OT: You couldn't make it up

[The Natural Philosopher]

Or, April 1 is early this year.

The horrifying thing is, they may not be having a laugh at all.

[harry]

[Jonno]

The Natural Philosopher scribbled

The poor, sad turnip needs to get a life.

[pamela]

Very funny spoof on feminist sociology. Egg on the face for the journal. :-)

I liked "alternative representations of glaciers" and "human-ice interactions" in that abstract.

Also loved this sort of nonsense in the paper itself:-

"Women often do possess different knowledge about glaciers due to many issues, such as: spending more time than men attending to livestock near Andean glaciers (Dunbar and Medina Marcos, 2012); managing agriculture, terracing, and irrigation that includes the distribution of glacier runoff in highland Peruvian communities"

"The feminist glaciology framework draws attention to those who dominate and frame the production of glaciological knowledge, the gendered discourses of science and knowledge, and the ways in which colonial, military, and geopolitical domination co-constitute glaciological knowledge."

[Chris Hogg]

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."

Obvious, innit! Global warming is caused by wimmin!

[pamela]

That's a masculine centric comment typical of the semiotic epistemology the authors have fought so hard to contest in an attempt to inform those inclined towards simplistic "ice is just ice" discourses typical of widely-circulated gendered glacial discussions set in a context of a neo-patriarchal official ice core dominated theories which, according to commentators, seek to reframe power-knowledge dynamics and imperialistic notions of institutional, cultural, and scientific home repair techniques used for D-I-Y in the UK.

[The Other John]

Reads like it was written by computer!

[Dan S. MacAbre]

So far beyond sophistry, it has to be a joke.

[Chris Hogg]

LOL! Very good. You didn't write the original abstract did you? :-)

[Bill]

I don't know. A lot of my gendered discussions tend to be glacial.

[Sam Plusnet]

You do that far far too well.

Scary.

[Chris Hogg]

Actually, not that difficult apparently. See

You supply the authors' names and it produces the credible gibberish!

[pamela]

See these. :-)

[newshound]

My first reaction was that it was a spoof, like that famous one by a physicist which I can't for the moment track down.

Mind you, my first wife was pretty glacial....

[pamela]

I liked the spoof which suckered the International Archives of Medicine into publishing a paper which proved that eating chocolate is good for you.

Well, I knew that already. :-)

[Huge]

[Brian Gaff]

Cultural meltdown? Brian

[bert]

LOL

[RJH]

Do you really think science isn't gendered?

[Big Les Wade]

What does the question mean?