My blog is called the Fat One in the Middle. I have been fat ever since I remember, and even when I was skinny for me, I was still fat. Once when looking through old pictures of myself I noticed that I put myself in the middle of the all the pictures when I was with people. It made me laugh, and that is how I got the blog name. At first I thought it was because I was trying to hide my fat, and now I know it probably has more to do with me being an attention whore. This comes in later, I promise.
See??? My sister and best friend, Wyndi Anderson
When I first got involved with skepticism, I noticed that it was a total sausage fest. Except for one prominent group of women, the Skepchicks, the attention paid to women in the skeptical movement was slim. And how did I feel about the Skepchicks? A little jealous honestly. Not because they were smarter or funnier or sexier than me (they may or may not be all of those things),but because they got all of the attention. Why did they get the attention? Well, because they are smart, funny, and sexy. Duh. Skepchick was also groundbreaking in being the first site to specifically encourage women to get involved in skepticism.
Now whenever I notice myself feeling threatened, I look to see if a lion is about to eat me. When I surmise that there is no lion, I try to find out WHY I am feeling threatened. When it is because someone is getting more attention than me, I do what I learned to do when I felt threatened by my sister, who is ungodlyhot. I remember that there is not a finite amount of attention in the world, and that if I want attention, I can get it.
Side note. We ALL want and need attention. Everyone likes to feel validated and appreciated for who they are, and to think that people want to be around them. Some of us also like to receive attention for our sexuality, while others prefer that not be up for public debate. It is ok to want attention, but it helps to know what kind you want and the best way to get it. That way you don’t end up funding your senior year of college doing a Tijuana donkey show just for the screams of your adoring fans. Trust me, not pretty.
I went into the skeptic movement full steam ahead. I did not try to compete with the Skepchicks, because there is really nothing to compete with them for. I am a completely different entity and gosh darnit, I LIKE ME! However, I did notice that sometimes people refer to ALL women in skepticism Skepchicks, and this is not the case, and can actually be hurtful to those not in the Skepchick group.
I remember this past summer, a friend of mine called me up to congratulate me for being the new Skepchick blogger. I had no idea what he was talking about, and it turned out he had just assumed it because they announced they were getting two new bloggers at the same time I had Tweeted that I was so excited about an opportunity coming my way. He and I laughed about it, and then when I got off the phone, I noticed that my feelings were hurt.
Why? Why would my feelings be hurt that I had been excluded from a group I had not much in common with? Why did I care, when I did not care five minutes prior to the phone call? And then it hit me. In a moment of total emotional honesty, which I hope will not be used against me, I realized that I HAD felt excluded as a woman in skepticism by some of the Skepchick stuff. The inside jokes, the “reality never looked so hot” tagline, the way that becoming a Skepchick was seen as having “arrived” in the skeptic movement as a woman, the extra attention by so many of the male bloggers, the cool avatars, the fans, the pajama parties, the drunk dials, the legendary Skepchick party at TAM, the way that the name of every event featuring even one of them was changed to include the word skepchick, ALL of these things got on my nerves more than I care to admit. However, I also want to state that not one of the skepchicks has ever done anything against me. Ever. While I may not always agree with Skepchick, I love me some skepchicks. It is possible to do both.
Once I dealt with my own emotions, and got the fuck over myself, I realized that two things bothered me on a non-personal level. First, the Skepchick machine has made it hard to notice the achievements of non-Skepchick women, but not because of the skepchicks themselves. Skepchick is currently the only game in town, and those who want different need to be the change they seek. I myself would whore my body out to get more publicity for Swoopy, but she would kick my ass is I publicly said it (don’t tell her!) The second issue is that when some people criticize the Skepchick method of outreach, they are attacked and portrayed as being prudish boors.
Not everyone wants to educate through boobies, alcohol,l and fun. Not everyone wants to have their sexuality brought into the forefront when they are trying to discuss things. Not everyone feels comfortable in a party atmosphere. However, this does not mean those people think women should wear burquas, it means they think that there are better methods of encouraging critical thinking. And isn’t that what we all have in common? A commitment to promoting critical thinking?
Critical thinking works not by ignoring the fact that we have emotions, but rather admitting those emotions, examining ourselves for our own biases, and then getting past those emotions/biases in search of the answer that the evidence demands.
Sometimes I feel that people in the skeptical movement move straight into the search for evidence without ever considering how their emotions might lead that search if left unchecked.
