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

"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".

More from All

कुंडली में 12 भाव होते हैं। कैसे ज्योतिष द्वारा रोग के आंकलन करते समय कुंडली के विभिन्न भावों से गणना करते हैं आज इस पर चर्चा करेंगे।
कुण्डली को कालपुरुष की संज्ञा देकर इसमें शरीर के अंगों को स्थापित कर उनसे रोग, रोगेश, रोग को बढ़ाने घटाने वाले ग्रह


रोग की स्थिति में उत्प्रेरक का कार्य करने वाले ग्रह, आयुर्वेदिक/ऐलोपैथी/होमियोपैथी में से कौन कारगर होगा इसका आँकलन, रक्त विकार, रक्त और आपरेशन की स्थिति, कौन सा आंतरिक या बाहरी अंग प्रभावित होगा इत्यादि गणना करने में कुंडली का प्रयोग किया जाता है।


मेडिकल ज्योतिष में आज के समय में Dr. K. S. Charak का नाम निर्विवाद रूप से प्रथम स्थान रखता है। उनकी लिखी कई पुस्तकें आज इस क्षेत्र में नए ज्योतिषों का मार्गदर्शन कर रही हैं।
प्रथम भाव -
इस भाव से हम व्यक्ति की रोगप्रतिरोधक क्षमता, सिर, मष्तिस्क का विचार करते हैं।


द्वितीय भाव-
दाहिना नेत्र, मुख, वाणी, नाक, गर्दन व गले के ऊपरी भाग का विचार होता है।
तृतीय भाव-
अस्थि, गला,कान, हाथ, कंधे व छाती के आंतरिक अंगों का शुरुआती भाग इत्यादि।

चतुर्थ भाव- छाती व इसके आंतरिक अंग, जातक की मानसिक स्थिति/प्रकृति, स्तन आदि की गणना की जाती है


पंचम भाव-
जातक की बुद्धि व उसकी तीव्रता,पीठ, पसलियां,पेट, हृदय की स्थिति आंकलन में प्रयोग होता है।

षष्ठ भाव-
रोग भाव कहा जाता है। कुंडली मे इसके तत्कालिक भाव स्वामी, कालपुरुष कुंडली के स्वामी, दृष्टि संबंध, रोगेश की स्थिति, रोगेश के नक्षत्र औऱ रोगेश व भाव की डिग्री इत्यादि।

You May Also Like

Oh my Goodness!!!

I might have a panic attack due to excitement!!

Read this thread to the end...I just had an epiphany and my mind is blown. Actually, more than blown. More like OBLITERATED! This is the thing! This is the thing that will blow the entire thing out of the water!


Has this man been concealing his true identity?

Is this man a supposed 'dead' Seal Team Six soldier?

Witness protection to be kept safe until the right moment when all will be revealed?!

Who ELSE is alive that may have faked their death/gone into witness protection?


Were "golden tickets" inside the envelopes??


Are these "golden tickets" going to lead to their ultimate undoing?

Review crumbs on the board re: 'gold'.


#SEALTeam6 Trump re-tweeted this.