Reason Excoriates Paper On "Glaciers, Gender, and Science" (reason.com) 523
An anonymous reader writes: Reason.com's Robby Soave criticizes an article published in the journal Progress in Human Geography, for being "utterly incomprehensible," and "the least essential paper ever written." Entitled Glaciers, Gender, and Science--A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change, the article is authored by researchers at the University of Oregon and funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Despite being filled with "buzzwords -- colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc. -- with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a joke," the article is accompanied by an enthusiastic press release from the University of Oregon, stating that "glacier research has been intertwined with gender relations, masculine cultures of exploration, geopolitics, and individual and institutional power. That, in turn, led to glacier-related academic and governmental jobs being predominantly filled by men. ... Melting glaciers are today considered a national security risk for numerous countries,' [one of the researchers] said. 'Power and colonialism have shaped the science.' That message is detailed extensively in the paper."
Funded by the NSF (Score:5, Insightful)
Your tax dollars at work.
Re: Funded by the NSF (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Illuminati (Masonic) Jewish central bankers who created Communism
:eyeroll:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well cupcake why don't you make a try at it.
The facts seem to bother you for some reason. Who better to say why ?.
More on the grant (Score:5, Interesting)
The NSF is usually very careful about who it gives money to; only something like 10% of funding request are granted. For those who are curious, the basic grant information on this grant is available from the NSF:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch... [nsf.gov]
The grant was done through the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (specifically the division of Social and Economic Sciences) -- as opposed to the Geosciences Directorate, which I believe normally handles the climate change work. (The NSF is divided into different parts for funding different areas.)
FWIW, the house science committee has long been working [insidehighered.com] to cut the budget for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. I'm sure that good work gets funded by that directorate, but it sure does make me pissed that a BS grant like this gets funded, while more useful grants in applied physics (my area) don't get funded.
I wouldn't pin this bad grant on the NSF as a whole. Hopefully it's the exception for that directorate rather than the rule.
Re: (Score:3)
If they rolled 3D6 and only gave funding when it came up as 1 1 1 that would make them nearly twice as careful.
lol (Score:3)
"tldr: Its men's fault that ice melts when heated because the penis is the root of all evil."
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
"I am normally pretty supportive of feminist agendas as treating everyone equally is a strangely compelling idea, but I feel that this is such an easy target that I cannot ignore it."
The inability to see the internal contradiction within that sentence is a very common trait among those who are "pretty supportive of feminist agendas."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you read anything on this except Reason.com's takedown? Literally anything? Because this is Social Science, and they're reaction to Social Sciences tends to be heavily colored by the fact that most Scientists studying society do not actually find that Libertarianism is the One True Gospel. They're also much closer to the climate-skeptics camp then they like to admit, arguing the global-warmiong-pause,/a> is real and [reason.com] excoriating [reason.com] Di Caprio for using his Oscar Acceptance speech on the topic. Their stan
You Likely Do Have Access To Paper (Score:3)
Just an aside: If I hit a paywall, I usually made a sport of finding an unencumbered copy of a paper at an author's university home page.
In this case, it's not necessary. The full paper is available from the /. post's link. Once onto the Sage page, you'll find the links "Full Text" and "Full Text (PDF)" under the heading "This Article".
Re: (Score:3)
...If the research into that so far has only really looked at men, then the research is lacking, and it's right to publish a paper saying so.
Has it? That would be a good thing to research. The way to do that is to do some sort of analysis of the published literature, or publicity regarding glaciers, or reporting on it; then discuss how male-dominated terms affect public opinion (if any). Great, do that. The paper in question (and I read it) doesn't do anything of the sort. It makes bald assertions about gender bias regarding glaciers and talks about how that needs to be fixed, but doesn't 1) show that it's a problem based on any sort of a
Re:Funded by the NSF (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an ugly truth:
Democracy must pander to the majority, which happens to be women.
And there's not much you can do about it.
