Author Topic: Glaciers, gender, and science  (Read 16038 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Glaciers, gender, and science
« on: March 13, 2016, 04:42:16 am »
Our government in its wisdom granted $400K to researchers at the University of Oregon (edit: also) for this scientific research titled "Glaciers, gender, and science,A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research". 

From the abstract

Quote
... 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.

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.long

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 01:50:35 am by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline elgonzo

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2016, 05:50:54 am »
Let me make an educated guess: Pseudo-feminist research is lamenting the hyper-sexualisation of women. Male-dominated societies encourage females to be(come) hot women, which -- depending on the overall hotness of women -- contributes to global warming. Hot women also cause males to go into heat, further contributing to global warming. Global warming, as we all know, causes the melting and eventual disappearance of glaciers. Without societies pressuring women to be hot and therefore also leading to fewer males in heat, global warming can be reduced, and thus glaciers preserved. Also, many glaciers have to endure many, many mountaineers crawling over them. Mostly the white glaciers are attracting mountaineers. Considering that white glaciers are female and the overwhelming majority of mountaineers are males, this constitutes sexual harassment. Which has to stop!
Where can i pick up my nobel prize as well as the life-time award in pseudo-feminist stupidity?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 05:59:11 am by elgonzo »
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2016, 05:55:44 am »
Quote
Where can i pick up my nobel prize as well as the life-time award in pseudo-feminist stupidity?

I don't think you are eligible for nobel prize: you actually did something about it and that disqualified you.

You should take a lesson from Mr. Obama who won the peace prize by doing nothing.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline AF6LJ

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2884
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2016, 06:10:07 am »
Okay this is just plain stupid.
I always thought radical feminism was tin foil hat crap to begin with; this takes to a new level.

Sue AF6LJ
Test Equipment Addict, And Proud Of It.
 

Offline Mechanical Menace

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1293
  • Country: gb
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2016, 06:16:58 am »
Because glaciers represent the patriarchy? :wtf: has geology got to do with feminism? Feminism is at best part of political science or sociology.
Second sexiest ugly bloke on the forum.
"Don't believe every quote you read on the internet, because I totally didn't say that."
~Albert Einstein
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2016, 06:43:44 am »
$400k ~ 1000 Rigol oscilloscopes.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14889
  • Country: za
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2016, 06:54:53 am »
I think this covers it.....



 

Offline German_EE

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1948
  • Country: de
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2016, 07:02:17 am »
The paper sounds like an exercise in buzzword bingo. Women are quite capable of becoming engineers and/or scientists (and hello to board member Sue AF6LJ). The following female scientists spring to mind:

Marie Curie
Diane Fossey
Grace Hopper
Heather Cooper
Amy Mainzer
Carolyn Porco
Michelle Thaller
Marie-Anne Lavoisier
Margaret Thatcher
Angela Merkel
Ada Lovelace

I suppose that fictional scientists could set a good example so we can also add Maj. Samantha Carter and Dr Beverley Crusher.

Female engineers? During WWII whilst the men went to war the women worked in the factories building the weapons, everything from shells to bombers.

Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

Warren Buffett
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1088
  • Country: gb
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2016, 07:37:55 am »
The paper is very possibly politically correct drivel, but zapta's presentation of the 'facts' is also nonsense.

The NSF did not remotely spend $400,000 on one scientific paper. If you actually read the abstract for the award, to which he thoughtfully provided a link, it covers a five-year program of research and doesn't mention feminism once.

Like many of us on this forum I have little time for or interest in social science, but it does serve a function. If you are going to criticize its practitioners, however fatuous their output, stick to the truth.  The misrepresentation of science for political ends is a far worse sin than a "feminist glaciology framework".
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2016, 08:37:17 am »
"I think this covers it....."

The producer of that video seems to be shocked at the support that lady fraudster received from big name companies.

That kind of phenomenon is not unique to her and is a reflection of how effective and powerful the PC crowd has been at shaking down everyone.

NPR did a piece a while back about politics behind the diversity push at silicon valley firms. The black caucus has been the biggest supporter of those movements, and as a result they have been the biggest receiver of sv money, or sponsorship of their activities. Yet, whether the actual diversity in those firms change or not is not important to those politicians.

Similarly here, those sponsors are more scared of being labeled as not caring about women issues. Their sponsorship is a small price to pay to buy protection.

Not different than the Mafia of the past. Except the mafias has to work too hard for their payoffs.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2641
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2016, 09:45:08 am »
While this one is styled around feminism, this kind of stuff abounds through all of the "soft" academic programs.  It survives for a variety of reasons, including the "protection" theory mentioned above.  Others include a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of mutual support between those who need grants and sponsors for their living, and a sincere belief by some in the meaning and truth of this drivel.  Anyone who has ever visited Sedona, Arizona knows there are plenty of the latter folk on this planet.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2016, 11:42:16 am »
At some levels, however, I find this kind of absurd speeches valuable: it is a confirmation that we live in a reasonable open-minded society where even idiots like that get to speak their minds.

Singularity in speeches, even if all "good", is dangerous to a democratic society.

Quote
Sedona, Arizona

What's wrong with Sedona? A beautiful town in a beautiful country.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Online GreyWoolfe

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2768
  • Country: us
  • NW0LF
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2016, 01:28:26 pm »
Not different than the Mafia of the past. Except the mafias has to work too hard for their payoffs.

Big difference from the Mafia of the past.  The Mafia mostly took out their own over territory battles.  The Feminists will take out anyone who gets in their way.
Why do people who know the least know it the loudest?
 

Online blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 10030
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2016, 02:29:17 pm »
I guess they HAD to write a paper but had no topics, so they went down this path.

Giving any social group special "treat" is just plain discrimination. Women do not need special research/work/... care, and privilege should be considered as discrimination.
SIGSEGV is inevitable if you try to talk more than you know. If I say gibberish, keep in mind that my license plate is SIGSEGV.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2641
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2016, 03:08:01 pm »
Sedona is a beautiful place, I love to poke around the monoliths and enjoy the scenery.  But you run into many people enthralled with the "force vortexes", extolling pyramid power and comparing the efficacies of their favorite crystals.  What do you say to someone you meet on a trail who greets you with something like "Did you feel that spirit vortex around the corner?".  It is like a town overrun with Audiophools.
 

Offline HAL-42b

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 423
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2016, 04:49:56 pm »
We started seeing this a lot lately but the phenomenon seems almost entirely limited to USA. When we draw a picture of what the "feminists" are trying to attack we get a pretty accurate picture that there is some political think tank playing with lots of corporate money, a PR agency or three and possibly a three letter agency. 

Fields and areas that have been directly attacked so far:
 - Free speech at universities.
 - Climate research
 - Free software
 - Gaming industry
 - Some media and entertainment.

So the targets are generally young, educated, socially progressive and may present a threat to the status quo. We do not expect to see "Feminism in the petrochemical industry" or "Feminism in the fiscal policy" for example. You need a community with certain properties in order to be able to pull it off.

So I'm calling this social attack "CRITICISM PREEMPTION"

Instead of publicly going against a harmful idea you infiltrate it with 'clowns' which seem to agree with the idea but actually are working to dilute and derail it by acting in ridiculous manner. This way the public will ridicule the whole field and the serious people in that field will refrain from associating themselves with it.  This way you weaken the harmful idea without drawing criticism to yourself.

How it worked so far:

 - "Safe Spaces" practically precluded political free speech in universities.
 - "Black lives matter" seriously diluted discussions of race issues in America.
 - "Gamergate" raised the signal to noise ratio and divided the young gamer community.
 - "Code of Conduct" in the software industry interrupted some work but hasn't been very effective so far.
 - Attacks on Matt Taylor drew attention away from the (non-NASA) Rosetta mission and discredited the scientist.
 - Disingenuous "scientific" paper about  climate change is likely to dilute the climate change research as a whole.

I'm sure there are many more incidents I'm not aware of.
 

Online mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3487
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2016, 04:56:36 pm »
The paper is very possibly politically correct drivel, but zapta's presentation of the 'facts' is also nonsense.

The NSF did not remotely spend $400,000 on one scientific paper. If you actually read the abstract for the award, to which he thoughtfully provided a link, it covers a five-year program of research and doesn't mention feminism once.

Like many of us on this forum I have little time for or interest in social science, but it does serve a function. If you are going to criticize its practitioners, however fatuous their output, stick to the truth.  The misrepresentation of science for political ends is a far worse sin than a "feminist glaciology framework".

+1

The "paper" is simply a silly essay and is not a scientific research paper at all as claimed.

The $400k is the cumulative total of a research grant spanning many years for actual research - not essay writing.

Yep, misrepresentation of science for political ends is exactly right.

---
Add:  It's even worse because if you look at the authors - the last listed - who by tradition in scientific publishing is the most important author, is Jaclyn Rushing who:
Quote
graduated from the University of Oregon's Robert D. Clark Honors College with a BA in Environmental Studies and Romance Languages. Currently, she is pursuing a MS in Forestry at Oregon State University. Her research interests include human dimensions of natural resources and outdoor recreation.

So  she is not even at University of Oregon where the grant money is. She likely wrote this while an undergrad at U of O with Carey as an adviser and he simply agreed to sponsor the publication for her.

