Our top 15 tweets

A #prodmgmt thread 👇

https://t.co/Yv854Sd3P3
https://t.co/sXaMH1bZ9m
https://t.co/5X7bOTsS7m
https://t.co/w1y6LTtPS2
https://t.co/0AODFhRjZh
https://t.co/KggLm4rIf0
https://t.co/HLTJhsu3TB
https://t.co/QN8hClua5m
https://t.co/wO442T9wrb
https://t.co/w1y6LTtPS2
https://t.co/sJI488WgLd
https://t.co/fUXoS5BNVJ
https://t.co/NqCJJtvXn9
https://t.co/qD8pNhUXib
https://t.co/NGJiEgVB08

More from Education

You May Also Like

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?