Campus Free Speech

This University of Oregon Study on Feminizing Glaciers Might Make You Root for Trump

"More just and equitable human-ice interactions." Seriously.

|

Glacier
Dreamstime

What does gender theory have to do with climate change and the depiction of glaciers in popular culture? You can decide for yourself by reading what must be the least essential paper ever written: "Glaciers, Gender, and Science—A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change." 

The recently published, utterly incomprehensible paper was co-authored by a team of historians at the University of Oregon, and funded via a grant from the National Science Foundation. I hope American taxpayers feel like they got their money's worth. From the 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. 

You are probably wondering whether I am trolling you. You might be checking the date to make sure this isn't an April Fool's joke. Surely a satirist who set out to write a deliberate parody of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest social justice warrior could not have done a better job than a paper on "just and equitable human-ice interactions." 

But the paper is real—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence. 

"What I'm trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers, warming temperatures, changing precipitation, how that plays out for different people," said lead author Mark Carey, an associate dean of Oregon's history department, in a interview accompanying the press release. 

I'm sure Carey is well-intentioned, but if his goal was to put a human face on climate change, he failed. The paper is simply impossible to read with a straight face. It employs liberal buzzwords—colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc.—with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke. Just try to follow along with this paragraph: 

Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledges, but also alternative knowledges and folk glaciologies that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009). 

Remember, this is a paper about how to feminize a giant hunk of ice. 

In his write-up of the study, Powerline's Steven Hayward quips, "This is why you get Trump." He's not wrong. Disaffected college students are rebelling against the hegemonies of leftist dogma and political correctness that rule their campuses—and "Trump!" is, sadly, their rallying cry. In a country where working class people are being forced to fund research on the postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps, is it any wonder some of them are rooting for a charismatic demagogue who promises to bully their tormentors? 

NEXT: The Next Democratic President Will Be Terrible on Education Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Knock it off, Rico. Even I’m not going to fall for this one.

    1. Someone should look into Rico’s sources, to see if they’re making it all up and he’s just printing their shit without due diligence. Preferably someone who graduated from the Columbia School of Journalism.

    2. A lot of people’s first reaction was that this was a hoax/satire.

      Apparently, though, its not.

      1. My comment was intended humorously.

        1. I’ve got to warn y’all? Do NOT be dating ice-cold chicks like the iceberg bikini babe in the photo there!

          Else they will marry you, and they’ll become “refrigerator moms”, and you will have lots of autistic babies! Yes, autistic, not artistic! Do NOT go there!

      2. I’m still a little skeptical about this one. Didn’t that other story about the University of Oregon removing a Martin Luther King quote turn out to be a false?

        1. Yeah. Everyone knows Martin Luther King never said anything.

      1. “IS FEMINIST GLACIOLOGY SEXIST & GLACIST, OR IS IT STILL
        COOL TO TOSS TRANSGENDERED VIRGINS IN VOLCANOES?”

        Yes, I, too, have wondered about that, ALL of my long years on the planet…

        Also… I have ALWAYS been warning that feminist progress is glacially slow! Blame the patriarchy that runs the modern science of glaciology for that, heck, yeah!

        1. It’s only cool if they are ice volcanoes.

    3. This paper answers for me a deep question of human existence. Why are we here? Apparently, the universe created the conditions that led to our eventual evolution in order to entertain itself. Ask yourself this, is the human race not getting more and more entertaining? This is also why corn evolved to be poppable.

  2. “What I’m trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers, warming temperatures, changing precipitation, how that plays out for different people,”

    By couching it in the inscrutable jargon of grievance study dialectics. Seems legit.

    1. In a country where working class people are being forced to fund research on the postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps, is it any wonder some of them are rooting for a charismatic demagogue who promises to bully their tormentors?

      You can’t fool me, that is just something output by one of those word-salad generators.

    2. By couching it in the inscrutable jargon of grievance study dialectics. Seems legit.

      It’s word salad all the way down.

  3. Those Glaciers should check their privilege! Glacier are frequently white and in many cases eurpoean. In the past Glaciers expanded into nonglacier regions of the earth, particularly regions south of their icy hegemony. This was colonialism at its worst! Glaciers universally spurn Africa, the Pacific Island cultures and with a few exceptions, located in regions reputed to have harbored nazi fugitives, South America.

    Glaciers in short are glacists

    1. “harbored nazi fugitives”

      Is Sweden chopped ice?

      1. No but it is also not in S. America

        1. What’s continental drift not got to do with it?

    2. Glacier are frequently white and in many cases eurpoean.

      lol

    3. Glaciers in short are glacists

      So the SJWs should be all in favor of global warming that melts these bigoted natural features?

    4. It is well known that the glacier that took out the Titanic killed a significantly higher proportion of poor minorities than whites in first class.

  4. I think I just had an aneurysm.

    1. It was probably a glacial headache; you should not bite directly into glaciers, which also makes you an oppressor Mustang.

      1. Brain freeze.

  5. Remember, this is a paper about how to feminize a giant hunk of ice.

    Actually, it seems to be a paper about how to feminize the study of giant hunks of ice.

    Definitely a good reason to support protectionist tariffs and waterboarding, though.

    1. So Glaciers want more women to come drilling for ice cores? Sounds like Mark Carey is procuring for Glaciers.

    2. That wall of jargon is comprehensible to you?

      You have truly wandered in the mountains of madness.

      1. It’s not even that bad, within the realm of critical theory.

        1. Proof that it’s the 90s all over again.

            1. It gets worse in Portland every day. I cringe every time the news comes on, wondering what insanity is next on the agenda.

        2. “It’s not even that bad, within the realm of critical theory.”

          Franco wasn’t even that bad within the realm of 1930’s fascist dictators.

          1. It hardly rises to Sokal-level trolling.

        3. Sadly, this is very true. You would think that “meaningless” is like “black”…an absolute term, with no level of degrees. You’d think it couldn’t “go to 11”, that there was “none more meaningless” (ha! See what I did thar?)

          This very well could have been generated by a “enter subject, set obfuscation level, press ‘create'” piece of software, but no such software could generate the spit-in-your-face impenetrability that a committed semioticist/deconstructivist/critical theorist can produce.

          Fuck, look at Lacan! He stole some total bullshit (based on Freudian ‘analysis’ for God’s sake!) at the beginning of his ‘career’ and managed to avoid clarification for 40 years, until people said “Must be something to it, he’s still gettin’ paid, yo.” A successful, nay, legendary career without ever contributing a comprehensible idea to human thought.

          And so sorrowfully dim have the practitioners of psychology become that he still has “adherents”. (which I think are like an “ilk”)

      2. Held within the Pleasure Dome
        Decreed by Kubla Khan
        To taste my bitter triumph
        As a mad immortal man
        Nevermore shall I return
        Escape these caves of ice
        For I have dined on honeydew
        And drunk the milk of Paradise

        1. See, those caverns were “measureless to MAN”.

          Coleridge foresaw the need for “a feminized epistemology of glaciology”. (did I do the bullshit right?)

    3. Actually, it seems to be a paper about how to feminize the study of giant hunks of ice.

      That’s exactly right. “Science” is a social construct of the patriarchy (which patriarchy is of course white and cisgendered and whatever the hell else the privileged elites insist on thinking of as “normal” without realizing that “normal” itself is a privileged elite cisgendered white male social construct) which privileges certain ways of discovering “truth” as if other ways and other truths are not just as valid or moreso means of discovering meaningful constructs of reality. Everybody has an opinion about reality and all opinions are equally valid, whatever I feel to be true is just as true as whatever you feel to be true. Except if you’re a member of patriarchy, of course, their opinions and truths are demonstrably wrong.

      1. This reminds me of police apologist Bill Lewinsky who testifies that a cop’s reality is whatever he says it is. Cop shoots a guy coming at him with a knife and the video shows the cop shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back? Bill Lewinsky will testify that in the cop’s mind the guy was coming at him with a knife and that makes the shoot an entirely justifiable use of force because you gotta look at reality through the cop’s eyes.

      2. THIS IS WHAT SJW’S ACTUALLY BELIEVE

      3. By ” demonstrably wrong”, I assume you mean “proven over and over again to have produced a civilization that kicked the pants off virtually everyone else, provided the entire world with a better standard of living, and recognized human rights better than any other civilization in human history.”

        It’s a white European world, bitches. You’re just living in it, largely on the coat-tails and at the expense of white Europeans. Show some respect, or at least quit whining and return to your tribalism, incest, hunting and gathering.

    4. Shut up, dumb whore.

  6. Next thing you will be telling me is that some fools believe cannabis cures human cancers. Despite no peer reviewed studies to that effect. Studies which are illegal in most of the world.

    1. Hey that belongs to the thread where we shit in Nancy’s casket!

    2. There are peer-reviewed studies. . .

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…..+treatment

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…..+apoptosis

      1. MSimon is a nut who believes that it cures all cancers.

  7. If we feminize glaciers is keeping them frigid a good or bad thing?

  8. Remember, this is a paper about how to feminize a giant hunk of ice.

    AYFKMRN? This is exactly what the authors are talking about, Robby. Off to re-neducation camp with you.

    1. e-neducation

      Is that where he’ll be Flanderized?

      1. Yes, BiMonSciFiCon was making, I believe, a Simpson’s reference. Ned Flanders is the ruler of a dystopian alternate universe, where Homer…well, look it up.

        1. Huh. I thought it was a typo. Seems pretty obvious in retrospect.

        2. 95% of my comments are Simpsons references, so that’s a good default assumption.

            1. Orinthal James.

    2. Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.

      1. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.

        Doesn’t work around here.

    3. “AYFKMRN?”

      I would like to politely point out that the acronym usage on this site is getting ridiculous.

      1. Or, TAUOTSIGR.

      2. Are You Fucking Kidding Me Right Now?

        or

        Apply Your Frigid Knowledge Matrix Really Niftily.

  9. The recently published, utterly incomprehensible paper

    These are considered features, not bugs when you’re in this line of study.

