Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Help Support EcoWatch

Climate Deniers Mock 'Feminist Glaciology' Study

Climate
Climate Deniers Mock 'Feminist Glaciology' Study

There’s a study that’s been floating around lately, causing condescending eye-rolls among the climate deniers and raised eyebrows among even a couple more mainstream voices. The paper is a look at “Glaciers, gender and science” that applies “a feminist glaciology framework” to research, and in light of yesterday being International Women’s Day, we decided it deserves a little defending from the mockery it’s received in pretty much all the coverage except a blog post by the researcher’s university and one story from Oregon’s Register-Guard.

While people like Anthony Watts may be happy leaving the analysis at the level of stereotypes about how “millions of husbands and wives battle over the home thermostat,” this paper is actually an in-depth and well-researched look at how this specific scientific discipline has, like most others, historically ignored the female perspective. Photo credit: Wikipedia

First, some of the coverage is focusing on the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant that funded the research, but that line of attack ignores the fact that the  paper is just one small part of a larger body of glacier research. So while some attempt to make it sound like the study cost taxpayers over $700,000, that’s actually the amount the lead researcher has gotten in total from the NSF throughout his career, not the cost of this study alone. Similarly, $400,000 was for the larger grant from the NSF for the entire glacial science history project, so again that’s way more than was spent on this single study.

Now that the pearl-clutching over the sticker shock has been dealt with, the content of the study can be looked at. As the larger grant is for constructing a history of glaciology, this particular paper looks at how gender has influenced the science of glaciers, finding that women’s voices have not been sufficiently represented. And since the impacts of climate change and glacial retreat fall disproportionately on women through factors like causing women to have to travel further for fresh water as glaciers retreat, those voices are especially important in helping society determine the best ways to adapt to changing conditions.

The paper draws on the literature of feminist political ecology and geography, which examines how resources are used and distributed through a gender-sensitive lens. It then lays out the four aspects of "feminist glaciology:" how gender influences those gathering data and producing knowledge of glaciers, how glacier science is influenced by gender, how historical power dynamics like colonialism coincide with male-centered ways of thinking, and finally the alternative methods that can be employed to provide a more robust and culturally comprehensive understanding of glaciers.

It provides examples of female explorers dating back to the 1770’s, who were hidden from the public and excluded from history, and more recent examples of 20th century female geologists facing marginalization. It wasn’t until the 1990s, for example, that the British allowed women to spend the winter in Antarctica. It also broaches the uncomfortable subject of the widespread sexual harassment of women in science, citing a 2014 finding that 64 percent of women in science had experienced sexual harassment, a rate 3.5 times greater than their male counterparts.

While people like Anthony Watts may be happy leaving the analysis at the level of stereotypes about how “millions of husbands and wives battle over the home thermostat,” this paper is actually an in-depth and well-researched look at how this specific scientific discipline has, like most others, historically ignored the female perspective.

Given how often they complain about being an ignored demographic, deniers might have been better off embracing this study as evidence of the potential for bias in science, instead of dismissing it as wasted funds.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Fossil Fuel Industry Set to Argue for Dismissal of Landmark Climate Change Lawsuit Brought by 21 Youth

Dear President Obama, The Clean Energy Revolution Is Now

Heeding Leo’s Call

Endangered Species Found Dead, Likely Result of Illegal Fishing

People Have the Power - VOTE 2020

Climate-action nonprofit Pathway to Paris first launched in 2014 with an "intimate evening" of music and conversation after the People's Climate March in New York City.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Heo Suwat Waterfall in Khao Yai National Park in Thailand. sarote pruksachat / Moment / Getty Images

A national park in Thailand has come up with an innovative way to make sure guests clean up their own trash: mail it back to them.

Read More Show Less

Trending

The 2020 presidential election poses a critical test of climate conservatives' willingness to put their environmental concerns before party politics. filo / Getty Images

By Ilana Cohen

Four years ago, Jacob Abel cast his first presidential vote for Donald Trump. As a young conservative from Concord, North Carolina, the choice felt natural.

But this November, he plans to cast a "protest vote" for a write-in candidate or abstain from casting a ballot for president. A determining factor in his 180-degree turn? Climate change.

Read More Show Less
Headquarters of the World Health Organization in Geneva amid the COVID-19 outbreak on Aug. 17, 2020. FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced Monday that 64 high-income nations have joined an effort to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine fairly, prioritizing the most vulnerable citizens, as Science reported. The program is called the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or Covax, and it is a joint effort led by the WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Read More Show Less
Exterior of Cold Tube demonstration pavilion. Lea Ruefenacht

By Gloria Oladipo

In the face of dangerous heat waves this summer, Americans have taken shelter in air conditioned cooling centers. Normally, that would be a wise choice, but during a pandemic, indoor shelters present new risks. The same air conditioning systems that keep us cool recirculate air around us, potentially spreading the coronavirus.

Read More Show Less

Support Ecowatch