Many of us in the skeptical movement are geeks, nerds, and other survivors of the junior high food chain. When we feel threatened socially, we attack. We rally the troops on our side, and begin the blog comment war! The sad thing is that so much of this is going on inside the skeptical community that there is not much energy left at the end of the day for our real purpose, encouraging critical thinking.
I know there are feuds within this movement, and that some people say she said this, and he said that, and this person is X, and that person is that Y. However, a lot of this shit is personal. How long are we going to pretend that these things are not weakening our effectiveness? How long are we going to focus on whether or not boobs have a place in outreach? I challenge the pro-boob and anti-boob outreach camps to do something useful, such as devise a test to see which method is more effective.
Tonight, I had several long, honest conversations with several friends in the skeptic movement. From those conversations, I decided to be honest about my feelings and emotions. I hope that I do not hurt anyone with what I wrote, but rather encourage us ALL to find new ways to get over our primitive emotions of fear, desire, jealousy, rage, and betrayal and practice what the fuck we preach.
thanks, heidi. good thoughts.
The Skepchicks are like the cool group of popular girls at high school. You know, the ones we all secretly wanted to be like. However, unlike the cool group of popular girls, the Skepchicks aren’t bitchy and excluding of the rest of us skeptic girls. I appreciate the awareness that the Skepchicks have brought women in the skeptical movement and they write a fantastic and extremely thought provoking blog.
Sure, we aren’t all as gorgeous and sexy as the Skepchicks, but some women in the skeptic community need to get over their petty jealousy or whatever is spurring this nonsense and realise that the Skepchicks are trying to bring awareness and promotion for all of us.
wow Heidi that was eye opening I don’t think I have ever really seen things from that perspective, thank you for sharing. I’ve enjoyed the friendships of many a skeptical woman (skepchick and non-skepchick alike) I see some as writing for a popular blog but I try (and hope I succeed) at just appreciating them all for the rational and wonderful human beings they are.
Swoopy is one of my favourites in the movement but she is not a skepchick, I love Amy but I got to know her before she was inducted, and I’m in awe over your own intelligence and courage. That being said many of the skepchicks are amazing people I did gush over meeting at TAM (mind you the running joke was that I would hump Phil’s leg due to my massive mancrush). If guys only focus on the Skepchicks then they are missing out on knowing all the wonderful people in the movement.
I just want to add that all the skeptical women who have befriended me have a special place in my heart yourself included Heidi.
ok I’m going to go be sappy elsewhere
I am going to do my damnedest to make this the one and only comment I have on this topic anywhere in the blogosphere, and it is prompted mostly by Riayn’s comment and comments like it elsewhere.
There is more going on in this community than what is written about in blogs.
There is also, in many ways, much less going on than what some of these blog posts seem to suggest.
I have spent a lot of in the past 8 hours of getting re-acquainted with the interwebs after a mostly-absent period of a couple of weeks and I am not happy with what I have seen.
If I had participated in this discussion before tonight, I would likely be greatly offended by some of what has been posted/commented/stated online tonight. There has been a lot of pot calling the kettle black, straw man building, and wishful thinking/justification.
It is offensive and presumptuous to simply assume that all, or even most, criticism of the skepchick approach is the product of insecurity or that those who voice a minority opinion simply do not know what they are talking about. Instead of ad hominem attacks (which is what “oh, they are just jealous” is, like it or not), how about showing some humility and considering the criticism itself?
If the sides cannot work things out rationally, then perhaps these are differences in values. As such, I think we would all agree that those differences should be respected and that is the conclusion that I think Heidi has come to.
Setting aside these disagreements is certainly possible. However, respect is not something that you can ask of others, yet only pretend to give. Saying that you are accepting and friendly and humble doesn’t make it true; neither does thinking it. To make it true, you actually have to practice what the fuck you preach.
So, I guess my final thought is pretty much the same as Heidi’s. Do not presume that you have the absolute truth in any area and practice WTF you preach. Please.
“However, unlike the cool group of popular girls, the Skepchicks aren’t bitchy and excluding of the rest of us skeptic girls.”
I’m sorry to point out Riayn, you don’t have the perspective that some others have. There is indeed CLASSIC examples of bitching and exclusion over many years now – enough that I’ve had a complete stranger approach me at a convention last year and say ‘oh, EVERYONE hates that Skepchick. Even her friends. She’s been called… people no longer want her to…’.
And I assure you, that was someone who is in the ‘inner circle’, hanging out with a ‘cool crowd’, someone who was not a presenter but clearly much admired.