Democracy doesn't imply that every human has a vote, nor that each vote has equal weight. Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated. I tend to agree,
Others have had votes with different weighting, much like some publicly traded companies have.
Re:Funded by the NSF (Score:5, Interesting)
Athen used to be fine and non imperialist until it stopped being an imperfect democracy to embrace Plato's "meritocratic" Republic based on fame and money.
Then, greek civilization disappeared in a war driven by the private interest of a few incompetent selfish people.
Such as Alcibiade, the one described as Socrates lover. Plato's master.
Remember Periclès words that echoes Eisenhower's. Ploutocracy is the ennemy of democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad it's always impossible to vote up the reply to one's own posts. Yes, you disagree with me, but still deserve a +1 or four.
That said, like with communism, the main problem with Plato's views is that they were never tried. The Republic, like Das Kapital, was (of course, human nature being what it is) was used for giving one's own more power, and not follow the intent of what was written.
Merit cannot be measured by power or money - at least not in societies that allow inheritance or slavery. But it
Re:Funded by the NSF (Score:5, Interesting)
"Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated. I tend to agree,"
In the US, once upon a time, there was a layer of separation between the people and the federal government (the exception being the House of Representatives). Senators were mostly appointed by state legislatures and states would select who they wanted to be President by a popular vote and electors would actually VOTE but their votes were weighted by the number of representatives they had in congress (not quite, but close to populations).
We've been moving away from that and more towards direct democracy. Senators are now popularly elected. Some states are toying with the idea of splitting electors. Supreme court justices are now appointed based on their views rather than their understanding of the constitution and their qualifications as jurists. Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows.
To our founders, democracy was just as if not more scary than monarchy. Democracy, as scary as it was, was reined in and used as a tool to give the people a chance to "undo" or "fix" a government that went too far. The Constitution not only defines the governments powers, but by design, limited the damage the "mob" could do by limiting their voice -- the Constitution, which SHOULD be protecting our rights, liberties and freedoms has been nibbled away by rulings not based on reason and the constitution but by passions.
I honestly don't know if this snowball can be stopped. One of our nations rally crys at birth was "no taxation without representation". We have countless examples of the opposite (which I believe to be equally bad) -- representation without taxation. With both the Senate and House being elected by the people directly and the constitution being "interpreted" based on things other than it's intent and a senate (directly elected by the people) it makes it impossible to get a Justice appointed who doesn't fit the majority parties "group think". There is very little to counter the will of the people who have no skin in the game to ask for more as they don't need to pay for it.
We can focus all we want on the 1% -- but the fact is if you seize all their wealth in the US, you wouldn't even be able to cover a few years of deficit spending (never mind paying the debt) -- and in the meantime you've wreaked the economy.
Re: (Score:3)
"Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows."
So truly. That's why the US Constitution's preamble states that "We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution to safeward ourselves from the tiranny of a government".
Oh, wait, no, what it says is: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, e
Re: Funded by the NSF (Score:5, Interesting)
You didn't necessarily have to be a land owner (and certainly didn't have to be wealthy) to vote in the early days. Back in those days the only way it was possible to prove that you actually lived in the state whose government you were voting for is if you had to have some kind of proof in public record that you resided in said state. This was to prevent people from hopping over the border into the next state in order to game its election (this did actually happen in those days, hence the existence of laws aimed at preventing it.) That didn't necessarily have to be land, however having your name written on a deed for a piece of immovable property was a really easy (and common) way of achieving this.
Wealth never did enter into the equation, and neither did being white. In fact, after Independence was declared (1776) and both before and after the constitution was even a thing, (1788) blacks did actually have the right to vote in 7 of the original 13 states.
Transient/homeless people were able to vote once public record keeping got much better. Remember that back in those days, there were no ID cards, no social security numbers, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
We've been moving away from that and more towards direct democracy. Senators are now popularly elected.
There is one redeeming quality of life peerage in the upper house, like what was the case in Britain before: Those who sit for life tend to think long-term, for their own territory, and not just the next election or what the party whip or contributors tell them.
