Are Glaciers Sexist or Is This Science Ridiculous?
 |
| Taken from (6) |
"A critical but overlooked aspect of the human dimensions of
glaciers and global change research is the relationship between gender and
glaciers1."
Is this a quote from a science article on The Onion satirical
website? Unfortunately, it is not. I first came across this while doing a Feedly
science search. It was in a New York
Post op-ed2 bemoaning feminist glacial studies and
how federal taxes were being used to pay for this frivolous research. At first, I thought perhaps it was just
another example of extreme journalism (from one side or the other—i.e. “the
left” or “the right”—it does not matter) crying foul over what they perceive as
the misuse of funds. I then decided to
check it out.
No, they were not joking.
I honestly can say that I would not do this article justice in
trying to explain it in my own words so I will post the abstract from the
article below verbatim directly from the paper:
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global
environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and
glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the
production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus
proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge
producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific
domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. 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 interactions1.
I cannot make this stuff up! Unfortunately, I am afraid that an article
such as this can confound important issues in today’s society. I have written concerning greenhouse gases
and climate change previously3,4, and I don’t think that today’s blog is
to discuss the merits of climate change research directly. Perhaps we can discuss causation of climate
change in a different post on a different day; regardless, it is still an
important topic of debate in today’s society.
Likewise, sexism, too, is an important topic of debate in today’s
society. Even though strides have been
made in STEM fields, a gender inequality still exists5. One
of my primary concerns with this research is that its frivolity gives fodder
for those who denigrate science and sexism—yes, BOTH sides can go to the
extreme.
No doubt this is an instance where NSF funds appear to have been
allotted for frivolous research. This
should not, however, be used to metaphorically throw out the baby with the
bathwater by calling for a decrease in the federal funding of research. Perhaps, it should be used as evidence that
we need to tighten the peer-review process in how the funds are allotted. We need to be faithful stewards of our
finances. We owe it to taxpayers. We should consider how we allocate such funds
rather than eliminate them.
Please note that below the references I have included a hyperlink for the original feminist glacier article.
1. Carey M,
Jackson M, Antonello A, Rushing J. Glaciers, gender, and science A feminist
glaciology framework for global environmental change research. Prog Hum
Geogr. January 2016:0309132515623368. doi:10.1177/0309132515623368.
2. Board PE. Feminism and icebergs: a new low
in climate “science.” N Y Post. March 2016.
http://nypost.com/2016/03/08/feminism-and-icebergs-a-new-low-in-climate-science/.
Accessed March 10, 2016.
3. Day-storms Jerm. MaestroSci: Using
Greenhouse Gases for “Good”? MaestroSci. January 2014.
http://maestrosci.blogspot.com/2014/01/using-greenhouse-gases-for-good.html.
Accessed March 10, 2016.
4. Day-storms Jerm. MaestroSci: Cap and
Trade...a Weighty Issue? MaestroSci. July 2014.
http://maestrosci.blogspot.com/2014/07/cap-and-tradea-weighty-issue.html.
Accessed March 10, 2016.
5. Penner AM. Gender inequality in science. Science.
2015;347(6219):234-235. doi:10.1126/science.aaa3781.
6. https://wallpaperscraft.com/image/glacier_iceberg_under_water_14926_602x339.jpg
Glaciers, gender, and science:A feminist glaciology frameworkfor global environmental changeresearch
In this article, the author explains how tax-payer money is being allocated to study the interaction of women scientists and glacier research. Basically, instead of studying glaciers, the funds are going to examine who is doing the research. Has society really regressed to this extent? It seems that we are so preoccupied by equality and fairness that we end up being counter productive. Feminism itself which aims to empower women, at times seems to be doing more harm than good. Here's an example. Just a few days ago, it was "International Women's Day" - a day where women are to be celebrated and encouraged. In a video available on youtube, Morgan Freeman responded to an inquiry about his opinion on Black History month, where he stated he would like to see it gotten rid of. He says that by having simply one month as black history month, instead of promoting black culture, it is actually limiting and hurting the cause. He says all months should be equally important and inclusive. In the same way, when emphasis such as this is placed on Feminism, objectivity is skewed. It's like saying, "Oh, you didn't vote for Hillary?" "You're sexist and a bigot." One who makes a claim like this is ignoring the fact that other factors besides her gender must be considered to vote for her. By making such a statement, the accused stands condemned on a plank they never stepped on. Likewise, by leveraging finances to a study like this, issues are being created out of no where. No wonder the author thought he was reading a satire on frivolous research.
