You guys should probably do something about this.
#CashAppFriday

$reverseseasons https://t.co/exrIXpC3Hv

In the meantime I'm having some fun with them.
https://t.co/CZVvHHvqEe
https://t.co/HNsClJ9vgH
https://t.co/zBOpKGgeY6
https://t.co/6TC7WMG15f
https://t.co/wfFBN6KllG
https://t.co/BPUgHj1SD6
https://t.co/RNhesTbM0Z
https://t.co/Tro213ojox
https://t.co/KlwGScY725

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?