This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".

The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
The evidence presented is a grab bag of facts scattered around historical time periods that amount to causal claims by mass of circumstantial evidence. The Times article, the fact that overseas scientific expeditions were colonialist (+ colonialism is a man thing)...
Is any of this actually true? The basic assumption here is that the "narrative" that is what matters, and the way to fix the problem of sexism in science is to get counter-narratives going. Here's one they propose, from a "source of native wisdom"(tm, my scare quotes)
I guess the problem for women in field research is that they want to feel deferential to glaciers?
Are glaciers governed by the laws of physics, or are they sentient beings who don't like the smell of grease? To assert the former is "masculinist", and I suppose feminist. Also, great end quote on this page.
Also anti-feminist: using computer models of glacier formation, rather than considering the spiritual aspects of glacierness.
(Just for the record, I kind of pre-committed to this tweet thread, and I had no idea just how bizarre this journey was going to get.)
Researchers should consider the possibility that satellite images of ice flows are actually porn. (Why? Because the authors saw a piece of art.)
HOWEVER, it is OK to see glacier porn if you are up close. (This is actually one of the "core issues in feminist geography").
Just for the record, this is not a sort of whimsical or literary-criticism piece—although the authors seem to confuse literary criticism with sociology and STS. These "results" are going to be important components that will unstick international policy on climate change.
I hesitate to suggest this, but I am not sure the authors have make a good case for this.
Presumably, the authors think that scientific objectivity, physical courage, the use of computer models, and of fluid dynamics are anti-feminist, or at least highly suspicious. Not only that, but it's totally obvious, so they can just cite people who agree.
You might call this article a political opinion piece pretending to be scholarship, but that's a bit generous, because it involves so many strange assumptions (e.g., words create reality, like, literally, rising sea levels) that what the authors mean by politics is unclear.

More from Simon DeDeo

More from All

You May Also Like

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
THREAD

1)
@SidneyPowell1 reflects on #Iran’s meddling in the U.S. in a recent tweet to U.S. President Donald Trump.

This thread focuses on Iran’s dangerous influence in the U.S., especially through its DC-based lobby group


2)
Why is this important?

@DNI_Ratcliffe "told CBS News that there was foreign election interference by China, #Iran & Russia in November of this year [2020]."

All Americans should be informed about how Iran & its lobby group NIAC are meddling in the


3)
#Iran has been increasingly aiming to interfere in U.S. elections specifically through NIAC.

DNI John Ratcliffe had previously shed light on this vital


4)
NIAC is a lobby group in the U.S. pushing Iran’s talking points.

Listen to this Iranian regime insider explain that NIAC was established by @JZarif, the foreign minister of


5)
@tparsi is the official founder of NIAC in the U.S.

Listen to how Trita Parsi parrots Zarif’s talking