. Senators are now popularly elected. Some states are toying with the idea of splitting electors. Supreme court justices are now appointed based on their views rather than their understanding of the constitution and their qualifications as jurists. Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows.
To our founders, democracy was just as if not more scary than monarchy. Democracy, as scary as it was, was reined in and used as a tool to give the people a chance to "undo" or "fix" a government that went too far. The Constitution not only defines the governments powers, but by design, limited the damage the "mob" could do by limiting their voice -- the Constitution, which SHOULD be protecting our rights, liberties and freedoms has been nibbled away by rulings not based on reason and the constitution but by passions.
I honestly don't know if this snowball can be stopped. One of our nations rally crys at birth was "no taxation without representation". We have countless examples of the opposite (which I believe to be equally bad) -- representation without taxation. With both the Senate and House being elected by the people directly and the constitution being "interpreted" based on things other than it's intent and a senate (directly elected by the people) it makes it impossible to get a Justice appointed who doesn't fit the majority parties "group think". There is very little to counter the will of the people who have no skin in the game to ask for more as they don't need to pay for it.
We can focus all we want on the 1% -- but the fact is if you seize all their wealth in the US, you wouldn't even be able to cover a few years of deficit spending (never mind paying the debt) -- and in the meantime you've wreaked the economy.
You didn't necessarily have to be a land owner (and certainly didn't have to be wealthy) to vote in the early days. Back in those days the only way it was possible to prove that you actually lived in the state whose government you were voting for is if you had to have some kind of proof in public record that you resided in said state. This was to prevent people from hopping over the border into the next state in order to game its election (this did actually happen in those days, hence the existence of laws aimed at preventing it.) That didn't necessarily have to be land, however having your name written on a deed for a piece of immovable property was a really easy (and common) way of achieving this.
Wealth never did enter into the equation, and neither did being white. In fact, after Independence was declared (1776) and both before and after the constitution was even a thing, (1788) blacks did actually have the right to vote in 7 of the original 13 states.
Transient/homeless people were able to vote once public record keeping got much better. Remember that back in those days, there were no ID cards, no social security numbers, etc.