ReplyDeleteI am discouraged by what I am reading. I am having great trouble understanding why research like this is even necessary in the field? I hate to undermine the work that is being done, but I would like to see research be conducted on a less frivolous matter. I am curious to see what other findings will come about from this research and whether or not it will be beneficial to us in the future.
ReplyDeleteI personally found this article to be hilarious. I showed this to my non-science major roommate and she chuckled. It is ridiculous that taxpayers money is going to research the interaction between women and glaciers. If this research can get funding, there is no telling what else can get funding. Maybe I will do some research on whether or not my pillow is sexist.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of an equally perplexing article I heard on the radio today (linked at the bottom). I have always found it strange that as a society, we believe that equality is to be promoted by promoting a single minority demographic at a time. Many people claim to be feminists, while very few people simply promote the human race. This article is just one more in a list of propaganda a mile long, that continues to divide us further. The fact that the NSF let this slip through the cracks is embarrassing. The money used on this research (that was likely filled with biases anyway), could have been used to discover information that would help everyone.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/03/15/470422089/can-computer-programs-be-racist-and-sexist
I honestly want to know who came up with this article? Seriously, we have more important things that are occurring in this world. It is really upsetting to me that hard working tax payers money is going to silly experiments like this. To Katherine: your pillow may be sexist and my silk scarf on my head is sexist as well. My silk scarf is sexist towards males. ��
ReplyDeleteThis article really caused me to do a lot of thinking. The issues that were being shown in this article are issues that seem to have no sort legitimacy what so ever. The idea that tax payer money could be going towards such frivolous research sickens me. It seems like in an effort to fix a problem the people are causing more of one. I think it is important for a new approach to be established and to really begin thinking hard about what research really needs to be focused on.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the post and article, I wasn't sure whether or not I should take it seriously. Personally, I found it quite hilarious/ridiculous, but I also found it intriguing that the people who are advocating for it are quite serious. There were several things that stuck out to me that either didn't make sense/sounded ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteFirst, where on earth does gender science come into play?!? While I get that some scientists regard climate change and environmental science as a pressing issue, but how are the two involved? I understand that sexism is still in the workplace and science to a degree, but I don't think it was right for the scientists to bring that up in a journal article.
Second, how are the glaciers involved with female ideology? Glaciers are inanimate objects that cannot communicate and interact with humans. It was definitely a stretch to bring the two topics together.
Lastly, I was very disappointed that this article and the research for it got funded. As a taxpayer, I don't feel comfortable knowing that my money went to something so frivolous. Science was not meant to discover/fix social issues, but it was meant to discover the ways and details of life.
Well,…. This sure is an interesting topic. First, how do glaciers and feminism even find themselves in the same category? Second, how did this research get founded? If research like this can become founded then I should have no worries about my future research being founded. I am not sure I understand why they felt it necessary to research the female researchers. Feminism has become so wrapped up in certain issues that instead of becoming equal with their male counterparts, they have completely separated themselves from society overall. Was this really a scientific article or something along the lines of crying for attention?
ReplyDeleteI honestly do not even know what to say about this article. Personally, I do not believe there should even be such a thing as this. What is even the point in performing research for this? This has no beneficial relevance to our futures, so why was it even considered, and founded to begin with? I also do not agree with it how it is being funded when it, when I do not see this coming around to help me later on down the road. Overall, this article proves that our culture is becoming more worried about equality than our futures, giving way into a darker, and deeper hole of no return.
