I'd be curious to actually read that Glaciers, gender, and science paper to see if it's as worthless as it sounds. I think there's some amount of feminist theo

I'd be curious to actually read that Glaciers, gender, and science paper to see if it's as worthless as it sounds. I think there's some amount of feminist theory that boils down to -- all of the people thinking/doing stuff in A field were men operating under B culture; what if we thought about things from a different perspective & revisited some of our assumptions? Like most fields, I bet glaciology has some underlying assumptions (is the goal of glaciology to manage glaciers? navigation?) & history (which glaciers have people historically studied? are they representative?) And I know as an outsider, it's really hard to tell what's valuable about another field. If an outsider was critiquing computer science, I bet they'd easily be able to track down studies about tabs vs. spaces and laugh at the silly stuff that gets published in that field.