They completely floored me with those statements and how they assured me that others felt the same. A lot of what they said was reflecting concern, but more of it was reflecting frustration and of the Skepchick community not DOING something about it and instead maintaining a status-quo.
Are you surprised? Why are you surprised? Why be angry that people can be people? That both men and women can be nasty as well as nice? Is it such a shock to learn this? Is everyone such an angel?
As Heidi says, that’s one example of one person who is NOT practicing what they preach as a Skepchick, which only just confirmed what I had felt and others had alluded to. My response when I heard? I was shocked, but also not that surprised – and I walked away after thanking them for being honest to me, a complete stranger to them.
I felt after that experience as if maybe things could change if it wasn’t all behind closed doors after all. But I knew I had to do better than just complain to strangers.
I started to do so, on my own terms. By taking my own path, ignoring the labels. By not by thinking that it was all up to the Skepchicks to eventually solve anything with that much baggage attached. If I saw problems that had to be tackled by a skeptic, I had to take responsibility by making contacts and so-be-it if they were not Skepchicks!
For all I know, I didn’t know all the story about that Skepchick – and yet nothing was going to be achieved either by thinking ‘oh, but they MUST be so great!’ and leaving it up to them to ‘do the job’. I’d be let down, as I had before.
It wasn’t what you call ‘jealousy’ or ‘bitterness’ and neither have been the experiences of other people I know who have faced similar – and to immediately dismiss it is to completely dismiss any valid issues women may very well have and hurt that has absolutely been done by some of these women.
I should point out – OR any woman out there who is just labeled one end of the spectrum as ‘crazy’ or ‘bitch’ or ‘slut’ or ‘drunk’ or ‘vengeful’ or ‘malicious’ or ‘has this issue and is unreachable’. That could apply to the Skepchicks too or any MAN in skepticism!
You think X has a problem? Step back and learn why. Don’t assume you know all the story, as I did. No one knows the whole story. Maybe you have one too, in either being unquestioning or distancing yourself from the whole mess.
So – I guess that supports what Heidi says. People should take a step back. If there’s something going on that has made this blow up, then maybe people should also look critically at their rose-colored glasses, not only of others but of themselves. People see a LOT more than you may think and they are talking and they SHOULD talk.
And Heidi – I hope more people will speak out forthright like you do. We needed you YEARS ago.
I suggest that before anyone puts anyone up on a pedestal, you start realizing that there are absolutely clay feet. Don’t shut down dialogue by DARING to say ‘oh, they’re just jealous’ or ‘lunatics’ for saying ‘I don’t like this’. It’s unworthy, unrealistic and not reflecting the truth and shuts down discussion of valid problems that are still not being addressed. :(
As a relative newcomer to the skeptic movement, I can really appreciate this post, Heidi….and your continual honest and forthright approach.
I hope everyone is clear that this post is my opinion, and mine only.
Some people who have issues with Skepchick have never felt one bit of jealousy over them, the way some people who have issues with Mark Edward’s methods have never felt jealousy towards him.
I was giving a perspective over how some people might feel excluded, drawing on my own experience of feeling that way and being confused over WHY I felt that way.
The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards getting over this whole “skeptic” thing anyway. Are we trying to draw people to our side for the sake of having more skeptics? Or are we trying to encourage critical thinking?
When I think about this critically, I think you should be a skepchick, but then I think about the uniqueness of your blog and think that we’all are better off with your unique voice coming from elsewhere.
But then I remember bug_girl who does both.
Anyway, thanks for these honest thoughts.
Very well said.
good post, and while we talked for many many hours last night about all of this. there is one line that strikes me:
“…I challenge the pro-boob and anti-boob outreach camps to do something useful, such as devise a test to see which method is more effective.”
It strikes me because while i do know you very well, it does give the impression of drawing a line in the sand saying both cannot be valid and both cannot coexist (although pro-boob, and anti-boob is not the way i would say describes or does justice to who and what one does. those that only see boobs are not seeing that there is MUCH more substance within the writings and connections). This is just an observation from a friend, and that is all it is. Nothing mean-spirited or anger-lace intended.
What I do not understand are people who chose to write off a very smart group of women who are able to blend science and at the same time showing people that they can be confident and sexy as well (instead of holding a grudge against them and blaming them for every little problem you see in the movement, maybe talking to them rationally would actually help work better than using a soap-box to mock their posts or sling dirt in their faces). There is no one definite way that skepticism has to be, and that is something I wish more people would realize and instead of getting worked up and angered and use petty-indirect name calling, they could use that energy by creating their own group and their own bubble instead of talking to their friends about how much they dislike a particular site. simply put, if they don’t care about it, then why feel the need to talk about it?