    1. If it’s incomprehensible that just means the writer is smarter than you. /some SJW tardo somewhere

      1. Except that it isn’t incomprehensible, so the point is moot. The article is written in the language of the discipline and assumes a familiarity with the technical scholarly terminology and concepts it deals in. But the people who will be reading this will understand all that. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean anything.

  10. This is just yet one more example of why Trump must become President and is looking more and more likely despite the unprecedented attack on him from GOPe, the left and the media. Reason needs to stop being Progressitarians and join the Trump train

        1. I’ll cuck you, you cuckin’ cuck-face cuck-hole.

          1. Cruk is very close to crook.

      1. “Trump must” sounds like a topic for SF. The remnant of hooker grool, Tinactin, sweat, and flaking dead skin ground to a fine powder between Donald’s thighs.

        1. I think you mean “Trump Musk”. His new brand of deodorant. Because fuck you, Bernie Sanders!

        2. It’s what feeds the hair. Robby has his on a completely different diet.

  11. This is just yet one more example of why Trump must become President and is looking more and more likely despite the unprecedented attack on him from GOPe, the left and the media. Reason needs to stop being Progressitarians and join the Trump train

          1. Board the train on the good foot!

        1. Heh. Possibly the largest collection of thin black women this side of Ethiopia.

    1. Once again my inability to determine whether a statement is sarcasm or not is hurting me.

        1. This is getting Must Tea.

      1. You need to keep a list JB, like Crusty does. That way you can remember who are trolls and the three people who aren’t.

        *hint*

        I’m on the troll list

        1. You’re on the hipster list.

          1. I was thinking about hipsters this weekend and they’re like those shrimp that clean things. They move into a blighted area, clean it up, start a local economy and then move on when “normals” move in. We owe a debt to hipsters for revitalizing dead areas. Maybe more maggots cleaning out dead flesh. Either way I need some coffee passed through a Kopi Luwack.

            1. I was thinking about hipsters this weekend

              While gazing into a mirror…

              We owe a debt to hipsters for revitalizing dead areas

              Patting yourself on the back? Nah, there is nothing hipstery about that…

              1. How can I be a hipster, I don’t even have a beard?

                1. Oh. I will cross you off the “bearded commenters” list. I apologize for your inclusion.

                2. You hated beards before it was cool to hate beards…

                  1. Probably. I usually on the cutting edge of trends…oh my god I am a hipster.

                    1. “A Florida Man Hipster…”

                    2. FM do you live in St. Pete? I think that’s where a lot of Florida Hipsters congregate (besides Gainesville, of course).

                    3. My hipster friends in Tallahassee surrender the floor to no one in their hipsterism.

  12. #GlaciersSoWhite

    1. #BlackIceMatters

      1. #YesAllGlaciers

      2. #BlackIcePeace

    2. I like this so much I stole if for a tweet. Thanks!

      1. I can’t believe a “libertarian” like Robby is into intellectual property theft.

        Slaver!

    3. #SoNowGlaciersAreFemaleJustBecauseTheyAreFrigid?

  13. I don’t see how supporting a brain-dead blowhard is a natural reaction to idiots in academia.

    -jcr

    1. Why do you not want America to be great again, John C. Randolph?

      1. John C. Randolph is a sock of that other John, who is himself a sock of Cytotoxic, created to throw you off the trail of who is and is not a sock and keep you from figuring out that Cyto is actually an illegal Honduran immigrant who works for Ron Popeil on the hush-hush “Chip-O-Matic” research project.

        1. This is just what I’d expect one of Tulpa’s socks to say.

        2. Who the fuck are you?

          -jcr

    2. Because he is angry, and idiots in academia make people angry so… That is how reasoning works right?

    3. The “Don’t Give an F” portion of me is really eager to see it all blow up after a Trump win.

  14. This is just the surface. Everyone knows that 90% of the derp is below the surface where you can’t see it.

    1. What you did there…

      …I see it.

        1. But how? It’s below the surface.

          (I used a bathysphere)

  15. the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers ? particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge ? remain understudied.

    BECAUSE NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.

    You’re welcome.

    1. +1 for speaking truth to stupidity.

  16. “I’m sure Carey is well-intentioned, but…”

    I’m not so sure about that Rico.

    1. I’m done with this ‘well-intentioned’ stuff.

      I think there’s a cankles epidemic personally.

    2. Rico just got himself to another U of O cocktail party!

  17. No, no. This could be good. See, the folk glaciologies told by men are going to exaggerate the size of glaciers, which could be why the climate models fail. If we start with more modest folk glaciologies, we can demonstrate AGW deniers fucking hate science.

    1. Brett gets it.

    2. Glacialis – Will you be ready when the warming starts?

      1. I have never contemplated how glaciers and sex could be tied together, but I’m glad I know now.

  18. “I’m sure Carey is well-intentioned”

    Maybe this individual has the subjective, smug feeling of benevolence which is sometimes referred to as good intentions, but I don’t think we can be “sure” even of that.

  19. Excuse me, but knowledge producers? Systems of scientific domination? Epistemology? Aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? Not that I’m accusing them of anything like that.

    …I’m Twitter-banned, aren’t I?

    1. Epistemology? Aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?

      …no

      1. Epistemology is a more of a dual-use word. It has legitimate uses, but is also known to be thrown out as a big word that people aren’t sure what it means, so the speaker imagines it makes them look ensmartened.

    2. Most of the words have defined meanings, however they like to combine them in ways that make no sense.

      Purple Saltiness: Myth or Social Construct?

      1. Thanks, coffee everywhere now.

        Gotta put the mug down before reading comments.

    3. Epistemology

      That’s where they cut yr hooha to give the baby more room to get out.

      1. Episiarch? Can you come straighten out this fool?

      2. I say let it tear like gawd intended!

        1. +A couple extra stitches.

        2. It sounds like female genital mutilation to me.

          And done in the name of tradition and the Lord? No thanks!

      3. I thought it was the study of all things Epi…

        1. Mom-banging, weed, Italian stereotypes and anarchy?

          1. And don’t forget mom-banging.

    4. I think it’s an open epistemological question whether knowledge can be produced or only discovered.

      1. How are you defining knowledge? If you have great knowledge about baseball that seems produced rather than discovered.

        1. One must first discover it to produce it for others to discover.

        2. What did you add to that knowledge? If you know more of what is, aren’t you just discovering that? In another sense, someone must work to produce the analysis that allows that knowledge to be knowing. It’s an interesting question.

          1. Obama sez: “You didn’t learn that!”

      2. Does Dr. Dre qualify as a Knowlege Producer?

  20. The journal is titled Progress in Human Geography and it is a treasure trove of derp.

    Reconceptualizing power and gendered subjectivities in domestic cooking spaces

    Health geography I: Social justice, idealist theory, health and health care

    Everyday terrorism: Connecting domestic violence and global terrorism

    Making space for fat bodies?: A critical account of ‘the obesogenic environment’

    Recovering the politics of the city: From the ‘post-political city’ to a ‘method of equality’ for critical urban geography

    The necessity of a multiscalar analysis of climate justice

    Gendering capital: Financial crisis, financialization and (an agenda for) economic geography

    Critical geographies of love as spatial, relational and political

    Whiteness and futurity: Towards a research agenda

    And lots of references to neoliberalism using big words that probably don’t exist outside of these articles.

    1. Lee, thanks for listing these gems. I consider them a boon to agriculture. You could fertilize a five-acre truck garden easily with just a few pages…

    2. The entire journal sounds like satire. How do you satirize that?

      1. Satire has been shot stone dead. Its remains were cremated and the ashes flushed down a crapper in Olympia, Washington.

      2. If this is real and I looked it up, I would get nothing else done for the rest of the week

    3. Making space for fat bodies?: A critical account of ‘the obesogenic environment’

      paging John!

  21. Peak derp: myth or finally achieved?

    I vote yes.

    1. Nah, they will soon start fracking for derp.

      INCREASE THE DERP

    2. Er, no. There is no peak derp. As long as we keep pro-creating this derp will ever evolve.

  22. I. Can’t. Even.

  23. “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.”

    I’d assume this was another Sokal hoax if it weren’t for the fact that I’ve read feminist articles claiming that male advantages in upper body strength are a social construct.

  24. 97% consensus is now 98%!

  25. Be sure to ask your barista about the gender identity of that those ice cubes.

    1. When Ice sublimates is that trans ice undergoing reassignment?

      1. What if it simply melts? What’s that you cis shitlord?

        1. That is gender fluidity

          1. I love it when a good setup pays off. Well played, flax.

            1. That was a very good response, wasn’t it?

              *applause*

    2. Speaking of baristas, whatever happened to that ‘let’s talk’ campaign at Starbucks?

      Did they get one too many ‘just serve me my flavored coffee, punk’ responses?

      1. I can speak directly to that, as I work in the bowels of the Green Siren (she’s not a mermaid, goddamn it: I was promptly set straight by my old by-the-book store manager regarding that). Nothing came of it, because it’s fucking stupid. The idea that a bunch of left-leaning liberal arts majors work there is pretty accurate, but even they refused to harangue customers into a dialogue on race. All of it was left up to the individual employee (this was strongly emphasized – no one had to have a conversation they didn’t want to have), and no one up to and including my current store manager thought it was a good idea.

        This is largely due to the fact that the matching sentiment to “Just serve me my flavored coffee, punk” is “Jesus Christ, why are you still standing in front of me? Here’s your fucking coffee. Next!”

  26. The joke is even better when those who perpetrate it are completely serious.

    1. ^This. Unconscious self-parody. Not just for socons, anymore.

  27. Who’s posting the pics on H and R this morning? Cleavage, cleavage, and now a bikini babe. What is this, Hustler magazine?

    1. Yeah, I noticed that, too.

      1. Not that I’m offended by the images, but I think they should try to be a little more female/gay male friendly. Libertarians already have a rep for being a white male club.

        1. Kotter and the Sweathogs weren’t enough?

        2. Welcome Back, Kotter was pretty gay, so you got that goin’ for ya. Which is nice.

          1. Also full of racial stereotypes.

            1. Gay, and racially stereotypical?

              How can you get more proggy than that?