There are plenty of bad things about the system too, of course, but dual houses were meant to be completely separate, so that each one would hold the other in check and reduce the risk of bad laws being passed.
With senators just becoming the more po
Re: (Score:3)
In all honesty, I took it as an "Idiocracy" reference. Not an insult, but a complement.
Re: (Score:3)
"This is where a citation would come in really handy. I just LOVE it when people channel their inner Founding Father"
Really? I'm not interested in providing a high-school style research paper for lazy folks on material that SHOULD be common knowledge -- but how about Madison in Federalist 10 or 49?
"Passions? Really? Hey, here's an idea! How about a FUCKING CITATION so we know that the fuck you're talking about? Please cite for me a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"?"
Yes. Passions. Th
Re: (Score:3)
Plato also thought that a perfect society would involve forced mating with random individuals, with the children raised by a collective. Just because a famous philosopher thought it would be a neat idea doesn't make it right.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't there any kind of conviction that excludes the right to vote?
In most Western countries, no, there isn't. There's a good reason for that - disenfranchisement can be used by the powers that be to silence the opposition. This is not just theoretical - the US has a very bad history of just that, with "communists" being persecuted, convicted, their voting rights revoked, and their ability to run for high offices pretty much eradicated.
There are some safeguards in place - it is, if I remember correctly, fewer restrictions on running for president than for vice president
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it's much better than that. Keeping the population ignorant and un/under-educated makes it hard for them to detect when they're being sucked in by an astro-turfed mass-movement designed to make them believe (with the strength of religious faith) that what's good for corporations is good for them, dressing it all up in cynically bogus catchphrases and sloganeering that make routine use of the word 'freedom'.
Re:Funded by the NSF (Score:4, Informative)
Have you not been paying attention, man. The whole point of identity politics is to be able to more easily inform people that they are out of line, out of step with their "peers" and to be able to denigrate those that don't fit the stereotype as "identify haters".
There is no "identities all the way down" because those at the top decide which identities are valid, who fits the identity and which opinion the identity will have.
Because glaciers care... (Score:3, Funny)
Because glacier's and climate change care about your gender. -Bender.
Re: (Score:2)
Because glacier's and climate change care about your gender. -Bender.
Is that a real quote? -Aristophenese
Re: (Score:3)
Bite my shiny metal ass. -- ENIAC
Re: (Score:3)
Because glacier's and climate change care about your gender. -Bender.
No.
But the shit you care about depends partly on your gender. Which in turn means the shit you research as a scientist will depend partly on your gender.
Which means that if dudes are the ones doing all the glacier-climate change research it's likely there's more research into western-dude-type-stuff (Terrorism! Economics!) then into everything else (Family life! Heating! Clothesmaking!).
Given that people who live near glaciers are likely to freeze to death if somebody isn't taking the not-western-male shit
True Scotsmen nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole premise is that people find some science more credible than other science based on sexist judgments.
Agree, your defense of this paper is pretty conclusive evidence that some people can't tell the difference between a political argument and a scientific one.
Re: Because glaciers care... (Score:3)
Another Sokal affair ? (Score:5, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Re:Another Sokal affair ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another Sokal affair ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Another Sokal affair ? (Score:5, Informative)
Doubt it.
If you actually understand the terms she's using, the paper sounds fine. Or at least well within the normal traditions of feminism in the social sciences.
Men tend to be into very specific areas of interest. Which means they'll research those areas. That's not bad, and none of the individual men involved are doing anything wrong, and women tend to do the same thing. As a personal example, when I talk military history women tend to completely tune me out. When they're talking about things that are objectively speaking pretty important (ie: my immortal soul) that don't fit into my "dudes should be into this" box I tune them out. This also happens in the sciences, but in many sciences (particularly hard sciences with no human element) it's completely irrelevant.
This paper is about glacier-climate change research. And research into climate change frequently involves human elements because you're trying to figure out what can humans do to a) fix, b) mitigate, and/or c) respond to the problem. In those papers, half of what you're talking about is women doing women stuff. And a largely-male researcher base is likely to ignore some things that a female researcher-base would make the main headline of their paper.
Which is pretty much what feminists have been doing in social sciences ever since there have been feminists to be in the social sciences.
Re:Another Sokal affair ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, that there are papers around that make the sokal affair essay sound sane - and they're meant as a serious contribution to science. I've seen the bizarest of bullshit being taught in schools, with sociology leading the pack in the bullshit bingo camp, closely followed by just about anything that people in agencies do.
There are scientific articles out there that make less sense and are dumber than anything you can find on reality TV. And I'm not exaggerating.
Re: (Score:2)
people in agencies
You need to explain that to someone as old and slow as me.
Re:Another Sokal affair ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
University of Oregon. [nationalreview.com]
Nuff said.
Wishful thinking? (Score:3, Interesting)
I watch and listen to politicians and commercials which discount this being a hoax. Several times a day I hear the ads about how men need to teach their kids not to beat up women (the assumption of course is that they all do). Several times a day I hear about the gender gap and how men just abuse women and keep them out of the technical jobs. Several times a day I hear about the wage gap and 70c on the dollar myth. Several times a day I hear about how men rape women without ever getting near them. (Tod
Re:Wishful thinking? (Score:4, Funny)
To be fair, not all men are able to beat up their wives.
Adult Day Care (Score:2)
Proof positive that 20 years in an adult day care facility does not make one a genius. It also demonstrates that 30 years spent running an adult day care facility is capable of melting the brains of once intelligent men and women.
Re:Adult Day Care (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what happens when you start off with one faulty deduction.
"Jaclyn found a report that noted how women are more vulnerable to glacier changes and hazards than are men," said Carey, associate dean of the Clark Honors College and a professor of history and environmental studies. "I had never researched these gendered vulnerabilities."
That report linked flooding from a glacial lake with an increase of sexually transmitted infections in women [md-health.com]. "I was fascinated by how two seemingly disparate issues could be so intimately linked through glacial ice," Rushing said. "I wanted to know more about the relationship between women and ice, so we pursued the topic from climate-change vulnerability to knowledge."
Unless you're having sex with the wildlife, you get sexually transmitted diseases from, you know, sex with other humans. It's more likely to be a correlation between not being able to adequately dry off inner garbs while moving from flood areas, or staying in those areas, leading to more yeast infections which increases susceptibility to STDs [md-health.com].
People commonly believe that having sex will cause women to develop a yeast infection, but this is not the case. Women that are not having sex can still develop a yeast infection. In most cases a yeast infection occurs when the immune system is weak. Those that are overworked or tired can have a higher risk for developing a yeast infection. If you have just recovered from being ill or using antibiotics may also be susceptible to developing a yeast infection. Those that do not eat a proper diet, suffer from diabetes or are pregnant can also have an increased risk
A yeast infection is not a sexually transmitted disease in spite of the symptoms being relatively similar. However, if you have been scratching the vagina due to the itchiness associated with yeast infections you may have left small cuts on the skin that increase your risk of developing an STD.
Also, one report about flooding and stds around one lake does not good science make.
gotta be a joke, yes? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:gotta be a joke, yes? (Score:4, Interesting)
... it's to be published... in the April issue?
SCIgen strikes again? (Score:2)
"Men's voices generally are more represented in government than are women's voices," Carey said. "Women might be less able to migrate out of a flood zone during a sudden glacier melt. In Peru, we know that men migrate to the cities for jobs, whereas women are more confined to their homes and child rearing."
This whole thing reads like an auto-generated thesis.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't think there's a "sudden glacier melt", that would cause a crisis like a typhoon or something.
Re: (Score:3)
I was wondering the same thing. How sudden *is* a glacier melt, actually? Are we talking a decade? A century? Or more? Seems like even pregnant women could find the time to crawl to a safe place, even at a... glacial speed.