The last thing we need is a total schism in the skeptical movement because we keep arguing that a Granny Smith Apple is not the same as a Washington Apple. They are both apples and there is plenty of room for people who like either one, or both.
Thank you ~
I was once a size 24, now I’m a size 8. No surgery, no pills, just a corrected thyroid condition, more output and less input. Before this starts to read like a Jenny Craig ad, I want to say that none of this is about appearance, to me.
I’ve been a very active skeptic for 14 years, and before this begins to sound like a Skeptics’ Anonymous meeting, gender isn’t a strong issue, for me. We’re all just skeptics. I don’t see a ‘glass-ceiling’ for the girls…
Most of my years in skepticism have been pre-Skepchick. It’s not even a huge identity for me. It’s another place to spread the word, and a fun and feisty site at that. I certainly don’t feel it stifled me in any way beforehand, or made it harder for me or other non-female skeptics to have their achievements noticed. Get out there and do your own thing – have your own product.
As for my skepchick-ism, I was a bit lost after quitting the Australian Skeptics following 13 years of service. Looking for new opportunities I hit Rebecca up and asked if I could become involved. I wasn’t headhunted, no one courted or invited me. I asked. Just because I hadn’t been asked, I didn’t feel excluded.
I don’t do skepticism through booze and tits and arse. If some see that in me, that’s their perspective. I do skepticism through hard-hitting language, and passion.
Tim, I am in complete agreement with your post! I do not think that one approach is necessarily the best approach. In the end, what really matters is whether or not people are influenced and taught to think more critically about the information with which they are presented in this world.
Bravo, Heidi.
What I still stumble over is why aren’t all of us outspoken skeptical women “skepchicks” if we chose to be included? I’ve always felt only those selected few received the moniker whereas many of us were here long before that particular concept existed. I recall being at a skeptics conference circa 2000 when you could count the number of women under 40 with one hand. I’m very glad to see that changing but inclusiveness ought to be a primary goal.
“I wish more people would realize and instead of getting worked up and angered and use petty-indirect name calling”
Yes, and I hope certain people realise that they have been noticed doing likewise and people talk about it?
For example, I quote from Twitter:
“i’m especially sick of people who claim to be skeptical rationalizing vitriol based on crazy personal vendettas.”
http://twitter.com/carr2d2/status/8094373168
Pot, kettle, so on. People notice that. It’s hardly ‘civil’, ‘direct’ and ‘not worked up’, is it, Tim?
And I’ve seen little evidence of people talking face-to-face setting the example myself, more like ‘ignored and snubbed’.
But as I said – people are people. Why should I expect you to practice what is preached when so few really do. :(
in response to the previous post:
why do you take a quote from someone else and claim that to be my words or how i feel. so for you to stake a claim that i am not practicing what i preach, is empty and meaningless. Skepticism is not cynicism, and it would do much better service to communicate on a respecting level if you ever want to accomplish or fix something that you see as a problem, No one can logically believe that everyone will like one thing, because that would be boring and not cause growth and branch new ideas.
I have no idea why you feel it is so hard to get in touch with anyone on their site, because i know for a fact that if you contact them via the link on their page, it will get read. hate mail is never a good thing, but simply explaining your issues in a respectful way DOES make it easier to find a happy middle-ground.
Maybe my words will just be glazed over due to you already having it made up in your mind that nothing good will come out of no matter what happens, but i would like to give you the credit that every person deserves and say that you seem to have issues and would love to see you have a respectful conversation with any of them. Again, maybe that is just me trying to be optimistic, but i think every person that brings something to the table deserves equal respect…provided no one is cutting anyone else down in the process.
“http://twitter.com/SurlyAmy/status/8104525262″
And I quote
“The whole Skepchicks are cliquey & use sexuality as a tool meme got started by 1 maybe 2 angry people. Everyone is just gonna follow along?”
Maybe it’s pointless after seeing how there are clearly some issues that people DO have with some members of your group and the public message is ‘you’re a mean nasty minority, and we’ll ignore you’.
Respect isn’t being given with that attitude, is it? No, no one can possibly have any problems ever, it’s always just a minority. Thanks. Thanks a lot. We’re cut down before we even begin.
“@carr2d2 Yes, I agree with that! *Some people* seem to be holding on to the idea of skepticism as a way to mask their *crazy*.”
http://twitter.com/SurlyAmy/status/8094506760
How tragic that you treat people like that.