ReplyDeleteThis article lacks the real foundation of scientific research. An applied scientific research looks for answers to specific questions that help humanity. I do not understand how this research contribute humanity at all and the worst of all is that the funds used could actually have a better purpose in other fields. We live in a world in which gender equality is a big issue, but to go the extent of using research funds to try to prove a point is no the way to go. Equality is not achieved this way. I am amazed that this type of research is out there, which leads me to question if the parameters used in scientific research are strict enough,because this does not seem as something relevant at all.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a little ridiculous in my opinion. First, why are taxpayer dollars going toward the funding of this research? Second, why is sexism especially feminism being compared with glaciers in the first place? Lastly, why is this even a topic that is being researched? The fact that sexism is such a huge issue in today's society with regard toward the push for feminism is already a little overdone. Personally, I don't see the point of this study and it seems like a waste of money that could be put toward funding a much more beneficial project. This just leads me to ask what other pointless or irrelevant scientific studies are we funding?
ReplyDeleteThis honestly made my day! I needed a good laugh like this. lol I supposes the funniest, or saddest, part of it is that this is not a joke but reality! In a Q&A with the author of the article (link below) he stated (That's right, the author of the feminist glacial view is a HE...) that when people who are not specialist in the area read the article, they may take it out of context and misinterpret the data, however, that is not what we are doing at all. What baffles me is not necessarily the research itself, but how they present the data and the funding that was given for such research. Though I could not access the article itself, from the abstract and Q&A the paper sounds like it is based more in sociology than in research/experimental science (Things the NSF should be concerned with).
ReplyDeleteIf the idea was to bring attention to "global warming" or how glaciers affect our lives, I do not see it achieving that goal. Rather, it tries to show the "sexist" bias in obtaining glacial research... It still doesn't make sense as I type this out. I understand the need for gender equality in the sciences, however, wasting research money to show how some women's views on glaciers are not taken seriously is ludicrous.
Frankly, it seems ridiculous that this was given funding from the NSF- people are not misinterpreting the data, they are just dumbfounded about the funding given to such "research." Plus, did it ever occur to them that the possible reason for fewer women studying glaciers could be due to the fact that they find it boring and unexciting as I do? (Well, I guess they ways they affect the world are cool (pun intended) but that doesn't mean I am going to spend my life studying them.)
...Maybe, just maybe, if the Captain of the Titanic had listened to the female glacial scientist on board, all those lives could have been saved, but I guess we'll never know... At least not until the NSF gives more funding to get to the truth of the matter. Because those are the scientific inquires that will help save the world!
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/qa-author-feminist-geology-study-reflects-sudden-place
Interesting discussions on this post
ReplyDeleteMy comment is broken into multiple posts to allow it to fit.
ReplyDeleteI was initially startled by the ridiculous claim the paper apparently put forth- that glacial science is sexist. It seems as ridiculous as arguing that glacial science is Communist. How can a process of discovery of glacier knowledge have any prejudice whatsoever? Even if glacial scientists were regularly sexist, the argument that the science was would be more difficult to make- a scientist with horrible social views can still do excellent science, as in the case of Tim Hunt, a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2001/hunt-facts.html). Mr. Hunt made the news for remarks at a South Korean conference last year, where he described himself as a ‘chauvinist pig’ and suggested that scientists work in gender-segregated labs due to how ‘you fall in love with [women], they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry’ (http://www.cnet.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-women-cry-shouldnt-be-in-labs-with-men/). However, the fact that Mr. Hunt holds sexist beliefs doesn’t make biochemistry sexist. Nor does it prevent him from doing excellent biochemistry, as demonstrated by his winning a Nobel Prize. And the fact that sexists can do excellent biochemistry doesn’t make biochemistry sexist, either. It’s a method of discovery, and although it can be employed in sexist ways (for example, if a person argued that women were inferior due to their biochemical make-up), it is not inherently sexist (and can also be employed in anti-sexist ways, such as when my professor Dr. Schraw explains how the differences between X and Y chromosomes are mitigated by the cells, lest males and females be too different to successfully mate).