            2. But the latino guy was a jew!

        3. Meh. Nothing wrong with pandering to your core audience. Nikki and Jesse do an admirable job of filling in with alternative images of hunky guys like Ben Cohen.

          1. Still if you want to attract a wider base of readers, maybe be a little more gender neutral. I’m sure casual readers aren’t jumping into the comments hoping there is some random person balancing out the pics.

            1. Are you certain you are from Florida?

          2. Jesse’s pics seem to mostly involve posting guys laying around in their underwear. Are we France?

    2. I NOTICED IT FIRST.

      1. I did, in fact, peruse comments to see if I was going to be saying something someone else already pointed out. So I’ll forward all royalties to you for this post.*

        * Unless, of course, you “noticed” it but did not point it out.

        1. Some of us have the good sense and common decency not to mention such things.

        2. I pointed out that Reason must be feeling a bit randy in the FBI vs. Apple article. It’s okay, I’ll let it slide…this time…

  28. The only reason why it’s incomprehensible Robby is because you’re not setting the mood right. I find reading this stuff with candles and soft, forest sounds music in the background pulls every buzz word and jargon together to make perfect sense.

    1. Don’t forget the valium. Lots and lots of valium.

  29. “the domination of Western science”

    Yeah, the west should really stop making so many scientific advancements and give random third world countries a chance.

    I’m sure the only reason Zimbabwe is not a major hub of scientific research is because the West stole all the good facts.

    I’m not even sure how you can argue the west is ‘dominating science’ given how many Chinese and Japanese scientists there are. Unless ‘Western’ is just a synonym for ‘developed,’ in which case obviously developed countries are going to dominate scientific advances.

    1. Is it saying the West is dominating science, or Western science is a sub being dominated by, say, a Trump-like methodology?

      1. [golf clap]

    2. Zimbabwean Science

      We can learn a lot from Zimbabwe

    3. Well, we *could* and *should* slow down and let others catch up. You know when you run or cycle in a group you slow down for the pack trailing? Same thing.

      /prog.

      1. Don’t do that. Every time I see “slash prog” I get the bad voices.

    4. Western means developed non-Slavic countries.

      1. Western now means “non-gay, non-black, non-womyn”.

    5. Third world countries are not backward shitholes for no reason.

  30. I saw a glacier once. I touched it with the end of my pee-pee and it kind of hurt.

    1. You’re still stuck there and praying for global warming, amirite?

  31. If only there were a way to morally separate these people and leave them to their own devices. Take away their ability to steal a living from others and give them the opportunity to prove their ideologies.

    I predict it would be no more than 18 months before they were all starving or dead.

  32. I’m sure the only reason Zimbabwe is not a major hub of scientific research is because the West stole all the good facts.

    in ur cuntry, strip-mining ur faxts

  33. Is this where I can pick up the “incrementalism” argument from another article/thread?

    Pushing back 1/2% every year for 200 years ain’t going to cut it. This shit is about to blow. The “gender-glacier” people and their handlers are in control. What the fuck is an increment going to do at this stage of the game?

    1. brings to mind (I think it was) hayek’s “why im not a conservative”. of course they’re just gonna keep losing ground if all they do is resist change, even if it ends up being change for the worse. “it doesnt get any better than this” is not a terribly inspiring message.

  34. “…that are generally marginalized through…the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009). ”

    I see.

    Ladies and gentlemen, behold: The party of science.

      1. that movie was so terrible.

    1. I once read a Penthouse forum letter about a chick getting fucked with an icicle.

    2. lol. He has show of some kind. On the television!

      Proving that nowdays, a Q rating of 0.001 is “an entertainment industry asset”.

  35. Join the ‘Save ice’ movement. It’s not right fishing vessels smash through ice to exploit oceans. Everyday they kill a female iceberg because of corporate greed for King Crab. This must stop now. And peeled oranges in plastic.

    #stopicebreakingnow.

  36. Given that the issue at hand is mostly glaciers melting (transitioning from solid to liquid), I can’t believe that the author of this paper failed to recognize the trans status of many glaciers. Clearly, he is transphobic! The rest of the SJW science community must be making a beeline for their safe spaces right now.

  37. The idea the Trump will somehow end this derp is just herp. You don’t out-derp derp with derp, you just double the amount of derp.

    Derp can neither be herped or derped, only smeared on underped areas.

    1. underped areas

      Such as?

      1. Glaciers pre-this-paper, for one.

    2. I don’t think the idea is that he will end it.

    3. Wait…you cannot herp derp?

      *kicks over blackboard, knocks over lab equipment and stalks off in a huff*

      1. Its a common mistake.

        You can hype derp (indeed, that’s one of its main uses), but you can’t herp derp – gilding the lily and all that.

  38. If I had a child (especially a son), I would forbid it from attending college.

  39. this is stupid, but voting for trump because of shit like this would, again, be cutting off your face to spite your nose

  40. “”The paper is simply impossible to read with a straight face. It employs liberal buzzwords?colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc.?with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke.””

    The reason this joke is no longer funny is because this style has been the norm for over 2 decades.

    This sort of ” Po-Mo Feminist Mad Libs” academic paper (just replace “Glaciers/Glaciology” with Mayan Architecture, or Plate Tectonics, or Romanian Folk Music, and i assure you, its already been done) has been mocked for so long that the Postmodernism Generator was one of the very first things to appear on the internet.

    I think the only thing that’s actually happened is that ‘millenials’ have gotten old enough (and jaded enough) now that they finally get the joke. The problem is there’s no one to tell it to.

    1. It’s like there’s a “Rule 34” for Postmodern derptitude. Scary.

  41. While this is indeed funny in a rather sad sort of way, I cannot help but wonder if this study will someday rank alongside F.J. Turner’s proclamation that the frontier was no more; this one however will herald the actual date of the devolution of Western society into a Kafkaesque nightmare, in which everyone is accusing everyone else of privilege and bias and various and sundry isms and society just stops and falls apart.

  42. If you’re peddling bullshit, it helps to dress it up in incomprehensible jargon.

    1. Its perfectly comprehensible; its just stupid.

      ” 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.”

      “In disaster studies you always look at who is more vulnerable to hazards, and it’s usually the marginalized populations. It’s the poor groups, the underrepresented groups based on race and ethnicity, and gender has been discussed some in that.”

      “Melting glaciers are today considered a national security risk for numerous countries,” Carey said. “Power and colonialism have shaped the science.”“”

      Its simply taking the cookie-cutter mooing about how especially “disadvantaged and oppressed” women are, and finding a new source of disadvantage and oppression which no one else has previously mooed about.

      Its a long form version of the old NYT joke = “World to End Tomorrow = Women and Minorities Hurt Most

      1. Its perfectly comprehensible; its just stupid.

        This.

      2. I always wonder how one’s race is affected more than other races.

        1. Er, why? Earthquake in Japan. How is it possible that it affected Asians more than others???

      3. It’s exactly Hilary’s comment that women are MOST affected by war.

        Because they “Lose their husbands, their sons, their fathers”.

        Damn sexist deadies.

    2. incomprehensible jargon

      Like Latin.

      1. Puellae non est laeta
        sunt oppressi per glaciem

  43. Jaclyn Rushing shows that if you’re a pretty woman, you can actually find enough desperate guys to coast through an entire career without producing anything of value. I wonder if Carey has even hit it, or if she just didn’t wear a bra one day?

  44. That’s pretty much what I would expect from a cat walking across a keyboard. Or a million monkeys pounding away at a million keyboards.

    Good fucking God, what a bunch of retarded assed, non-sensical word salad.

    Kudos to Robbie though on putting a picture of a hot chick in a bikini sitting on a glacier on a post about feminizing glaciers. That’s very meta.

    Also, would.

  45. Nothing will make me vote for Trump other than a gun to my head, there are plenty of serious candidates with sound ideas and platforms out there McAfee, Johnson, and Vermin Supreme to choose from instead.
    Make America sane again!

    1. McAfee and “sane” in the same sentence… Nice one!

      1. Err, same paragraph.

  46. I have some words for that study: anti-intellectual pseudobabble. Or how about pseudo-intellectual babble?

    1. I could make an epistemological argument that pseudo-intellectual is anti-intellectual. Bad currency drives out good, and all that.

  47. As a former boss once told me, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

  48. So someone paid good money to take courses from the idiot historians who compiled this drivel. And when they default on their student loans, we’ll be stuck paying for that too.

    1. In for a penny, in for a pound.

  49. I think they plagiarized “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”.

  50. “In his write-up of the study, Powerline’s Steven Hayward quips, “This is why you get Trump.” He’s not wrong. ”

    They are both wrong. Trump’s views on things PC are, if anything, even more in accord with feminist glaciology than his rivals.’

    1. What? Please explain your post. TIA

      Trump’s views on things PC are, if anything, even more in accord with feminist glaciology than his rivals.’

        1. It is the spanish word for aunt; there is also t?o, for uncle, and this perfectly demonstrates the inherently sexist nature of Romance (and other) languages, especially as it pertains to the formation of icebergs.

          1. You are making the mistake of letting others do your thinking for you. Bobby admits he finds the paper ‘utterly incomprehensible’ but then goes on to pass judgement on it and even to summarize it. This is Reason pandering to anti-intellectualism. Don’t let yourself be swept up in the froth.

            1. What do you agree about the paper and why? Do you think this is a productive study? How does glaciers affect women more than men?

              1. I didn’t read it. I read some of it and wasn’t baffled or dumbfounded at any point. Your questions might be better answered if you read the paper, all 24 pages of it, yourself. After reading maybe you could report back with what you’ve found.

                1. Do you agree with the conclusions and methodology by the study? if so or not, why?

                2. How does one not read it…only to claim later they read some of it? that doesn’t make sense.

                  Don’t you think you should read the whole study to assess Robby’s article vs the study? Reading some could mean one sentence.

                  How much did you read exactly?

                  1. “How does one not read it…only to claim later they read some of it? that doesn’t make sense.”

                    I haven’t read the whole of it. Only for a bit at the beginning. What I did read was not baffling, not utterly incomprehensible. Still doubt me? Read it for yourself. Don’t let me or Bobby do your thinking. I doubt Bobby has read much more than you.

                    1. So how did you draw this conclusion and assess it against what Robby wrote if you just read the beginning? Wouldn’t this require reading the whole thing?

                      How much would a “bit” consist of exactly?

                    2. Are you saying bobby didn’t read the whole thing? How did you discern since you have only read a “bit”?

                      TIA

                    3. “Are you saying bobby didn’t read the whole thing?”

                      I am saying that Bobby didn’t understand it. Bobby is saying so, too.

                    4. How did you determine bobby didnt understand it when you only read a bit at the beginning?

                    5. It’s obvious, isn’t it? He used the word incomprehensible, which can only mean that he was literally unable to read and understand the material. And he used it at the beginning of his article, which means that m. “Columbo” trueman here is required to read no further. So you see, it was a clear open-and-shut case, and it’s just good for us that towering intellect mtrueman was on the job, else we’d perhaps have missed out on the truly staggering impact that will surely be had by this groundbreaking paper.

                    6. “which can only mean that he was literally unable to read and understand the material”

                      Don’t let yourself be taken in. The paper is not difficult to understand. You just have to let go and try it. Nobody need know except you.

                    7. Nice try… but you jumped to a conclusion, and you got called on it. Better luck next time.

                    8. “and you got called on it.”

                      And papers like this cause Trump. Don’t hesitate to call me again.

        2. Thanks in advance

  51. Actually, I’m rooting for Trump because, if elected, he’ll be an inoculant for North America against the weapons-grade Derpmaster my fellow Canadians elected to be their Prime Minister not that long ago.

  52. I read the brief excerpt and a bit of the full text linked to. I don’t find anything particularly incomprehensible or baffling. It comes down to broadening (non PC pun intended) our view of glaciers.

    1. How does glacial activity affect women more than men? What does that even mean?

      For the others…does this cat always make incoherent arguments?

      1. “How does glacial activity affect women more than men?”

        It doesn’t attempt to answer that question. To repeat myself, it’s about how we view glaciers. There’s a link you can follow if you care to know more. I promise you it’s not nearly so incomprehensible as some would have you believe.

        1. They are asserting it are they not? You would think they would want to substantiate their claims.

          How should one view a glacier?

          1. “They are asserting it are they not? ”

            Which paper are you referring to? I’m talking about this one:
            http://phg.sagepub.com/content…..l.pdf+html

            1. The quote above. What does it have to do with affecting women more vs men?

              1. “The quote above”

                Do you want me to guess?

                1. I thought you said you read it. I am so confused with you.

                  1. ” I am so confused”

                    Start by posting less and read as much of the linked article as you can handle. I promise it’s not as difficult as it’s made out to be.

                    1. Not confused with the link. Your arguments are incoherent. Perhaps if you would be consistent logically and back up your claims, it would be clearer.

                      Just some advice

                    2. My argument is that of all the GOP contenders, Trump is probably the most closely aligned with PC feminism. If not Trump, who else would it be? So the article is ridiculous. Trump is feminist friendly compared to GOP rivals. Remember last time around, Romney running on a rape platform?

                    3. Can you explain how trump is aligned with feminism?

                      What does that have to do with glaciers and climate change?

                    4. “What does that have to do with glaciers and climate change?”

                      read as much of the linked article as you can handle. I promise it’s not as difficult as it’s made out to be.

                    5. What was romneys rape platform? Be specific please

                    6. a) What Trump is aligned with is irrelevant. The derptitude (un-fucking-deniable derptitude, comprehensible or not) of the paper causes a reaction in many people that lead them to see a loudmouth faux-populist like Trump as a sort of derp prophylactic. It is their reaction, not Trump’s “position” vis-a-vis feminism, that was being referenced.

                      b) Comprehensibility is relative. You want to brag, or intellect-signal, fine. But the paper is bullshit and a waste of time, money and brain cells. I (nor most other sane people) don’t care to try and “comprehend” it, when the knee-jerk SJW box-checking in it is so obvious.

                      c) I realize I’m talking to myself in a dead thread, which has a certain level of derp, to be sure. But fuck if I’m going to align my schedule to try and catch these things “live”, and I also still find it entertaining.

        2. Why is the paper not incomprehensible? What are you basing this on?

        3. What are the specific issues you have with this reason article and why?

          1. A Reason writer sounding off about a paper he admits he found utterly incomprehensible? What’s not to like?

            1. When someone describes something as incomprehensible, they do not necessarily mean it literally. As you have clearly failed to infer this from the context, I imagine that you will find this explanation, itself, to be incomprehensible. But not literally.

              1. “I imagine that you will find this explanation, itself, to be incomprehensible. But not literally.”

                You imagine wrong. I understand your point, but what exactly has Bobby written here that makes it clear to you that he does in fact understand the paper? I see nothing here to make me doubt his sincerity when he claims the paper is utterly incomprehensible. What persuaded you?

                1. Well you have admitted you didn’t even read the entire study…why is your word better than his?

            2. What other issues do you have with this reason article and why?

              1. It is chum for Reason’s sizeable anti-intellectual following. Why waste your time dissecting this article. Read the linked paper if you are curious. It will answer some of the questions you’ve asked me.

                1. mtrueman|3.7.16 @ 4:43PM|#
                  “It is chum for Reason’s sizeable anti-intellectual following.”

                  And for pathetic poseurs such as trueman.

                2. You are the one making the claims. Back them up

                3. What makes it chum specifically? Are you an intellectual and if so, how?

                4. It is chum for Reason’s sizeable anti-intellectual following.

                  Maybe intellectuals should stop providing such nice, fat targets.

            3. “A Reason writer sounding off about a paper he admits he found utterly incomprehensible? What’s not to like?”

              Not “incomprehensible” as in high level mathematics.
              More, “incomprehensible” as in the ravings of a lunatic.

              You keep claiming to find the ravings of a lunatic totally comprehensible.
              You seem to think this akin to finding, say, Maxwell’s equations totally comprehensible.
              Do you not see the difference?

              1. Where did you have trouble understanding the paper? Maybe I can help you. Bobby, for all his blather, never got around to telling us what he found so outrageous about the paper. Maybe you could do us the honor.

                1. I understand it all too well. I have unfortunately read similar drivel many times before.

                  The point is that cloistered, tenured neomarxists are very much depending on a share of all that filthy lucre earned by productive people. They turn out the equivalent of the unibomber manifesto, and low IQ over-educated morons clap like trained seals.

                  If you have mastered critical theory, you are a master of unicorn cloud bowling.

                  1. “neomarxists”

                    Post modernist means a rejection of Marx and class politics. I wouldn’t say I’ve mastered critical theory. I just don’t find it as difficult or repellent as I should.

                    What about the paper did you find problematic? It didn’t bring the Unabomber Manifesto to mind. My impression is that Ted was against this kind of pomo analysis. Have you read either the Manifesto or this paper?

                    “and low IQ over-educated morons clap like trained seals.”

                    Mention of Trump, who was caused by papers like this, will do that.

                    1. Did you read the entire paper mtrueman?

                    2. No, neither did you. One of us could benefit from reading the paper. That’s you. You should be concerned with your own reading rather than obsessing over mine.

                    3. One of us could benefit from reading the paper.

                      You didn’t even read the whole thing, and you’re lecturing someone to do the very thing that you refused to do? No wonder nerds tend to invite bullying by their passive-aggressive behavior.

                    4. “You didn’t even read the whole thing, and you’re lecturing someone to do the very thing that you refused to do? ”

                      He’s the one asking the questions to me even though I’ve told him several times I hadn’t read it. If he wants his questions answered, best thing is for him to read it. I can’t do much more than pointing out the link.

                    5. Like I said, you’re a great example of how nerds invite bullying with their passive-aggressive behavior.

                    6. Post modernist means a rejection of Marx and class politics

                      No it doesn’t. It just means that Marxist arguments about economics and class have been applied to other disciplines such as gender and ethnic studies.

                    7. “No it doesn’t. ”

                      Are you saying that post-modernists are Marxists? Who specifically do you have in mind? I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

                    8. I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

                      Considering you never offered any proofs of your own assertion, you’re hardly in a position to make this accusation.

                2. Why would i have trouble? You are the one that read a bit…no? How much did you read?

                  1. “Why would i have trouble?”

                    You can probably answer that better than I can. Suffice it to say, some of your numerous questions can be answered if only you’d read the paper. It won’t hurt much in the end, and it’ll save you time and frustration.

                    1. How would i know how much you read? Personally i think you are more qualified to answer that. How could i answer that question by reading it? was the study done by you?

    2. mtrueman|3.7.16 @ 2:15PM|#
      “I read the brief excerpt and a bit of the full text linked to. I don’t find anything particularly incomprehensible or baffling”

      Of course you don’t. Nonsense on stilts is what you post, so finding another bullshitter is right up your alley.

      1. Does mtrueman engage in this type of posting often?

        1. Tornado16nb|3.7.16 @ 6:02PM|#
          “Does mtrueman engage in this type of posting often?”

          He never posts ANYTHING that isn’t sophist bullshit.

          1. “He never posts ANYTHING that isn’t sophist bullshit”

            Glad to see you haven’t wasted your day. Learned a new word and everything.

            1. mtrueman|3.8.16 @ 11:13AM|#
              “Glad to see you haven’t wasted your day.”

              Happy to see you proving once again that smug shitbags are, well, smug shitbags.

      2. You found it baffling? Anything in particular? Was it offensive? Feeling victimized again?

        1. It is offensive that this garbage is presented as scientific, when it is actually just sophistic word masturbation.
          It is offensive this bilge and the like is being produced at public universities and subsidized by all of us.
          It is beyond offensive students at university are paying to be educated and this is the bullshit they are taught.
          The authors should be charged with fraud.

