Academics at the University of Oregon have determined that glaciers and the science that studies them are deeply sexist.
“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,” reads the paper’s abstract. The research was published in the peer-reviewed journal Progress in Human Geography in January.
The study, by historian Dr. Mark Carey and some student researchers, was financially supported by taxpayer dollars. The National Science Foundation (NSF) gave Carey a five-year grant which he used to write his “feminist glaciology” paper. Carey has received $709,125 in grants from the NSF, according to his curriculum vitae.
“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.”
Carey concluded glacier research is intertwined with gender relations, masculine culture, geopolitics, institutional power and racism — these apparently led to to glacier-related academic and governmental jobs being predominantly filled by men. Damages from melting glaciers target women and ethnic minorities, who “are more vulnerable to glacier changes and hazards than are men,” according to Carey.
The study shocked many academics and real scientists, and several initially believed the study was a work of satire.
“Who knew there was such a thing as ‘feminist glaciology?’”Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “I can’t satirize it. The scientists do that in their own abstract.”
Cornell University chemist Dr. Phil Mason, took to Twitter Sunday to say the paper left him”dumbfounded.”
Carey attempted to link flooding from a glacial lake with an increase of sexually transmitted infections in women. The academic and his colleagues said the paper 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.
“Do we really need a study to tell us that glacier nerds are more likely to be men than women,” Marlo Lewis, an analyst at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, told TheDCNF “Or that women in developing countries are ‘more confined to their homes and child rearing’ when sudden glacier melt causes local flooding?”
Carey also helped found the University of Oregon’s Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples Initiative.
“Predictably, the authors fail to see the ‘sexist’ nature of today’s climate agenda, which seeks to restrict people’s access to the most affordable, abundant, and reliable forms of energy,” Lewis said. “Energy poverty is literally lethal, and in energy-poor countries, it is women and children who suffer most.”
Carey did not respond to requests for comment.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
We have lost our collective minds.
Thankfully not all of us.
“Feds paid $709,000″…..This should read:
“The
U.S. taxpayers were duped via an unaccountable federal bureaucracy into
paying “women’s studies” graduates for another useless, feel-good-we’re
saving mankind” study.”
Actually, it should read “Feds paid nothing….”
You see, what the author fails to point out, is that the grant was NOT for this study. The grant was a research education grant. The sad thing is, it also wasn’t for $709,000. That number is a complete lie. Fabricated. The grant Dr Carey received was $413,000.
Now, no doubt, you’ll think “well, that’s close enough” (aside from being completely wrong), but consider how you have been manipulated… If this so-called journalist had presented the actual facts, that someone published an article while being a research educator (and performing climatology research)… Well, perhaps you would have reacted in just as ridiculous a manner, but then why the lies??
I think that you are very familiar with ridiculous.
Perhaps the person approving the grant thought a typo changed “glaciers exist” to “glacier sexist”. Nah … probably some mandated regulation that all academic fields conform to gender equality protocols.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Reality has a lib’rulllll bias, sorry.
Best,
D
Thus Dano proves Copper’s point.
Sure, sure.
Best,
D
Reality has no bias.
Sure, sure.
Best,
D
You would think that someone with a PhD would be embarrassed to put his or her name on something so…worthless and wasteful. Besides, what does it say about an out-of-control and unaccountable Federal bureaucracy willing to waste so much money and time – the real outrage is $709,000 is considered chump change.
Absolutely. My good friend in college that I ran around with for years lost his head. He started on his PhD. He was so sure of himself he put his younger brother in the hospital twice convincing him to do stupid things. Once I am sure he cut his brother off racing motorcycles so he wouldn’t lose which caused his little brother permanent nerve damage. Psycho. When he graduated he wanted us to call him doctor. I told him to F off and didn’t see him for years. Ran into him 15 years ago at the ski slopes and he tried to make conversation. Still arrogant. I just said what ever, looking at the junker he was driving. Life had caught up with him.
A moral disorder.