Somehow, this whole thing reminds me of Fire and Ice [youtube.com].
My take (Score:5, Informative)
They don't call it cultural marxism [mises.org] for nothing!
Re: (Score:2)
This stuff has nothing to do with Marxism; I'm always surprised to hear that "cultural Marxism" term. Who came up with it?!
Re:My take (Score:4, Informative)
The term has come up a bit with the gamergate vs anti-GG crowd, and discussions on the "regressive left" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Just reading the Wikipedia page on the Frankfurt School (which has a section on Cultural Marxism as mostly a derogatory right wing conspiracy theory) makes me wonder what even the Frankfurt School has to do with Marxism as a straight-up economic theory.
It also makes whatever Cultural Marxism actually is sound not exactly far-fetched, given the wide-ranging aspects of the Frankfurt School.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, good for the authors (Score:2)
You know, everybody has to scramble to make that cheddar. For some people it's being world renowned specialists in the gendered aspects of climate change research. For others it's founding a startup that builds drones for dogs, intended to ride on the dogs back and launch when commanded by the dog via neural signals to retrieve objects just out of reach. More power to them.
Possible explanation (Score:3, Interesting)
The part about melting glaciers and the impacts on the security of countries is legitimate. Even in highly developed countries, water is a highly sought resource. It's essential for power generation, agriculture, sanitation, and human consumption. This has resulted in legal squabbles in the United States, especially in which individuals, businesses, and states have agreements to be allocated a certain amount of water while others have a demonstrable need for the same water. In some states, this has led to laws making it illegal to even do things like collecting rain that falls on your own property. Places like California and the northern Great Plains depend on melting glaciers and snow pack for a significant amount of their water. That's also true elsewhere in the world, such as Tibet and Nepal, where water from melting glaciers in the Himalayas is a hugely important source of water to the region. While there have been significant steps toward gender equality in highly developed parts of the world, there are more traditional gender roles in many less developed parts of the world. This is especially true in places where it's frequent for men to leave their families and take jobs in other cities and countries as migrant workers to provide for their families while women remain in their homes. It's very possible in those regions that the impacts of water shortages will be different for women than for men. The research isn't entirely inexplicable, unlike what the summary author would want you to believe.
Re:Possible explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're right. However, the paper could have gotten to the point quicker, and done more to actually further that argument. Whereas instead, it seems to be written by somebody with a feminist axe to grind, and almost seems to intentionally bait the anti-sjw crowd. Most of the paper seems to follow the argument of "Women's contribution to science tends to be overlooked" => "Glaciology is science" => "Therefore we ought to focus on women's contributions to glaciology". This may be true, but it comes across as a lot of fist shaking, and not a lot of getting to the point about what specific advancements in that field in particular have been overlooked due to male-dominated science. It reads more like an undergrad term paper written for a women's study class than something belonging in a serious academic journal.
The really scary thing (Score:3, Insightful)
The "geologist" who wrote that could one day be a diversity hire on a project that might actually be important.
And she probably really believes that she's doing real science.
Re: (Score:3)
And she probably really believes that she's doing real science
She's a dude:
lead author Mark Carey
Re:The really scary thing (Score:5, Funny)
You have no right to apply such binary labels to zir gender!
"This is why you get Trump"? (Score:2)
Put stuff in a blender. (Score:2)
Changes in glaciers.
The Impact on vulnerable people and places.
The smaller role of women in science and technology.
Hit the blend switch.
Some stuff doesn't blend all that well.
Re: (Score:2)
Some stuff doesn't blend all that well.
That's because you should have used a Blend-Tec (tm).
Will it blend? That is the question.
(I hope I've also earwormed you with the blendtec will it blend tune)
Err ... (Score:3)
Happy International Women's Day, everyone?
