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."
Your tax dollars at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Can't believe the final sentence of the abstract is not a giveaway: "thereby leading to more just and equitable ... human-ice interactions." Wha??
SJW agitprop masquerading as science.
They don't call it cultural marxism for nothing!
What makes you think it's not news? And why does it matter that the story comes from Reason?
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.
Actually Human Geography is how humans create and maintain spacial interactions and how those interactions may form space. It is just a way of dividing geography into different branches (human geography and physical geography). And since I both studied and lectured geography (specializing in human geography and regional econometrics) - I haven't dug through the whole article, but it seems rather legit albeit more about how glaciological knowledge is created and how this knowledge is influenced by gender and how some of the presentation of that knowledge to the public has a strong gender bias.
It is utter rubbish. Please do read the conclusion: "a broader consideration of ‘cryoscapes’, the human, and the insights and potentials of alternative ice narratives and folk glaciologies.". "Global environmental change research must pluralize its ontologies, epistemologies, and sensibilities". Seriously, this is what passes for science these days?
This thing truly reads like a poor April fools article, and I am sad to say that this is the case for a lot of other papers coming out of gender study departments. "Many humanities and social science disciplines and sub-disciplines have given significant attention to these issues, but there remain boundaries between these analyses and those considered central to the environmental change question." That part is true, and for good reasons. For examples of these reaons, read the conclusion of this ridiculous paper. If you want to be included in any serious discussion about these matters, you'll have be able to bring something worthwhile to the table. This ain't it.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
>> Just wow.. Other words escape me..
Unfortunately for us, they landed here.
bridging sociology and climatology
I'm willing - hesitant but willing - to concede that while this might be a well-intended attempt to bridge sociology and climatology, the colossal insecurity and complete inability to think critically revealed by this insanity guarantees that an attempt is all it's going to be.
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"
You have no right to apply such binary labels to zir gender!
I've been studying human female geography for years. Fascinating terrain and beautiful features are there for all to admire. I can look at a platinum blonde and tell whether it's virgin metal or a common ore.
I've also met my fair share of females who have too much in common with glaciers. Got too close to one of them and nearly got frostbite on my naughty bits.
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 introduction of the paper brings up the idea that "ice is just ice" and then dismisses it. If I am understanding the paper correctly (and how can I be certain of that!) the idea is that people care about glaciers, therefore there is a sociological component to them:
(italics in original)
The paper goes on to say that most research on glaciers was produced by males, which of course is a problem.
No, I didn't punch that up to make it funny, the original really says "men, with manly characteristics".
Again, this is the original text. "penetrate" and "exploitation" are both from the paper.
So the paper argues that all existing knowledge of glaciers is tainted by the maleness of the research, and also by the "colonialism" of the research. In short, not even the study of glaciers can be a pure study of the natural world; glacier scientists must be feminist postcolonial social-justice warriors.
The conclusion of the paper states:
I'm not convinced. The paper is very long on speculation and very short on evidence. If the maleness and colonialism of glacier studies have given us a blind spot in our understanding of what glaciers are, then give at least one example.
Even in the paper, female mountaineers and female scientists are mentioned. If the study of glaciers somehow rejected these women and their contributions, the paper doesn't give any examples.
Also I reject the paper's idea that the word "glaciology" should be expanded to include sociological and feminist context. It seems like a transparent attempt to latch fuzzy SJW ideas onto a natural science. Ice really is just ice; people can study ice without studying how society reacts to ice.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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.
Reason is a partisan think-tank without much thinking
So just a tank, then?
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.
Yes.
Why? Because it's direct, to the point, and accurate.
Anyone in Academia that breaks Orwell's Five Rules should be tossed from a very high altitude airplane
1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"Or is Reason bad because they laugh at you ?"
You got it. Reason Foundation is a libertarian, but not Randian, think tank with some refreshingly iconoclastic views about the major political factions.
Most people believe that men and women should be treated equally, and have equal opportunities. Feminism goes wrong when it turns in to myopic whining about unequal outcomes. Unfortunately this is what much modern feminism has turned in to. It is not about equality at all.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The whole premise is that people find some science more credible than other science based on sexist judgments.
Agree, your defense of this paper is pretty conclusive evidence that some people can't tell the difference between a political argument and a scientific one.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The paper is newsworthy in the same way as creationism in science class is newsworthy.
The only significant (and cruel) state sponsored gender discrimination remaining in the western world is against fathers in family courts where the default custody arrangements are dad gets the kids 4days/mth, mum gets the kids the other 26 and dad is forced to foot the bill for her privileged position in the eyes of the law. When will modern feminists stop openly supporting sexual discrimination against dads in divorce court, if gender equality is actually anything more than a slogan why are they actively lobbying AGAINST equal custody rights for both sexes?
If I'm wrong then it should be easy to point to a feminist organisation that has come out in support of 50/50 shared parenting, and yes every feminist organisation in the US has been politely invited to show their support by various fathers rights groups. To date not one of those organisations have accepted that invitation and many have actually responded by voicing their support for the status quo.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"I am normally pretty supportive of feminist agendas as treating everyone equally is a strangely compelling idea, but I feel that this is such an easy target that I cannot ignore it."
The inability to see the internal contradiction within that sentence is a very common trait among those who are "pretty supportive of feminist agendas."
I read the actual journal article. What the authors seem to be talking about is the low credence that scientists in the past have given to indigenous knowledge about glaciers, which is a valid complaint and one that has been leveled at various branches of natural resources sciences of late. Why recognizing that knowledge counts as 'feminist' I cannot say. There are also observations that women have been excluded from glaciology in the past, and that had women been more involved, we may have done more and different research on, for example, the relationships between indigenous people and glaciers. I think those points are okay, as far as they go.
It's not a 'science' article in the quantitative sense. It's a survey of the state of the domain. It is clearly identified as such in the text. And it was published in a journal where such an article is appropriate.
People are making much of the $400,000 price tag. That money is distributed over the course of 5 years. I don't know what UO's institutional overhead rate is, but it is a reasonable guess that the Carey (the lead author) gets access to around $50,000 per year of this money. He has some budget worked out for that money that likely includes funding some number of hours of his own time, some hours for a graduate student, and then things like computer equipment and travel and so on. This particular paper is not the sole product of that money. In fact, it's not even listed as one of the intended outputs of the project. It is likely something that struck his interest as he was researching, and he chose to write it and see if anyone would publish it.
I do think the writing is florid. Sadly, that is the academic style right now. I believe that he could have made his point with half the word count. I also think that focusing on feminism rather than broader ideas of inclusiveness is likely to cause complaint, and, indeed, that is what we see here on Slashdot and in the reason.com write-up.
I don't think it's a bad article for what it says. I think how it says it could be improved. And I think the press coverage does a disservice with straw-man arguments. They're click-baiting people into raging about positions that the paper doesn't take.