Yup, you read that right, feminist glaciology.
Go ahead and click on that link above and read it, if you feel like having your brains leak out your ears. The blog whyevolutionistrue rightfully speculates on whether or not this is another Sokal-esque hoax. The Far or Regressive Left's political agenda has so thoroughly infiltrated academia, it is nearly impossible to distinguish reality from parody anymore, so who the hell knows? Poe's law strikes again.
If real, Thunderf00t can add another item to the list of things that feminism poisons.
And, yes, poison is exactly word I meant to use as well. Just read this troubling statement from the paper's conclusion:
Analysts and practitioners must recognize the ways in which more-than-scientific, non-Western, non-masculinist modes of knowledge, thinking, and action are marginalized.
Yeah, there's a great idea! When the cold, hard facts, and a consensus of thousands of scientists meets with furious resistance from climate change deniers, what you want to do is throw some "extra-scientific" nonsense like reading tea leaves, pap about female intuition, smoke tent visions, Orwellian feminist "Listen and Believe" propaganda, and who knows what else into the global warming advocacy works. Because that won't completely backfire or anything. I mean, it's just so hard to envision the usual suspects (Watts, Goddard, Limbaugh, etc.) jumping for joy at the chance to knock a few of those soft tosses out of Denier Park. They wouldn't at all seize on the opportunity to wave such studies around as examples of flawed, biased research. Nope, wouldn't happen. /sarcasm
Hoax or not, file this study with this curious pile of academic hogwash on "Carbon Fibre Masculinity".
1 comment:
Why wouldn't it?
What you're doing is politics, not science. Science has testable hypotheses. Science goes where the data leads, rather than fixating on one idea and discarding all evidence that doesn't support it. Science doesn't have secret data or secret computer models. Feminism fits right in.
Post a Comment