Due to the seemingly-wild claims of the paper, I looked it up to see if the authors were able to explain why they made such claims, at https://www.scribd.com/doc/302967745/Glaciers-gender-and-science-A-feminist-glaciology-framework-for-global-environmental-change-research. In reading the abstract, introduction, and conclusion of the paper, I think that the authors were making a different argument than that glaciology is sexist. Rather, it seems like they are more concerned with the approach to glaciers by the social sciences- they argue that narratives about glaciers are dominated by the ‘masculine’ themes of dominion and exploration, and that the meanings of glaciers to indigenous people and women are often left out in favor of the opinions of male explorers and scientists. They propose that these other viewpoints on glaciers should be included in the exploration of such narratives and the relationship of people and ice. Although some of their claims still seem far-fetched to me (such as one statement that equated aerial views of glaciers with pornography), and leave me wondering whether I didn’t still miss something of what they were arguing, I can understand more easily this argument: that glaciers in the social sciences are approached from a Eurocentric and masculine perspective, and that feminine and indigenous views of ice should be given their due as well. If this is what they are arguing, I can agree with that- all viewpoints are important in a survey of social sciences, and we limit our understanding of the importance of glaciers if we ignore those large subsets of the human population in our exploration of humankind’s relationship with ice. (I might wonder about the importance of glaciers in the social sciences, and critique the authors’ throwing the term ‘glaciology’ around when their intent focused on social aspects of glaciers, but these are subjects for other days.)
ReplyDeleteTo finish, I would like to make a final observation, relating to the much-publicized cost of the research that created this paper. A few non-scholarly sources (such as http://politicalhat.com/2016/03/09/feminist-glaciology-or-stop-mis-gendering-glaciers/ and another on a website called freebeacon that I cannot link to due to its tendency to freeze up my computer) claimed that this paper was funded by an NSF grant in excess of $400,000. Which is something else I would take issue with, if not necessarily the argument of the paper itself- I’ve done various studies and research papers during my time at school that did not cost a single cent, yet were on the same par as far as the type of research done: this paper did not record a study, but was more of a review paper on glaciers in the social sciences. Admittedly, none of my schoolwork is published, nor do I have the standing of the authors of this paper, but a six-figure number for such a niche paper is outrageous. However, as I tried to track the sources back to the NSF, I discovered that this was oversimplified. The NSF reports the figure in connection with the paper (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779), however, the award was not specifically for this single research endeavor, as is demonstrated by the bottom list of four other glacier-related papers, and the fact that the grant is to fund research until 2018. Now, I might still take issue with spending upwards of $400,000 to study glaciers in the social sciences, rather than actual glaciology (or even fields like applied physics or medicine), but this again gets into another area of debate- what proportion of NSF funds should be applied to which sciences, and which applicants should get the grants (even in the social sciences, it seems like there are more practical things that could be studied than glacier perception, such as what incites people to become terrorists, or how science can be applied to situations in the U.S. and other developing countries to combat prejudice against minority groups).
ReplyDeleteIn short, though the claims against this paper rightly induces ire, and while there are legitimate criticisms to be made against the paper, actual examination of the text and the context of its publishing and funding do much to pare away the exaggerations. Regardless of one’s feelings on glaciers, feminism, the social sciences, and the NSF’s funding techniques, this paper is primarily a study in sensationalism and the need for careful and critical examination of scientific claims.
I could not scroll past this article when I first saw the title. First thing I did when I read this article was laugh out loud because that was just a natural reflex of mine. Second, after I composed myself, I had to re-read the article to see if I missed any aspect of it to help make more sense of it. However, even after re-reading the article, it still made no sense to me. How is there a relationship between gender inequality and global warming? Maybe Bush and Obama can answer that for us.
ReplyDeleteBut on a more serious note, it is very apparent that stricter peer reviews are needed for research funding. To think that government funding is going to such an obscure research proposal is outrageous as a tax-paying citizen. On the flip-side, this will be a fun conversation piece to use in the future.