          1. “It is offensive that this garbage is presented as scientific”

            It comes from a university History department. Even Bobby knows this.

            Let’s say, Dr A, you have a chance to argue against funding this paper. How would you go about persuading an impartial panel set to judge the matter? Would you tell them this is the sort of thing that causes Trump, or would you use other arguments at your disposal?

            1. Ravings of a lunatic.

              1. “Ravings of a lunatic.”

                Might work. No plan B?

                1. I think you missed the point that was being made. Identity politics backlash is driving the Trump mania. And this study was all about identity politics. That is all.

            2. What does the analysis at the bottom of the article have to do with the validity of the study?

              1. Tell me what you think. I found it utterly incomprehensible.

                1. The article was easy to understand. Admittedly, I’m a professional academic and have got used to this kind of language, though it does tend to be avoided in my own discipline.

                  It is simply an analysis of the various literature produced about glaciers and pointing out that there is a gulf between the popular scientific discussion of glaciers and the way plenty of other people write, think and talk about them, both historically and today. Basically, that the cultural depictions of man and glaciers is precisely that; its all about men conquering nature, exploring, etc. The paper then points out that there is rather a lot more going on that tends not to be talked about. One of the more interesting examples is about how indigenous women who live with these glaciers think about them, the importance of them to their own sense of self and culture. It also talks about how glaciers are represented in works of art, are dealt with and discussed in environmental policy, etc. The paper then proposes a framework which other scholars may want to utilise when exploring these other types of ideas about glaciers. That the way we talk about them tends to be through a preponderantly male prism, but that this need not be the case.

                  The paper is actually pretty interesting, if you’re willing to take that leap of imagination and think of glaciers as actually holding meaning and interest, beyond examining the scientific processes which govern their formation, movements, cores, and so on.

            3. It comes from a university History department. Even Bobby knows this

              Talk about appeals to authority.

        2. In what way is he or she feeling victimized? Where did you get this and what do you mean again?

  53. this is going to win the weekly contest, isn’t it?

  54. “Glaciers, Gender, and Science?A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change nexus.”

    I added “nexus” but needz moar buzzwerdz.

  55. These dip shits don’t know it but all they are doing is re-attempting postmodernism. And it is just as stupid….

    Although not nearly as stupid as Michelle Obama’s graduate thesis

    Please look it up. She is a complete moron and her points are almost as incomprehensible.

  56. I feel like I’m being trolled on a level I can’t even comprehend.

  57. Here’s another one, close to my neck of the woods, at Western Washington University. This is the place where some students said they should get rid of the Viking mascot as it didn’t reflect the students enough and was a symbol of white oppression or something like that.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..story.html

    1. Lol. You reward this behavior and thus get more of it. Not you personally that is.

  58. I “get” the connexion: feminist, frigid. Harsh, impossible to turn aside, inexorably moving where IT is wont to go.

    And paid for with MY tax dollars. Nice…….. so we see the pic of the glacial polar bears bowing down to the hottie in the bikini, and we’re supposed to think “feminist”? Hah. Last I heard, the femmies were all knicker-be-knotted over female bodies being trotted out in public and glamourised as sex objects/symbols. Isn’t that what this image is all about? Put a chick in a hankie on the cover and it will sell.

    No wonder college costs so much.

    1. “And paid for with MY tax dollars.”

      Nothing

      Left

      To

      Cut

  59. I guess “Racial Seismology” had already been done.

  60. This is why it can be so difficult to parody the Left. Parody involves exaggeration for humorous effect, but Leftism is already exaggerated far beyond reality.

  61. Mtrueman why didn’t you read the whole study? How did you draw your conclusion without reading the entire study?

    1. “How did you draw your conclusion without reading the entire study?”

      You want me to reveal my secrets?

  62. Mtrueman are you an intellectual? Personally i feel like those who have to let you know they are….tend to be nothing of the sort

    1. “Mtrueman are you an intellectual?”

      Quote from Leon Trotsky: “Some questions answer themselves.”

      1. Like “Is that an icepick in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

      2. Let me guess:
        You got an A+ in critical theory, but don’t yet have enough experience in the world to realize you were duped into becoming a sophist?

        1. Interesting how intellectual dishonesty seems to roll back around to the same tropes era after era.

        2. I don’t find what I read of the paper baffling. That makes me a sophist? Trump is arguably more sympathetic to feminism than any of his opponents. I’m no expert on Trump but that’s my impression. How about this article for sophistry? Starts off with an admission that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, only seems to have contact with some obscure blogger, and never attempted to contact or question the authors of the paper. It’s flim-flammery at its finest and you’re here baaa baaaing along with the rest of Reason’s stooges.

          1. It’s flim-flammery at its finest and you’re here baaa baaaing along with the rest of Reason’s stooges.

            Your metaphor, it is mixed like a salad of greens and the blues.

          2. “I don’t find what I read of the paper baffling. That makes me a sophist?”

            If you think writing of the sort found in this paper amounts to “intellectualism”, then yes.

            You seem to be bragging that you understand this paper, which you didn’t read.
            This paper is a string of nonsense that has no connection whatsoever to anything in reality.
            It’s science for stupid people. It is an IQ test, in a sense. You failed.

            1. “You seem to be bragging that you understand this paper, which you didn’t read.”

              No, I’m claiming of what little I did read, I found unbaffling. That’s my claim, or my boast, as you put it.

              “You failed.”

              It always comes down to me in the end. White man’s burden, I guess.

              1. How much did you read of it? Which part specifically?

            2. In fairness with tripe like this not reading it is probably a better start to understanding than reading it.

          3. How much did you read exactly? Who is admitting they dont know what they are talking about?

          4. Why dont you start your own blog?

      3. Please be clear here

  63. Here are more amusing comments on this article:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..e-context/

    1. That glacier. Hit it, I would.

  64. Rappel culture?

  65. Mtrueman do you think climate change affects women and blacks more than whites and men?

    If so, please say why

    1. “Mtrueman do you think climate change affects women and blacks more than whites and men?”

      Taking a wild stab here, but you still haven’t read the article yet, have you? You’re a stooge. But the choice to let others do your thinking for you is all yours.

      1. No im interested in your take. Who am i stooge for? What is your opinion on matter above?

        1. “Who am i stooge for?”

          Who’s views are you parroting today?

          1. I am not sure…perhaps you can enlighten me. What do you mean today and who are you talking about? Can you back up your claims?

            1. Have you finished reading the paper? You don’t need to admit it publicly. Simply don’t respond if you have.

              1. What does this have to do with my question? You said you read a bit…how much?

  66. Mtrueman what are your intellectual credentials?

    1. Some other time. I wouldn’t want to baffle you twice in the same day.

      1. How did you baffle me today?

        1. What was it that Leon said?

          1. Who is leon?

          2. mtrueman|3.8.16 @ 11:18AM|#
            “What was it that Leon said?”

            “Trueman’s an ignorant POS.”
            Is that what he said? Or just what he should have said?

            1. “Is that what he said?”

              You’ll never know, will you?

  67. Mtrueman can you please explain your tangent about trump and feminism in more detail?

    If you read the article above you would see the mention of trump doesnt really have to do with women being affected by glaciers.

    The article insinuates the rise of trump is due to studies like these where there really is no connection but somehow identity politics is brought.

    Unless you can explain please hoe climate change affects women more

    1. *how

      Sorry for the typo…in case that was the reason you didn’t answer since you didn’t understand my question

  68. Mtrueman did you agree with the methods used in the study? Can you summarize?

    Would like to hear your thoughts. If you dont want to, i question if you really read and if your analysis above is correct

    Thanks

    1. Mtrueman?

    2. Mtrueman?

    3. Mtrueman?

      1. Enough with, the repeated posts, T. Single one’s already unfold the full scope of your idiocy.

        1. Single one’s already unfold the full scope of your idiocy

          Lol.

  69. STFU and VOTE TRUMP

  70. Mtrueman i confess i am gay. Do you think climate change helps accelerate the transmission of HIV?

  71. This was mansplained a long time ago- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKgysK3GCfM

  72. Unbelievable. Some thoughts:

    http://turingchurch.com/2016/0…..-traveler/

    I just found a gem: a totally idiotic scientific paper (yes, they call it a scientific paper – A SCIENTIFIC PAPER) on “a feminist glaciology framework,” the post-colonial gender dynamics of glaciers (yes, icebergs with genitals), and the need for “more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”

    Of course I assumed the “scientific paper” was a Sokal hoax, but it appears that the authors and the University of Oregon consider it as a real scientific paper. A REAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER. When I first saw this unbelievable story on Facebook I wrote this very heartfelt comment: “I am assuming it’s a joke like that Sokal thing. If it isn’t a joke, I’ll add a Trump badge to my profile picture…”

  73. “What I’m trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers (…) [to feminize glaciers].”

    Yeah, that’s the old trick, masquerading as a new trick masquerading as something else. Plus, one of the last possibilities to dress things up in a politically correct way (trcky: transvestism) is to pretend that things are cute and human in order to attract females (anthropogirlization). They’re trying with STEM subjects (look, what a cute socket! Aw, these atoms are in love!), and now glaciology (think of it as Disney’s Ice Princess, girls!).

    Apart from the acknowledgement of sex differences in person v. thing orientation that is arbitrarily denied elsewhere (by the same people), one should remember that the planet is a living thing, too. It’s appropriation is not cool.

    1. P.S.: Merry Women’s Day/Non-Sex-Discriminatory Federal Holiday.

  74. You’re getting ?120 worth of bonuses for just a fraction of that price. Everything to get you started in learning a proven system for accelerating sf your exam success. So if that’s what you want to do, this is the opportunity you’ve been waiting for….

    ==== http://www.alpha-careers.com

  75. Mtrueman what is your degree in? What did you like about the paper and why?

  76. Of course you don’t have any substantive critiques of the paper. People who make fun of science generally never do. I can’t attest to the value of this paper, but I can reasonably assume you would have laughed at papers about “charm” and “quarks” and other stupid sounding science back in its infancy. I think we’re all better off with you having no power to influence the paths science chooses to take.