His bio, his grant,  and his research have nothing to do with feminism.

This is just shameless distortion of the facts for political purposes..

« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 05:10:18 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2016, 05:10:03 pm »
From the authors:

Quote
Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant #1253779. Thanks to the Geography Colloquium Series at Ohio State University for valuable input on this project.
Drain the swamp.
 

Online mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3487
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2016, 05:20:26 pm »
From the authors:

Quote
Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant #1253779. Thanks to the Geography Colloquium Series at Ohio State University for valuable input on this project.

See my addition to the above post. That's how it works in environmental science and other programs. An undergrad approaches a faculty member to sponsor their senior thesis. The faculty adviser - even if he has no substantial hand in writing the senior thesis - is the sponsor.  If he is recipient of an NSF grant, he is obligated to disclose that.  The fact remains that this is not a research paper and Carey's grant money is used for actual research that has nothing to do with feminism. At most Rushing would have been paid a small stipend of a few hundred dollars to write this essay.  Any attempt to portray it otherwise is simply wrong.

 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2016, 05:40:10 pm »
... That's how it works in environmental science and other programs. An undergrad approaches a faculty member to sponsor their senior thesis. The faculty adviser - even if he has no substantial hand in writing the senior thesis - is the sponsor.  If he is recipient of an NSF grant, he is obligated to disclose that.  The fact remains that this is not a research paper and Carey's grant money is used for actual research that has nothing to do with feminism. At most Rushing would have been paid a small stipend of a few hundred dollars to write this essay.  Any attempt to portray it otherwise is simply wrong.

Her website suggests that she is/was a research assistant to Mark Carey, so the academic relationship was not as casual as you suggest.

"I am currently a research assistant examining the effects of climate change on glaciers and mountain communities."

"...Researched the impact of climate change on glaciers in the Pacific Northwest, the Himalayas, and gender glacier relationship for Mark Carey PhD. at the University of Oregon."

http://jrrushing.weebly.com/
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 26789
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2016, 05:50:03 pm »
Our government in its wisdom granted $400K to researchers at the University of Oregon for this scientific research titled "Glaciers, gender, and science,A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research". 

First time I saw an article on this I thought it had to be an Onion spoof. But then I remembered the alternate reality the SJW's have created is actually real :palm:
I think I need to go to my Safe Space, on Mars.
But then, Mars is sexist  ::)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 05:57:02 pm by EEVblog »
 

Online mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3487
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2016, 06:05:59 pm »

Her website suggests that she is/was a research assistant to Mark Carey, so the academic relationship was not as casual as you suggest.

Also known as "padding a resume"

The title "research assistant" is given to anyone associated with a researcher, even the undergrads washing beakers or just tabulating data.

Note that the paper in the OP has no data or research of any kind. Likely it is just an attempt by an overzealous 21 year old undergrad to tie her newly discovered feminist ideology into her environmental science major.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2016, 06:17:24 pm »

Her website suggests that she is/was a research assistant to Mark Carey, so the academic relationship was not as casual as you suggest.

Also known as "padding a resume"

The title "research assistant" is given to anyone associated with a researcher, even the undergrads washing beakers or just tabulating data.

mtdoc, you are making things up again.

Carey, the main investigator of this grant clearly hired Russhing:

Quote
When UO historian Mark Carey hired Jaclyn Rushing, an undergraduate student in the Robert D. Clark Honors College, to explore how nongovernmental organizations were addressing melting Himalayan glaciers, he got an unexpected return.

he supported here research into gender/glacier issues:

Quote
Expanding the investigation made sense, Carey said. "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."

and when she left he brought in replacement to continue her line of research:

Quote
After Rushing graduated and left for Oregon State University to pursue a graduate degree, Carey brought in M Jackson, a doctoral student in geography, and Alessandro Antonello, a postdoctoral research fellow in the honors college, to look deeper into the science of glacier studies and explore the gender issues.

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

https://around.uoregon.edu/content/glaciers-melt-more-voices-research-are-needed
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline HAL-42b

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 423
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2016, 06:27:20 pm »
I don't believe this grant happened on it's own, without prodding from upstairs, considering how tight the money is in the field.
 

Online mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3487
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2016, 06:41:06 pm »
Zapta, are you stalking her now?

Your OP  is a lie with your usual anti science, climate denial, political agenda having nothing to do with the silly essay linking glaciers to feminism. Everthing else is a smokescreen.

Our government in its wisdom granted $400K to researchers at the University of Oregon for this scientific research titled "Glaciers, gender, and science,A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research". 

No $400k granted for this paper. No scientific research in the paper. The OP is a lie.

That said, feminisn and glaciers? Give me a frickin break...
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf