Government Grant Funds Study of Sexist Glaciers Abstract
I recently learned that I have been suffering under the misconception that glaciers were safe. Then all of the knowledge I have accumulated in the last fifty years was turned on its ear with the realization that not only are they not safe, but glaciers are deeply sexist.
Researchers at the University of Oregon performing pivotal research have published a study entitled Glaciers, Gender, and Science, A Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research, thanks to a $709,125 grant of US taxpayer money from the National Science Foundation, an organization that has clearly exhausted every possible option to fund legitimate scientific endeavors.
An abstract of the study reads: 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.
Government Grant Funds Study of Sexist Glaciers
Researchers at the University of Oregon have determined that glaciers are deeply sexist, as is the science that studies them. This ‘research’ was upsetting, because I was no longer comfortable in the knowledge that glaciers were safe. Until now, I’d never had a single glacier worry.
Learning that glaciers are sexist rocked my belief system and I haven’t had a fitful night’s sleep since. Who knows what harm could have befallen us were it not for the taxpayer funded research conducted by these top shelf scientists to expose glacier sexism.
The study, Glaciers, Gender and Science, A Feminist Glaciology Framework for Global Environmental Change Research by historian Dr. Mark Carey, was published in January 2016. The paper’s abstract summarizes the study as, “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.” It was published in the peer-reviewed Journal Progress in Human Geography.
“Most existing glaciological research – and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change – stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses,” Carey wrote. “These characteristics apply to scientific disciplines beyond glaciology; there is an explicit need to uncover the role of women in the history of science and technology, while also exposing processes for excluding women from science and technology.”
In studying sexist glaciers, Carey concluded that glacier research is intertwined with gender relations, masculine culture, geopolitics, institutional power and, of course racism. These then led to glacier-related academic and government jobs being predominantly filled by men.
Carey attempted to link flooding from a glacial lake with an increase of sexually transmitted infections in women. These academics said the study showed, “how men’s voices have dominated the research” and complained that “power and colonialism have shaped the science” when discussing the research on the university website. The scientists blame “the era of Victorian Imperialism” for the lack of female glaciologists. [socialpoll id=”2341731″]
I was deeply puzzled by what is obviously junk science. But it all began to make sense when I learned that Carey had also helped found the University of Oregon’s Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples Initiative. Between his work studying climate change and his work studying sexist glaciers, the man has spent the better part of his career on endeavors more accurately described as twaddle than science.
The reason I was initially interested in the study, is because it was funded by the American taxpayers, through a $709,125 grant from the National Science Foundation. On this point I am deeply concerned, because taxpayer money funded this expedition into junk science.
After reading the article about this pivotal study in The Daily Caller, I was convinced we had reached rock bottom and couldn’t possibly sink any lower into the realm of the dimwitted. I was proven wrong when I read the comments on the article, and was immediately saddened, because I knew all was lost.
There were comments that applauded the study while lamenting the oppressive, sexist workplaces that female academics and researchers must endure. Still others attacked the author of the article, calling him a shill for big oil and referring to his writing as fascist propaganda.
It was crystal clear to me, at that moment, that Nikita Khrushchev was right.