    I am blown away every day at how you and the writers at Reason can flip back and forth between defending peoples’ rights to speak their mind, and shaming people for doing so. This is where you leave behind the pretense that it is all “about ethics in ____”, since you obviously have very little respect for things you clearly don’t understand, and have no interest in trying.

    In this case, you can’t even hide behind the usual shield of fighting political correctness, since this paper isn’t about that. You’re devolving into little more than an idiot ranting about how oppressive it is that you can’t cat call women without someone trying to make you feel bad about it.

    1. “Science.”

      Yeah, right. This crap is “science.”

      1. What makes you qualified to be the judge of what is and is not “science”?

        1. Same could be asked of you

        2. What are your credentials?

          1. What credentials are required to know that one can’t judge the value of science simply by its subject? Are you an idiot?

      2. What makes you qualified to be the judge of what is and is not “science”?

        1. Feiel|3.8.16 @ 9:15AM|#
          “What makes you qualified to be the judge of what is and is not “science”?”

          I’d say a 6th-grade education would be sufficient.

          1. Hopefully you aren’t relied on for important decisions, then.

    2. “…I am blown away every day at how you and the writers at Reason can flip back and forth between defending peoples’ rights to speak their mind, and shaming people for doing so…”

      I see. You need to go back to the 5th-grade; you missed some education.
      There is nothing contradictory in defending free speech and then laughing at the stupidity that often results. Such as your rant.

      1. Bingo.

      2. Actually getting to laugh at stupidity is one of the best aspects of free speech. It’s not only not a contradiction it’s a feature.

      3. Right, I didn’t say I thought people shouldn’t be allowed to shame other people. My point was that Reason isn’t so much taking principled stands for free speech itself, but standing for the specific types of speech and calling it principle.

        1. Feiel|3.9.16 @ 8:22AM|#
          “…My point was that Reason isn’t so much taking principled stands for free speech itself, but standing for the specific types of speech and calling it principle….”

          MOVE that goal-post!
          And, BTW, you’re lying. Reason supports about all the speech which it encounters.

    3. In what way is this “science”? Do you agree with the methods in study?

      What does this have to do with cat calling?

      1. There are no methods. The paper is a glorified opinion piece based on a literature review. Literature which is not all peer reviewed or itself data-driven.

    4. “shaming people for doing so”???

      Is that what we used to call “disagreeing with”?

      1. Disagreeing with what, exactly?

    5. At the time, IIRC, I acknowledged I didn’t understand the math or physics involved, but thought the naming of the particles was a little twee, sure.

      Never really thought that constituted “science denial” though.

      1. I didn’t say “science denial”. I implied that it is for the best that people who laugh off the value of science they don’t understand are not in a position of power to control the future of science.

        The thing about science is we can’t predict what studying one thing might uncover, and this paper seems to be a piece of a larger puzzle that hopefully will illuminate scientists about paradigms in glaciology:

        “Glaciology is an interdisciplinary earth science that integrates geophysics, geology, physical geography, geomorphology, climatology, meteorology, hydrology, biology, and ecology. The impact of glaciers on people includes the fields of human geography and anthropology”

        As I stated above, I don’t really care that people are getting made fun of. My issue is that Reason attempts to position itself as more than just another cog in the conservative entertainment complex, when it quite obviously has become just that.

    6. You’re devolving into little more than an idiot ranting about how oppressive it is that you can’t cat call women without someone trying to make you feel bad about it.

      Actually, it’s about not being allowed to “cat call” glaciers. Won’t someone (women) think of the glaciers? Don’t think of children, women!

    7. I am blown away every day at how you and the writers at Reason can flip back and forth between defending peoples’ rights to speak their mind, and shaming people for doing so.

      So if people have a right to speak their mind (which is NOT a scientific principle, by the way), they’re supposed to be shielded from criticism? Talk about an anti-intellectual stance.

      You’re devolving into little more than an idiot ranting about how oppressive it is that you can’t cat call women without someone trying to make you feel bad about it.

      Shitlib status: TRIGGERED

      1. Don’t be an idiot.

        1. You first. Your rhetorical pants-shitting is little more than a Jezebel-Mad Libs screed. Try producing something that didn’t get belched up in your Rainbow-Hair support group.

  77. So, the paper is actually about how glaciology is practiced in a masculinist fashion and how it might be possible to—well, not to add to glaciology from a feminist perspective exactly, but more rather to devise ways to scientifically complain about perceived female exclusion from this and all other sciences.

    It IS comprehensible, once one understands what they’re going for. Which makes it reprehensible.

    And yes, it helps Trump.

    Because Robby’s a bit off with this–

    In a country where working class people are being forced to fund research on the postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps, is it any wonder some of them are rooting for a charismatic demagogue who promises to bully their tormentors?

    What the legions of people incessantly accused of ‘racism’ for believing such horrors as ‘all people should be equal before the law’ see is not a demagogue who’s promising to bully anyone–they see a man who might finally help them defeat the crybullies in media, academia, and society.

    And that just might be worth the other crap Trump might do.

  78. Glacier Girl better than Lobster Girl

  79. I just died a little.

  80. I’m satisfied in the knowledge that one day Yellowstone is going to lobotomize our ever expanding scientific insight.

  81. Good day! This post couldn?t be written any better! Reading this
    post reminds me of my previous room mate!???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????
    He always kept chatting
    about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read.
    Thank you for sharing!

  82. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  83. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  84. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  85. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ????? ??????
    ???? ????? ??????

  86. If it serves as any consolation, the authorspieced together this idea based on existing literature out there. The time and resources to put a spin on essentially a lit review is a fraction of that required to compile novel data to actually test an idea (ah, social science). Unfortunately, even much of the literature cited does not appear to come from peer reviewed sources. It doesn’t seem like the ideas are even data-driven. I take more issue with that than the subject matter.

    The impact factor of that journal was 4.5 in 2012 and 5 this year (not so consoling). (Nature is 41 Cell is 32, Plant Cell is 9) After the majors, there’s a huge drop-off in IF, with tiny IFs (

    1. Impact Factor basically just measures how often the journal’s articles are cited. Different disciplines have different etiquettes when it comes to how and when to cite work as well as different mediums for publishing research. The gold standard in the ‘hard’ sciences is, of course, the journal article. In the humanities, however, the gold standard is the full-length academic book. So, the result is that the most prestigious journals in my field, history, are titles such as American Historical Review, English Historical Review, Past & Present and so on. These journals have impact factors which range from around 2 to 0.2. That isn’t a reflection on the quality of the articles or the peer-review process, but rather the nature of publishing in the discipline.

  87. …with tiny IFs for highly specific, little known, and/or dis/unreputable journals. If indeed this material is useless to the scientific community, the journal’s rep/IF will tank and journals will stop accepting this quality of stuff in general. But perhaps this isn’t how it goes for the social science folks…Alternatively, the same small niche of researchers will incestuously cite one another indefinitely, publishing stoner dribble ad nauseam and the IF will go up and up to infiniti and beyond.

    I think this comes down to how funding decisions are made, which are generally by panels of researchers in overlapping fields. But of course, someone in your own field will be more likely to see value in your work, so it’s harder to weed out the crap. But this structure also prevents out-of-discipline failure to recognize valuable research proposals for lack of knowledge/understanding. I’d definitely like to see the proposal put together to support this project though. Bet it’s a real page turner.

    1. Doesn’t mention a THING about feminism or “masculine discourses of glaciology”.

      Does seem to try (as so many protests recently on campuses) to generate a kind of job-creation program for people with otherwise worthless (and expensive) degrees:

      “The project also proposes five educational activities that will produce broader impacts for students, the university, and the general public: (1) creation of a Science and Society Group, the foundational step to establishing a Center for the Study of Science and Society at the University of Oregon; (2) development of an “Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program” science and society curriculum to teach undergraduates alongside prison inmates in the unique penitentiary environment; (3) construction of a new Honors College course on the history of the earth sciences; (4) employment and training of undergraduate students in specific research projects; and (5) mentoring of a postdoctoral fellow.”

      A postdoctoral fellow…recommendations available on request!”

      1. “Doesn’t mention a THING…”

        Yeah, usually how this goes is you write for one project, but especially these days (at least in the life sciences), very few people get funded for all the projects you need to do to be prolific in academia. So if you want to be productive, you have to do the proposed project and also link that work to collaborators’ stuff or small side projects that are tangentially related. Basically using crumbs from various grants to make something additional out of them…So this isn’t at all surprising that some seemingly unrelated paper came out from this grant. On the bright size, if they don’t satisfy at LEAST what they propose to do, they probably can’t count on getting funding again.

        “Does seem to try…”

        I don’t see it that mustache-twisty–In order to get an NSF grant you are required to also develop a “Broader Impacts” program. What they’re proposing isn’t all that uncommon or original, actually. Broader impacts programs are meant to encourage involving undergraduates or the community in research (to also convince them that its worth doing!) and demonstrate that it has quantifiable, societal value. They don’t even need to be directly related to your project. For example, I might be a botanist, but I might propose a broader impacts program that involves starting a research program for undergrads at my university that places undergraduate biology students in labs.

        http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07046/nsf07046.jsp

        1. Thanx. That’s informative, at least.

        2. I was associating it with “The Demands” (http://www.thedemands.org/) of the various racial protests around the country, which very much DO concern themselves with creating jobs for Black Studies and Gender Studies degree-holders.

          OF COURSE an NSF grant proposal is considerably different than that. *sigh* It’s been a shpdoinkle day…

      2. Please rank these statements in order from (1) pisses you off the most to (5) pisses you off the least.

        a. Federal funds diligently used by researcher so uses spare dollars for exploratory glacier-feminism-blahblahblah
        b. Federal funds were not given to researcher for glacier-feminism-blahblahblah, but used them anyway for this purpose.
        c. Federal funds given to researcher for glacier-feminism-blahblahblah
        d. This paper got through peer review.
        e. Federal funds given to researcher, researcher cites funds supported a paper that contains no novel data and is basically mental masturbation.