Okay, so I’m late to this “thing” whatever you call it, apologies if it’s all been said…
First of all, Heidi, I LOVE the banner. It’s freakin’ adorable.
Second, thank you for this post, especially by conveying a feeling that I’ve often had with anything I do. That feeling of, “why is so-and-so popular/respected/listened to and no one notices me?” Which most of the time is totally bullshit, because I do have some issues of self-worth to battle with. The reality isn’t that I’m not doing something right or someone else is being unfair, I’ve got my contribution to make as well as many others do, and at the end of the day *I* have to be happy with what *I* do.
As for popularity… For whatever reasons and confluence of events, Skepchick hit a resonance with a segment of the skeptical community and it flourishes because of that. And it remains the strongest female-centered skeptical voice. (And personally, I do like the posts and the community there, so take into account whatever bias I have.) And popularity need not be the high-school type… we could be talking objectively about website hits, number of commenters, links, etc. There is nothing catty or pretentious in that.
If there’s personal in-fighting and problems, that’s just going to happen anything you get more than one human in contact with another. I’d LOVE to find a way to minimize that in any setting… but I guess talking about it like this and being aware is a good start.
And really, griping on a personal twitter account is not going to ruin the movement. We all need some freaking outlets and even support from our friends now and then.
To end a somewhat randomly written (I’m tired) comment… Can I bottle some of that good old Heidi brand of self-esteem to get me through grad school??? :-D
Not everyone wants to educate through boobies, alcohol,l and fun. Not everyone wants to have their sexuality brought into the forefront when they are trying to discuss things. Not everyone feels comfortable in a party atmosphere.
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the notion that Heidi said this.
Heidi, you better change your password. I think you got hacked.
No, no one can possibly have any problems ever, it’s always just a minority. Thanks. Thanks a lot. We’re cut down before we even begin.
Who is this “we”? You and your infinite number of sock puppets you create whenever someone says anything critical about Rebecca or Skepchick? Is this some cunning failed plan to hide your identity?
And your disdain for the Skepchicks is so profound that you follow them on Twitter? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Amy isn’t the only one you follow. Twitter is a great tool for out-of-context quote-mining, isn’t it?
(As long as you have this connection to Amy, why not order some SurlyRamics? I’m sure Amy would ship internationally.)
Are we going to see you again at Dragon*Con?
Great post Heidi.
As I’ve said before, when a skeptic sees someone “doing skepticism wrong”, the most powerful; thing you can do is to do it “right”. The most varied approaches we have the more chances we have to make something stick.
plebas:
I am not a sock-puppet, so at the risk of misspeaking for “Thank You Heidi” I will answer one of your questions:
The “we” refers to anyone who dares to suggest that the community take a good look in the mirror once in a while and really examine whether the strategies used are moving us toward or away from our goals. That is NOT one person. Or even two. It is MANY. You may continue to think whatever you like, but ignoring reality does not make it go away.
When anyone steps out on that limb, whether it be to discuss alternatives to “Skepchicks” or the scope of the movement or any other sacred cow of the community, the response most often comes in the form of personal attacks (ad hominem – if you need a reference for why that does not fit with skepticism, visit http://ohioskeptic.com/grassrootsskeptics/ and click on any link and I’m sure you’ll find one)instead of rational discussion. You have illustrated that point beautifully.
Heidi was extremely brave for doing so with this post. She wasn’t flogged for it for 2 reasons: 1-She is well liked and respected in nearly every corner of the community who would be involved in this issue and 2-because there are enough details in the post that it is easy for people to twist her points into something resembling their own view.
So, the next time you decide to berate someone for posting anonymously, I urge you to seriously consider the consequences that person would face if they put their name to it. Your comment is an excellent example.
BTW, what do you think the difference is between commenting anonymously and posting comments like yours in which you do not say exactly who you think the commenter is? Rhetorical question, of course, because the answer is obvious: motive.
Okay, I know I said I would try to refrain from posting more on the topic, but this was not about Skepchicks or feminism, so it only half-counts.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
badrescher,
I was talking specifically about continued slurs against the Skepchicks from the same quarter, and the sock puppet comment was for a single person who grows a new identity whenever the opportunity arises to attack that group. I was NOT referring to you.
I am not berating anyone for posting anonymously. (My real name isn’t really “phlebas.”) My problem is with people who pretend to be multiple people to add weight to their slurs. (And no, I’m not going to identify “Thank You Heidi” any more than I already have. It’s not my place to expose secret identities. It would be nice if this person would change her ways on her own, though.)