Incorrectly dressed (Score:2)
That report linked flooding from a glacial lake with an increase of sexually transmitted infections in women. "I was fascinated by how two seemingly disparate issues could be so intimately linked through glacial ice," Rushing said. "I wanted to know more about the relationship between women and ice, so we pursued the topic from climate-change vulnerability to knowledge."
Global Warming cause [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gender and Glaciers??? (Score:2)
A little balance (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine the masculinity of the majority of researchers does not affect their research. The background of people always affects their outlook on life, so it's pretty likely something as fundamental as gender will too.
Historically, a lot of science has centred on conflict, and perhaps a little more female input would see more cooperation and manipulation in their subjects.
It's very probable a more even gender balance would result in more balanced science.
That would be good.
But feminist geology, l
Ice is just ice (Score:5, Insightful)
The introduction of the paper brings up the idea that "ice is just ice" and then dismisses it. If I am understanding the paper correctly (and how can I be certain of that!) the idea is that people care about glaciers, therefore there is a sociological component to them:
(italics in original)
The paper goes on to say that most research on glaciers was produced by males, which of course is a problem.
No, I didn't punch that up to make it funny, the original really says "men, with manly characteristics".
Again, this is the original text. "penetrate" and "exploitation" are both from the paper.
So the paper argues that all existing knowledge of glaciers is tainted by the maleness of the research, and also by the "colonialism" of the research. In short, not even the study of glaciers can be a pure study of the natural world; glacier scientists must be feminist postcolonial social-justice warriors.
The conclusion of the paper states:
I'm not convinced. The paper is very long on speculation and very short on evidence. If the maleness and colonialism of glacier studies have given us a blind spot in our understanding of what glaciers are, then give at least one example.
Even in the paper, female mountaineers and female scientists are mentioned. If the study of glaciers somehow rejected these women and their contributions, the paper doesn't give any examples.
Also I reject the paper's idea that the word "glaciology" should be expanded to include sociological and feminist context. It seems like a transparent attempt to latch fuzzy SJW ideas onto a natural science. Ice really is just ice; people can study ice without studying how society reacts to ice.
Oh God, Why Hath Thou Forsaken Us (Score:2)
If our choice is between feminism and libertarianism, as the end of the article proposes, I think that I will take living in the woods growing my video games in the garden and sucking my internet from bark.
Being serious for the moment, I think this is an example of the sort of academic isolation which eventually got Turing arrested. If you work at the history department of a university where all you ever hear about is culture, gender and activism, it is unsurprising that you might forget that we live in a w
Age old fallacy (Score:2)
Feminism and Glacier (Score:3)
Good and bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the actual journal article. What the authors seem to be talking about is the low credence that scientists in the past have given to indigenous knowledge about glaciers, which is a valid complaint and one that has been leveled at various branches of natural resources sciences of late. Why recognizing that knowledge counts as 'feminist' I cannot say. There are also observations that women have been excluded from glaciology in the past, and that had women been more involved, we may have done more and different research on, for example, the relationships between indigenous people and glaciers. I think those points are okay, as far as they go.
It's not a 'science' article in the quantitative sense. It's a survey of the state of the domain. It is clearly identified as such in the text. And it was published in a journal where such an article is appropriate.
People are making much of the $400,000 price tag. That money is distributed over the course of 5 years. I don't know what UO's institutional overhead rate is, but it is a reasonable guess that the Carey (the lead author) gets access to around $50,000 per year of this money. He has some budget worked out for that money that likely includes funding some number of hours of his own time, some hours for a graduate student, and then things like computer equipment and travel and so on. This particular paper is not the sole product of that money. In fact, it's not even listed as one of the intended outputs of the project. It is likely something that struck his interest as he was researching, and he chose to write it and see if anyone would publish it.
I do think the writing is florid. Sadly, that is the academic style right now. I believe that he could have made his point with half the word count. I also think that focusing on feminism rather than broader ideas of inclusiveness is likely to cause complaint, and, indeed, that is what we see here on Slashdot and in the reason.com write-up.
I don't think it's a bad article for what it says. I think how it says it could be improved. And I think the press coverage does a disservice with straw-man arguments. They're click-baiting people into raging about positions that the paper doesn't take.
The Emperor's New Paper (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Glaciers, Gender, and Science--A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change [sagepub.com] is published, after a review process that is itself currently under review.
2. The paper generates a backlash among those who are fed up with social issues (such as feminism) intruding into the sciences; also those who strive for pure social discourse on gender issues unsoiled by what they see as a gateway to a name-calling tabloid fixation on some group. It generates a frontlash among those who think it sounds cool, and 'like' it on Facebook. No one else bats an eyelash.
3. It is suggested that it is in fact complete gibberish. Everyone is embarrassed as they gaze back in horror at the tomes of intricately crafted backlash they have written about it. They respond with indignation towards the process that permitted it to be published.
4. It is suggested that the paper seems like gibberish to the un-initiate but is actually a philosophical 'Chautauqua' of stream-of-consciousness ideas, a process that was described in Robert M. Pirsig's 1974 work Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Those who accepted that it was gibberish are embarrassed anew (after looking up Pirsig) but now, in horror, they realize their vengeance on the publisher merely exposed their ignorance of an accepted art form.
5. It is suggested that the paper is merely before its time. Someone suggests that it is a seminal work Everyone who is ready to let the whole affair go away, and others who (merely) cannot find anything else like it, just agree.
6. A new wave of readers encounters the paper after seeing this broadly stated but vague praise, and when they research back to the initial reactions they become suspicious, as it looks like an attempt to deliberately suppress the paper. The claim this, and in order to refute any such allegations, the publisher cleverly avoids controversy by simply 'calling for additional papers' on the topic. They expect that this will reveal them as unbiased and it pays off... and everyone thinks this is finally the end.
7. Unexpectedly --- other papers are submitted. Some that are obviously mere re-arrangements of words in the first paper, some are on completely different topics but written in the same dreamy style. The publisher has indemnified itself from a position of judgement so they all make it. Oddly enough a group has formed that studies and discusses each in turn, a liberal arts college offers a 'workshop' on the collective works.
8. But now everyone who ever held a firm opinion of the original paper, in light of all this, is starting to doubt their own mind.
9. It is suggested that certain kinds of scented candles assist in the appreciation and understanding of these works. A stream-of-consciousness rationale for this is given, and since the style of the suggestion is so similar to that of the original paper, it is taken as a natural extension of the process. Soon chants and other (comfortably traditional therefore non-threatening) rituals are meshed as well. Rolling Stone presents it as a 'movement'.
AVG Antivirus identifies the original paper as an Ancient Sumerian Nam-Shub Virus [slashdot.org] . But it is too late.
Millions of people are now gathering around the world in groups to sit nude in large circles, chanting each syllable of the works and improvising new ones while making elaborate hand gestures.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
The criticism is groundless. Okay, maybe the paper is crap. You know what? It doesn't take that much time (tax dollars) to write the paper. They got it published in a journal with a good impact factor. Beyond that, who cares?
Now, if you bothered to read the paper, you'd find cool stuff like, "Paterson’s artwork builds on an earlier project where she submerged a phone line connected to Vatnajökull, Iceland and Europe’s largest glacier. People could call the glacier (+44(0)7757001122) and listen to the distinctive pops, trills, and gurgles of the ice. More than ten thousand people called during the installation"
Re: (Score:3)
Iceland is not part of Europe. I know they want to be part of Europe but there is no geographic or political definition that can put Iceland within Europe. They aren't part of the Asian Continent, they aren't relatively close to the Continent. They aren't geologically part of the same continental plate and they aren't part of the EU.
Iceland is not part of Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what? It doesn't take that much time (tax dollars) to write the paper.
The grant [nsf.gov] was for a little less than half a million dollars.Not sure where you are coming from but for me that is quite a lot to spend on a paper especially one with no original studies. There was quite a lot of references to other publications but no surveys, no sampling, nothing pointing to some hard data the team gathered on their own.
