Posted on 03/09/2016 11:34:31 AM PST by massmike
The National Science Foundation has spent more than $400,000 on a study that published scientific results on the “relationship between gender and glaciers.”
The paper “Glaciers, gender, and science,” published in January 2016, concluded that “ice is not just ice,” urging scientists to take a “feminist political ecology and feminist postcolonial” approach when they study melting ice caps and climate change.
“Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change,” the paper by Mark Carey, a professor at the University of Oregon, explained. “However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers–particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied.”
“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,” the paper said.
The 10,417-word article published in Sage Journals’ “Progress in Human Geography,” was first highlighted by Reason’s Robby Soave and Tablet Magazine’s Yair Rosenberg.
The paper argues that glaciers can shape “religious beliefs and cultural values,” and that climate change can lead to the “breakdown of stereotypical gender roles and even ‘gender renegotiation.’”
While the paper argues that glacier research needs more feminine perspectives, gender is not defined as male and female for the researchers, but “as a range of personal and social possibilities.”
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
The only relation I see between glaciers and gender
is when someone remarks, “That’s a nice piece of ice.”
Someone needs to go to prison for malfeasance with public funds.
Glaciers, gender, and Gaia
I’m going to have to work on some similar gobbledygook and apply for a grant ... unbelievable or only in America ...
If it were not attached to a $4000,000 NSF grant I would think that someone randomly generated a very politically correct paper and sent it in for review to a bunch of frauds that did not review it.
I agree, I want my money back.
Who, in the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, made the decision that this was worthy of study.
They need to be fired and investigated.
Still, it should never have been funded or published, even as a small part of a larger project.
You couldn’t make this up!
I used to work there!
The only relation I see between glaciers and gender
is when someone remarks, “That’s a nice piece of ice.”
Best post on any thread today...Thanks, (Touching the brim of my hat).
Sounds like something “The World’s Foremost Authority”, Professor Irwin Corey, would talk about.
Thank God we have a Federal Reserve that can print up all the fake, unbacked currency and support the massive debt the US Government needs to pay for everyone belonging to the progressive nanny state.
Without it, activist, social-engineering leftist government simply couldn’t exist.
oops, did I say too much?
“Frigid as a glacier: Truth or hyperbole?”
Science marches on.
The only similarity between feminists and glaciers is that Hillary is a feminist and you could probably freeze ice on her posterior.
he should win some kind of prize for combining the most BS-ish stuff into one grant
What they really need to study is the White privilege of glaciers. Why aren’t there any black glaciers?!?!?!?!?!
Your tax dollars are work.
Thank you for referencing that article massmike. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
As mentioned in a related thread, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to tax and spend for anything like the study mentioned in the OP.
And since the Founding States gave the “power of the purse” (1.7.1) uniquely to the House of Representatives, the House is clearly not doing its job to protect and defend the Constitution.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach, including putting a stop to unconstitutional taxing and spending.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Good question. I've driven on black ice before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.