Feminizing Glaciers

What does “gender” theory have to do with “climate change” and the depiction of “glaciers” in popular culture?

You can decide for yourself by “reading” what must be the least “essential” paper ever written: “Glaciers, Gender, and Science—A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change.”

The recently published, utterly “incomprehensible” paper was co-authored by a team of “historians” at the University of Oregon, and funded via a “grant” from the National Science Foundation.

I hope American “taxpayers” feel like they got their “money’s” worth.

From the abstract:

“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 interactions.”

You are probably wondering whether I am “trolling” you. You might be checking the date to make sure this isn’t an “April Fool’s” joke.

Surely a “satirist” who set out to write a deliberate “parody” of left-wing papers using the jargon of the earnest “social justice warrior” could not have done a better job than a paper on “just and equitable human-ice interactions.”

But the paper is “real”—very real. The University of Oregon, in fact, put out a glowing press release touting its existence.

When UO historian Mark Carey hired Jaclyn Rushing, an undergraduate student in the Robert D. Clark Honors College, to explore how nongovernmental organizations were addressing “melting” Himalayan glaciers, he got an unexpected return.

Her dive into the literature found that women’s voices are “rarely” heard in glacier-related research, a finding that “triggered” a larger project and led to a paper now online ahead of print by the journal “Progress in Human Geography.”

Feminizing Glaciers 03

Jaclyn Rushing, an undergraduate student.

“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. “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.”

Expanding the investigation made sense, Carey said. “In disaster studies you always look at who is more vulnerable to hazards, and it’s usually the marginalized populations. It’s the poor groups, the underrepresented groups based on race and ethnicity, and gender has been discussed some in that.”

“What I’m trying to do in my research is provide more of a human story about how shrinking glaciers, warming temperatures, changing precipitation, how that plays out for different people,” said lead author Mark Carey, an associate dean of Oregon’s history department, in a interview accompanying the press release.

Feminizing Glaciers 01

I’m sure Carey is well-intentioned, but if his goal was to put a “human face” on climate change, he failed. The paper is simply impossible to “read” with a straight face.

It employs liberal buzzwords—“colonialism, marginalization, masculinist discourses, etc.”—with such frequency that the entire thing comes off like a “joke.”

Just try to follow along with this paragraph:

“Feminist and postcolonial theories enrich and complement each other by showing how gender and colonialism are co-constituted, as well as how both women and indigenous peoples have been marginalized historically (Schnabel, 2014). Feminist glaciology builds from feminist postcolonial science studies, analyzing not only gender dynamics and situated knowledge, but also alternative knowledge and folk glaciologist that are generally marginalized through colonialism, imperialism, inequality, unequal power relations, patriarchy, and the domination of Western science (Harding, 2009).”

Remember, this is a paper about how to “feminize a giant hunk of ice.”

Feminizing Glaciers 05

In his write-up of the study, Powerline’s Steven Hayward quips, “This is why you get Trump.” He’s not wrong. Disaffected college students are “rebelling” against the hegemonies of “leftist dogma and political correctness” that rule their campuses—and “Trump!” is, sadly, their rallying cry.

In a country where “working class” people are being “forced” to fund research on the “postcolonial gender theory of melting ice caps,” is it any wonder some of them are rooting for a “charismatic demagogue who promises to bully their tormentors?”

Feminizing Glaciers 02

Of course, “Climate Czar” Al Gore, the Scientist who “started it all,” has always been involved in “feminist glacier studies”

Feminizing Glaciers 06

Feds Paid $709,000 To Academic Who Studies The Sexism Behind Glaciers


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: