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."

Comments

Funded by the NSF

[Crashmarik]

Your tax dollars at work.

Re:Funded by the NSF

[jtayon]

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.

Re:Funded by the NSF

[Jhon]

"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.

Another Sokal affair ?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Re:Another Sokal affair ?

[Qbertino]

The problem is, that there are papers around that make the sokal affair essay sound sane - and they're meant as a serious contribution to science. I've seen the bizarest of bullshit being taught in schools, with sociology leading the pack in the bullshit bingo camp, closely followed by just about anything that people in agencies do.

There are scientific articles out there that make less sense and are dumber than anything you can find on reality TV. And I'm not exaggerating.

Re:Progress in Human Geography?

[nava68]

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.

Re:Documented Truth, just Unsettling

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.

Re:Wow...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Just wow.. Other words escape me..

Unfortunately for us, they landed here.

More on the grant

[dlenmn]

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.

Re:lol

[microbox]

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.

Re:So...

[TapeCutter]

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.