I had to read through this article a couple of times in doubt that it was legitimate. It is definitely a...creative topic. After reading it a couple times I still do not see how gender equality and global warming can be compared and I especially cannot see how a topic like this could be funded for research. It upsets me because people could look at just the title and assume that all their tax dollars are going towards silly research projects such as this and will judge that scientists are not making any real progress but instead just wasting time and money.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw this article title I was honestly confused because it doesn't seem like the words glacier and sexist have any relation at all. After reading the article I am displeased to say I am just as confused as my initial response and furthermore Im frustrated that this is a legitimate topic that is receiving funding and publicity. This is a perfect example of a topic that has intentions of making a positive impact but rather creates more problems because of unnecessary spending on an issue that is not an issue at all. Im not sure what is more unsettling the idea that the study of glaciers will decrease sexism or that women studying glaciers will have a greater impact than any other scientists. It all seems pretty preposterous to me, but what do I know, Im a male.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that glaciers have anything to do with gender is beyond imaginable to me. This is just another way that the extreme feminists are attempting to make a ridiculous statement. Clearly I am a woman and believe that there should be equal opportunity and pay for women and men, but I cannot agree with the irrational actions of the extreme feminists. I believe there should be more done to ensure that women and men are treated equal in all ways but this is not the way. This is a waste of hard working taxpayer’s money and everyone’s who is involved time. The federal government should be more concerned with appropriately spending money and less concerned with allowing small groups to make statements.
ReplyDeleteI honestly cannot imagine what was going through the minds of the scientists that proposed this research. How in the world did they come to relate gender to glaciers. Glaciers are just huge chunks of ice. Also, what benefit to society is this research supposed to have? I feel like this was just another way for extreme feminists to make their cause known to the public. After reading about this research, I believe there definitely should be tighter peer-review processes when it comes to allotting funds for research, especially if the money is coming out of taxpayers' pockets. If this is being funded, what other funds are being frivolously given to nonsense research programs? This needs to be controlled before more people become angered and money for important research becomes limited.
ReplyDeleteThe only comparison between feminism and ice bergs I can conceive of is that, according to men, you can never truly know what a woman is thinking, just like an ice berg extends well below the surface of the water. I believe it was Freud who used the an analogy of an iceberg to describe the various levels of the mind. In that sense, I could understand a government funded research program analyzing the differences in psychological processing between men and woman, which I can say in my expert opinion is quite vast. But comparing feminism to a hunk of floating ice? That is quite ridiculous, albeit hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThe moment this article mention I saw this article mention gender and ice in the same sentence I was lost. Perhaps I missed the point of this article but the abstract reminds me of something you would see on an onion article. Either way it seems that this research time could have been spent better on other things.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe that this article is a thing! At first, I was confused, and still am quite a little bit. However, once I kept reading, I had a better understanding of what they are trying to say, though it still doesn't make sense. Though this is an interesting article, you can tell that the author doesn't seem to have anything better to talk about.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to my peers who have previously responded I agree that this study appears to be a misallocation of funds as well as time. However, my main concern isn't this article but the future. How can we prevent future studies of this sort from receiving support and how can we instead have funds allocated to projects with more merit and useful implications. Even from a psychological standpoint this type of study wouldn't give enough benefit to the world at large to justify the allocation of funds, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very extreme. I would never think to mold together sexism with glaciers. I don't know why some one would mold the two. I feel like feminism is becoming too intense. Somehow feminists are finding ways to integrate their beliefs into the most extreme scenarios. I honestly think feminism is doing more harm than good, creating a bigger divide between men and women and making women look more crazy.
ReplyDeleteWow... At first glance, I definitely agreed with the general consensus that this article was not only a waste of money, but also a waste of time. My first thought was that there are scientists who brainstorm novel ways to approach the world's problems like genetic mutations or cancer and then there are these people who sit at their desks and decide to write about feminist ice. It's actually very funny in a very worrisome way. I understand the need to increase the voice of women in scientific fields because we truly have as much to offer the world as our male counterparts do, but I'm not sure this is best the way to get the right attention. On the other hand, it's very possible that the authors had an intent that we are missing in our analyses. I looked them up and they all work in the Glacier Lab at the University of Oregon, so they probably know a lot more than we are giving them credit for. With that in mind, I would personally like to sit with one of them and find out if there's more to their approach in this paper than meets the eye.
ReplyDeleteI understand the need for creativity and novelty in the field of science. I am personally not fully in the field yet, and do not feel this weight on my shoulders just yet. But the authors of this article may have felt that weight in excess. Honestly, it is sad to see time, effort, and money being put into this work being that the outcomes resulting from the study will not have much significance or benefit to society. It may seem like it, due to their inclusion of feminism, but reality is that it is not going to have much of an impact.
ReplyDelete