        1. Most depressing is d. See, my paranoia about the NSF grants is somewhat justified. A full rewrite of all science and science history “through gender-theory-informed epistemologies” or whateverthefuck, is going to keep a lot of people uselessly employed for a long time.

          I mean, someone with a degree in post-colonial mumbledeederp might want to be called a scientist, but you wouldn’t want them designing propulsion systems or medical tech. So such a project might be a compromise solution.

          Since, I suppose, putting them to sleep is off the table?

    2. Holy Shit! They received over $400,000 dollars in funding over the course of just 3 years; To review literature. Are they buying mint edition antique journals?

  88. Ok, so I finished reading the paper. This is not something tax money should not be spent on but Soave totally missed their argument (and he admits that he doesn’t quite get the message). They’re not, as he states, trying to feminize glaciers hahaha.

    I’m not a social science person, but here’s what I think the takeaway message is *supposed* to be:
    Historically, most glacier scientists are men and culturally we see mountaineering as a manly thing to do, so any unique insight that women might have about glaciers is marginalized. They say that most stuff written about glaciers is by men and men dominate the field of study. Therefore, men are generally the “knowledge producers”, even though many women have glacier experience in non-scientific capacities. Lots of women work around glaciers in agricultural contexts, but people interested in glaciers generally don’t care. We should encourage women to do glacier stuff because we’re an unrepresented group, and not being a manly mountaineer shouldn’t be a discouraging factor.

    This all seems like a run-of-the-mill feminist argument… just applied to glaciers.

    They do state, though, “scientific practices and results are gendered”. That’s like saying my pipette is a phallus and its precision depends on who’s holding it.

    1. “They do state, though, “scientific practices and results are gendered”. That’s like saying my pipette is a phallus and its precision depends on who’s holding it.”

      Not really. It is about how gender influences how scientists choose certain types of methodology over others, how men and women interpret, frame and contextualise results differently and so on and so on. There is, as it happens, a vast literature demonstrating precisely this point from an equally impressive array of sources and intellectual disciplines.

      But kudos for being pretty much the only person in this comments section to actually read and try to honestly understand what the paper is actually about, as opposed to the ‘LULZ girl glaciers is stoopid’.

      1. “Not really. It is about how gender influences how scientists choose certain types of methodology over others, how men and women interpret, frame and contextualise results differently and so on and so on. There is, as it happens, a vast literature demonstrating precisely this point from an equally impressive array of sources and intellectual disciplines.”

        Yes, and please tell us how women “contexualize”, oh, aerodynamics.
        Sorry, a pile of crap on stilts is still a pile of crap.

        1. The concept is called gendered innovation (Google it), and getting scientists and medical practitioners to think about gender has concrete results and addresses real problems. If, for instance, you are unlucky to be a man and suffer from Osteoporosis then there is a significant probability that it will not be diagnosed — because you’re a man. It is these very people you ridicule who are working to point this out and offer solutions.

          Just because you ridicule that which you do not wish to try to understand, does not mean that it is necessarily without virtue.

      2. My pipette bit was meant to be more obnoxious than anything else. But I’m with Sevo on this one. Even if it were the case that men and women approach problems/questions differently, proposing that RESULTS are affected gender is silly. Maybe we’re defining “results” differently, but here- Less obnoxious analogy: 2+2 does not equal fish or 4. It’s just 4.

        Regardless- the funds used to support the student who developed this project were not intended for this purpose. If you’re going to say you’re using money from other people (the public) for project X, you shouldn’t simply reallocate them for Y without permission. Just based on the project summary on the NSF site, it is not clear that this type of work falls in with what work was approved and funded. In other words, the taxpayer/grant committee did not explicitly approve feminist glaciology work. And what’s worse is that funds were spent without novel data generation really proposing any novel idea. Again, it’s typical feminist rhetoric with an ice-spin.

        1. We are able to understand evidence because we are able to contextualise it. If you know more about the context then the evidence may suggest new opportunities you hadn’t initially thought of.

          ‘proposing that RESULTS are affected gender is silly’. So you may believe, but it is also a strawman because that isn’t what I said.

          ‘2+2 does not equal fish’. Indeed it does not, but if you pose this problem as one of language and definition, as opposed to mathematical concept, then the problem begins to have different meaning. Cultural factors influence how we think about and frame ideas and, importantly, how we word them. This is what the much disparaged linguistic turn was partly about. It also has real world impacts in science. To quote a scientist complaining about the issue of definition and meaning:

          ‘Once again I found myself explaining to someone that the “MVC” architecture they were showcasing didn’t follow the accepted definition so isn’t technically MVC at all and doesn’t offer the advantages that it’s supposed to. The problem is that the incorrect definition […] is quite widespread among certain groups. Most notably PHP developers.
          If everyone around you is calling a “cat” a “dog” then everyone will know what you mean when you say “dog”. However, as soon as you try to communicate with someone who understands and only knows the accepted definition confusion will ensue on both sides.’

  89. Soave has seen the word ‘feminism’ and ‘glacier’ in the same sentence and his knee has jerked so hard that he has kicked himself in the head. Had he bothered to read, never mind actually understand, the research he would have swiftly discovered that his claim that ‘this is a paper about how to feminize a giant hunk of ice’ is entirely wrong. Indeed, this is made abundantly clear in the abstract which states:

    “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.”

    In other words, the bread and butter of the history of science. The point of feminist scholarship is not to promote some secret ‘liberal’ agenda, but to see if gender influences how we think about the world. If we thought a little differently and asked different questions could we learn more?

    It is also worth noting that Soave questions whether this research is worth the money spent on it. Well, the fact is that it has been published in the second highest ranked peer-reviewed journal dedicated to geography. So, those professional academics and scientists, on the editorial board of Progress in Human Geography and who reviewed the paper, certainly thought so and certainly believed that their readers will think so. Just because Suave finds the article incomprehensible does not mean that it has no meaning, point, purpose or value.

    1. The point of feminist scholarship is not to promote some secret ‘liberal’ agenda,

      Well, it is true that feminist scholars are hardly secretive about their agenda. Too bad most of it cleaves toward tedious “A _____ of Her Own” narratives.

      Well, the fact is that it has been published in the second highest ranked peer-reviewed journal dedicated to geography. So, those professional academics and scientists, on the editorial board of Progress in Human Geography and who reviewed the paper, certainly thought so and certainly believed that their readers will think so.

      So what? Considering that academia has become such an intellectually inbred institution (you even admit up above that, being a part of it, you recognized the various rhetorical tropes employed in the article.) the publication of such an article is hardly out of character. It’s simply the addition of another subject into the stultified framework of the class/gender/ethnicity Holy Trinity that’s marked the profession since the New Left began taking it over the early 70s.

      1. I do not recall suggesting that academia is an ‘intellectually inbred institution’. 1. The fact is that the journal Progress in Human Geography is edited by a team drawn from four different countries, all with their own academic cultures. 2. The journal operates blind peer-review and is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics — which is the gold standard for academic journals. 3. It is also worth pointing out that the lead author of this article is an historian, who works in a history department, thus making it still more unlikely that this is just some form of internal nepotism.

        These kinds of conspiracy theories, written by people who plainly have little if any experience of writing and publishing academic articles, is rather dispiriting.

        1. I do not recall suggesting that academia is an ‘intellectually inbred institution’

          I know you didn’t suggest it, I flat-out said it in the context of academic paradigms that have barely evolved since the early 70s. The authors aren’t suggesting anything new, just applying long-held conceits–in the humanities in particular, although it’s reflected in other disciplines–to the subject of the study of glaciers.

        2. .These kinds of conspiracy theories, written by people who plainly have little if any experience of writing and publishing academic articles, is rather dispiriting

          You’re arguing a strawman here. I didn’t suggest it was a conspiracy theory, I said it was the latest iteration of a philosophical paradigm that hasn’t changed in 45 years. And FYI, I have a graduate degree in history myself and am quite familiar with both the publishing/peer review process as well as the intellectual environment in the discipline in particular.

          1. I’m sorry, but if you believe that poor work is routinely waved through the peer-review system because it rests within frameworks deemed to be axiomatic then you entirely undermine your claim to be ‘quite familiar with both the publishing/peer review process as well as the intellectual environment in [history] in particular.’ You could trawl the corridors of any large history department and collect vast swathes of evidence which directly contradict your claim, precisely because work which is too comfortable with existing frameworks is often turned down for lacking originality. Meanwhile, the ‘stultified philosophical framework’ you contend have been unchanged ‘in 45 years’, once again highlights some considerable confusion on your part. Certainly, historians have certainly been interested in class for many decades (far more than 45 years), but gender and ethnicity? The seminal article which really brought ‘gender’ to the table, by Joan Scott, was published in 1986 — 30 years ago. Meanwhile, the issue of ethnicity, as applied to gender and social class, largey emerged with Third Wave feminism in the 1990s (even if it does have its roots in post-colonialism which emerged from the very late 1970s (also not 45 years ago)). So, first, your grasp of the chronology is way out. Second, the fact that these ideas developed very much over time shows just how dynamic the discipline actually is.

            1. I’m sorry, but if you believe that poor work is routinely waved through the peer-review system because it rests within frameworks deemed to be axiomatic then you entirely undermine your claim to be ‘quite familiar with both the publishing/peer review process as well as the intellectual environment in [history] in particular.’

              I didn’t say poor quality, I said intellectually rigid. There’s a difference.

              ‘ You could trawl the corridors of any large history department and collect vast swathes of evidence which directly contradict your claim, precisely because work which is too comfortable with existing frameworks is often turned down for lacking originality.

              Or, I can go to any academic conference in the field where they’re still producing work under the class/gender/ethnicity Holy Trinity that hasn’t changed in .

            2. Meanwhile, the ‘stultified philosophical framework’ you contend have been unchanged ‘in 45 years’, once again highlights some considerable confusion on your part. Certainly, historians have certainly been interested in class for many decades (far more than 45 years), but gender and ethnicity? The seminal article which really brought ‘gender’ to the table, by Joan Scott, was published in 1986 — 30 years ago.