Now, if you bothered to read the paper, you'd find cool stuff like, "Patersonâ(TM)s artwork builds on an earlier project where she submerged a phone line connected to VatnajÃkull, Iceland and Europeâ(TM)s largest glacier. People could call the glacier (+44(0)7757001122) and listen to the distinctive pops, trills, and gurgles of the ice. More than ten thousand people called during the installation"
I'm sorry, were they supposed to be writing a research paper or a Buzzfeed article about the top 20 weirdest things people have done with ice? And people wonder why the so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Reason.com has a pathological need to a) make up new controversy about climate change, and b) denounce anything vaguely social sciencey based almost entirely on their inability to understand the terms social scientists use. Seriously, I have never met a Reason.,com user who actually knows what "Privilege" is, and yet they automatically assume they can all parse a sentence about "white male privilege" because they're all the same wrong. When you point out to them that they are, in fact, mostly wrong
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to say the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC. ?
Or is Reason bad because they laugh at you ?
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Or is Reason bad because they laugh at you ?"
You got it. Reason Foundation is a libertarian, but not Randian, think tank with some refreshingly iconoclastic views about the major political factions.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Reason is a partisan think-tank without much thinking
So just a tank, then?
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only significant (and cruel) state sponsored gender discrimination remaining in the western world is against fathers in family courts where the default custody arrangements are dad gets the kids 4days/mth, mum gets the kids the other 26 and dad is forced to foot the bill for her privileged position in the eyes of the law. When will modern feminists stop openly supporting sexual discrimination against dads in divorce court, if gender equality is actually anything more than a slogan why are they actively lobbying AGAINST equal custody rights for both sexes?
If I'm wrong then it should be easy to point to a feminist organisation that has come out in support of 50/50 shared parenting, and yes every feminist organisation in the US has been politely invited to show their support by various fathers rights groups. To date not one of those organisations have accepted that invitation and many have actually responded by voicing their support for the status quo.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Human geography is economic geography (contrast with economics which excludes spatial interactions) and population dynamics.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Progress in Human Geography? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Would you prefer he said:
Human Geography is the study of political borders
?
Re:Progress in Human Geography? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Why? Because it's direct, to the point, and accurate.
Anyone in Academia that breaks Orwell's Five Rules should be tossed from a very high altitude airplane
1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Because it's direct, to the point, and accurate.
Except it's not. It's direct, to the point and excessively simplistic. There's more to spatial human interactions than borders. Borders are one emergant property of that. There are many others.
Anyone who breaks Einstein's rule should be tossed from a high altitude plane too:
Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler.
Re: (Score:3)
The Cosmetology of Physics, hairstyles that can be achieved with a Van de Graaff generator.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the journals title is pretentious. What is "human geography" and how does it differ from regular geography?
Is this a serious question?
If only wikipedia had a page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And what do you mean by "regular geography"? If you mean rivers and stuff that's physical geography. Map colouring^W^W geography is the union of the two.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Jane you ignorant slut
Re:Documented Truth, just Unsettling (Score:5, Insightful)
This thing truly reads like a poor April fools article, and I am sad to say that this is the case for a lot of other papers coming out of gender study departments. "Many humanities and social science disciplines and sub-disciplines have given significant attention to these issues, but there remain boundaries between these analyses and those considered central to the environmental change question." That part is true, and for good reasons. For examples of these reaons, read the conclusion of this ridiculous paper. If you want to be included in any serious discussion about these matters, you'll have be able to bring something worthwhile to the table. This ain't it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Documented Truth, just Unsettling (Score:5, Insightful)
bridging sociology and climatology
I'm willing - hesitant but willing - to concede that while this might be a well-intended attempt to bridge sociology and climatology, the colossal insecurity and complete inability to think critically revealed by this insanity guarantees that an attempt is all it's going to be.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately for us, they landed here.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously never saw Fire and Ice [youtube.com] :)