              Wrong. It’s been a focus of the field since the mid-1970s as part of the New Social History.

              Meanwhile, the issue of ethnicity, as applied to gender and social class, largey emerged with Third Wave feminism in the 1990s (even if it does have its roots in post-colonialism which emerged from the very late 1970s (also not 45 years ago)).

              Again, you have your timetables completely off. These all became focI of study under the New Social History, which did emerge 45 years ago. You’re just goal-post shifting now by attempting to redefine what the “real” starting point was.

              So, first, your grasp of the chronology is way out. Second, the fact that these ideas developed very much over time shows just how dynamic the discipline actually is.

              “OUR RIGID PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK THAT WE’VE WORKED UNDER FOR DECADES REALLY SHOWS HOW INTELLECTUALLY FLEXIBLE WE ARE!!”

              1. Well, this is a pointless argument. You present a chronology which is simply wrong and obviously so. You contend to have studied this at post-graduate level, which makes your errors and insistence that you are correct still more baffling. This is literally 101-textbook stuff that every first year undergraduate student should know. Perhaps the issue here is that you confuse “women’s history”, which did arise in the 1970s, with “gender history” which emerged in the mid-80s? But, who knows. Rather than argue about it with you, I simply suggest the following remedial reading (aimed at those first year students I just mentioned):

                Michael Roberts, ‘Women’s History and Gender History’, in P. Lambert and P. Schofield (eds.), Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline (London: Routledge, 2004).

                Laura Lee Downs, ‘From women’s history to gender history’, in S. Berger, H. Feldner, K. Passmore (eds.), Writing History: Theory and Practice (London: Arnold, 2003).

                Peter Claus and John Marriott, History: An introduction to theory, method and practice (Harlow: Pearson, 2012), p. 204.

    2. “Well, the fact is that it has been published in the second highest ranked peer-reviewed journal dedicated to geography. ”

      Well, in that case:
      “Sokal affair”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

      1. Social text, the journal Sokal sent his hoax-paper to was not a peer-reviewed journal. Thus, hardly a great example of the failure of peer-review.

    3. “The point of feminist scholarship is not to promote some secret ‘liberal’ agenda,…”

      Okay, more cynical then…how about employing a generation of women possessing (and paying loans on) otherwise-useless Gender Studies Degrees?

      The project of revisiting all of science using “womens perspectives, epistemologies and priorities” is going to produce some nicely-budgeted “Science Studies” (as opposed to, you know, actual empirical-method-based, data-generating science, which you may CLAIM is gender biased, but which is also responsible for the results that allow you to fly around, post on the internet and ummm…have a life-span over 35 years) Departments.

      And I don’t care how many nod-and-a-wink academics support each other on this. You argumentum vericundiam is invalid. A lot of women have contributed to science…by DOING SCIENCE, not pretending that literature reviews and complaining about the exclusion of feminist post-colonial epistemologies were science.

      Fuck. I started off thinking this would be more conciliatory but no, this is bullshit. I mean, go ahead and do it, but it isn’t valuable, and it isn’t science. Of course, we’re going to be redefining that soon, aren’t we?

      1. Where to begin with this, because you are criticising an article you manifestly do not understand or want to understand. 1. The author of the piece is not in “women’s studies” and nor is his article published in a journal dedicated to that field. He is an historian, and the article is about historical environmental geography.

        2. The article does not propose ‘revisiting all of science’, what it proposes is exploring the discourse surrounding science. Or to translate that, looking at what people are saying when they talk about science. It suggesting a framework for potential intellectual reflection by human geographers. And note, they have not aimed this piece at scientists, they have aimed it at historical geographers.

      2. 3. You paint a false dichotomy between ‘science’ and ‘science studies’, the former having worth and the latter lacking it. Yet most actual scientists, i.e. people with PhDs do not take this view. Indeed, the fact that a panel of scientists chose to fund the project is itself evidence of that. Scientists are well aware that the history and philosophy which underpins their work is of relevance to that work. Indeed, one of the examples you cite ‘post on the internet’. Alan Turing, the mathematician responsible for constructing key elements of the foundational core of computer science was not merely a scientist, but also asked key questions about the nature of knowledge, logic and the philosophy of mathematics. Turing knew and collaborated with individuals like the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (incidentally also employed by Cambridge University to run a lecture course on the foundation of mathematics) who helped him to shape and crystallise his ideas, because they were interested in defining and resolving the same types of question: can every well defined problem be solved? Meanwhile, the majority of those who worked at Bletchley Park, with Turing, and who invented one of the first computers (the Colossus machine), only did so after Brigadier John Tiltman single-handedly broke a cipher produced by the Lorenz SZ-40 cipher machine. Tiltman was not a mathematician or any other type of scientist, he was recruited because of his linguistic capabilities.

      3. 4. ‘You argumentum vericundiam is invalid.’ I did not pass a value judgement on the financial worth of the project — you are doing that — I merely pointed out that the people whose views on the matter which do have actual repercussions, peer-reviewers (which you dismiss, but is and remains the first and most significant element of scholarly quality control), did not find its quality lacking. That is a fact, you can make of it what you will, as will I. Now, you can dismiss peer-review, as ‘nod-and-a-wink academics support’ but, first, what do you propose to put in its place? Second, peer-review is anonymous. Third, peer-review is very often a vicious ordeal precisely because there is not a ‘nod-and-a-wink’ culture, and the anonymity gives licence to often unacceptable cruelty. People keep referencing the Sokal Affair; but Sokal was able to get away with his hoax precisely because Social Text was not a peer-reviewed journal and did not pretend to be, thus rendering the entire exercise invalid.

        5. ‘but it isn’t valuable, and it isn’t science.’ Well the former is your subjective judgement. Moreover, the article did not claim to be science. The lead author is an historian and the journal in which the article was published is dedicated to Human Geography — a field in the humanities.

        1. People keep referencing the Sokal Affair; but Sokal was able to get away with his hoax precisely because Social Text was not a peer-reviewed journal and did not pretend to be, thus rendering the entire exercise invalid.

          Well, we can also take a look at the “Arming America” saga, a similarly peer-reviewed, award-winning study that ended up being completely discredited after people started looking into Bellesiles’ sources–I still see idiots citing this book in their gun control arguments because it fits their confirmation bias, not because it’s credible. While comparing it to the Sokal affair isn’t a great analogy, it’s a useful tool in demonstrating the use of boilerplate academic jargon as a substitute for empirical scientific inquiry.

          1. Except, of course, Bellesiles’ work was not littered with ‘boilerplate academic jargon’ and though non-experts complained about it, it was, in fact, experts who trawled through the probate records in order to prove that Bellesiles’ work was, contrary to initial reports, poor in the extreme. In short, Bellesiles’ failures were exposed regardless of political sentiment, which actually rather undermines the sad conspiracy theory you are peddling.

            1. it was, in fact, experts who trawled through the probate records in order to prove that Bellesiles’ work was, contrary to initial reports, poor in the extreme.

              Only after “non-experts” were pointing out the problems with his thesis and Bellesiles himself was mocking them as such with pathetic appeals to authority.

              In short, Bellesiles’ failures were exposed regardless of political sentiment, which actually rather undermines the sad conspiracy theory you are peddling.

              1. His failures were exposed because the public backlash and media coverage on it was so strong that Emory had no choice but to re-examine his work. This after the supposedly “airtight” peer-review process had resulted in a Bancroft prize. 2. It’s not a conspiracy theory to note that most academics, especially in the humanities, have spouted the same ideological paradigm for several decades now and that this paper is just the latest example. Constructing a synthesis of existing literature under a 45-year-old intellectual framework isn’t exactly breaking new ground.

  90. I have thought for years that conservatives might attack the academic monoculture by exposing the pseudoscience of the left. However, to do that, we have to be more credible than they are. The elephant in the room is evolution. We cannot hope to be taken seriously as long as conservatism is associated with anti-evolutionism. So I sent a piece in to American Thinker saying just that. I got a rejection notice advising me to read Michael Behe’s garbage-fest, Darwin’s Black Box. I have. It’s as worthless as the feminist glacier piece. And now we have climate denialism to go along with it. To me, one of the core values of conservatism is honesty, which means, among other things, that if you don’t have technical expertise in a subject, you shut up. Then we have 9/11 truthers, Holocaust deniers, apologists for slavery, and the list goes on. We are so screwed.

    1. You mean like when Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, wrote that Africa should be run by the Chinese.

      http://galton.org/letters/afri…..hinese.htm

      It’s all a hoot.

  91. For those of you who think this paper is a hoax, all you have to do is click the link and see that it goes to a real journal. And you’re too lazy or incompetent even to do that?

    1. Nobody said it was a hoax for days now.

  92. Clearly a level of idiocy worthy of summarizing the current state of our nation.

    Although not nearly as stupid as Michelle Obama’s graduate thesis

    Please look it up. She is a complete moron and her points are almost as incomprehensible.

  93. Nice looking honey pie sitting on that glacier. I wonder if it makes her nipples hard?

  94. Nice looking honey pie sitting on that glacier. I wonder if it makes her nipples hard?

  95. No way are there 450+ comments on glacier genders. Did this get mixed up with PM links?

  96. Waw great , thanks

  97. thank you my dear robby . its very good article really i hope write more
    ________
    rwad altamiuz for services Offering the best deals and discounts on the occasion of holy month of Ramadan offers ???? ??? ???? ???????

  98. I’m still a little skeptical about this one. Didn’t that other story about the University of Oregon removing a Martin Luther King quote turn out to be a false?
    Doggy Dans Online Dog Trainer / Greatest Motivational Quotes

  99. Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique ? un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 derni?res ann?es et ce blog est vraiment bon cet ?crivain a les capacit?s pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    ?????
    ????? ???

  100. Thanks for sharing visit Vein Clinic for best result vein treatment.

  101. nice and a grate post about giant hunk of ice. for more info visit Orthodontist Near Me

  102. Do not know how to introduce your study? Read this article and make a conclusion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.