BTW, I am assuming here that you don’t think comments like “enough that I’ve had a complete stranger approach me at a convention last year and say ‘oh, EVERYONE hates that Skepchick. Even her friends” constitutes a valid, objective argument? ‘Cause to me, that looks like grade-school petulance, and unworthy of a conversation among adults. And it is typical of the sort of vitriol these particular sock puppets fling. And quote-mining Twitter posts with no context? Are we using creationist tactics now?
So, no. My comment wasn’t about skepticism or feminism, and I do apologize for the off-topic post. I am all in favor of people taking a look in the mirror, but I am also in favor of people giving it a damn rest.
And I admit to no ad hominem attacks. Just sarcasm. I disagree that reasoned criticism of the Skepchicks fosters unreasonable responses. If you think mine is unreasonable, fine, but look at the Skepchick threads or the thread on Greg Laden’s blog or wherever else you see the topic discussed, and point me to a multitude of unreasonable responses. Look at Carrie’s and Karen’s responses here, too. I must have missed the fire-breathing.
I don’t give a damn what some people think of Rebecca, or the Skepchicks, or the Rational Responders, or PZ Meyers, or you, or me. If you come out with an opinion and speak it with confidence, you are going to occasionally annoy people. That’s all fine.
But when you bring your irrational nonsense to a blog that’s supposed to be a beacon of reason and clear thinking, you can’t be surprised when you are challenged about it.
And when you REPEATEDLY bring it to blogs unrelated to the group with which you have a problem, instead of actually taking it to the Lion’s Den yourself, what do you expect to happen? If you have a problem with Skepchick, address it to the Skepchicks or drop it. If you think the Skepchicks are hurting that which they claim to be supporting, drop the grade-school nonsense and make your case.
I have gone on too long. Sorry if I offended you, badrescher. You weren’t in my crosshairs, and I don’t disagree with anything you said about holding up mirrors. But I think the actions of “Thank You Heidi” and all her other socks are a much bigger problem than a group of fun-loving women who like to party.
when did skepticism turn in2 twilight: I m 4 team such-and-such, boo u sux cuz i m on team slightly-different-such-and-such.
There really is no need to make it an “us & them” situation, as there is plenty of room for many things. Focusing negativity and taking an out-of-context comment from someone without actually knowing or asking the person who said the comment what they meant and instead decide to say/imply that they are what is wrong with skepticism, that is just wrong and does a huge disservice to making things less hostile. All it does it take the open-thinking and reduce it to bias name-calling and mean-spirited attacking, thus making it feel like lol-text anger….and that isn’t going to help open any doors.
Team Jacob!
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
The reason I thought of having a test is because when anti-porn activists claim porn is damaging and causes violence against women, then scientists studied it. And there was no proof.
It seems as if you could devise a test that would show if sexual innuendo/drinking/partying helped, hindered, or had no effect on the actual learning of critical thinking. I would bet it has no effect at all on it, but it would be interesting to see.
In my job, we have to do evaluations of our educational presentations to show if the people learned what we were trying to teach them. It is possible. Not easy, but possible.
You know what they say – In Japan the symbol for crisis is also opportunity! We could turn this mess into an opportunity to refine what our goals as a movement are and critically examine whether or not we are reaching those goals.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
Hi Karen! (Alcoholics Anonymous joke)
I am glad you did not feel excluded. Some people have. I elaborated on my reasons here, and even I admit they are pretty silly reasons. But feel that way I did.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
I agree that one approach is not always the best, but I do think we can get information on which approaches work better for certain audiences.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
From what I have been told, the name Skepchick was used by Rebecca as a way of taking it back from male JREF posters who used it derisively. Also, I have been told they do not care if other women are using that name too.
That said, it is clear that when most people think Skepchick, they think Skepchick.org, and if you are not on there, it might feel exclusive.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
To be fair, Carr2D2 is Tim’s wife, not Tim.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
To also be fair here, there have been snipes on Twitter from various people about this issue wherein people are calling other people crazy. It is not helpful in my opinion.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
If there is a secret war going on between people, I wish they would just either deal with it or bring it out in the open. But anonymous postings by one side, and calling *some people* crazy on another is not helpful at all.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
I do not mind people griping on Twitter either. What I hate is that sometimes people use Twitter as a whisper campaign that feels very juvenile to me.
Skepchick has CLEARLY hit a resonance with a segment of the skeptical community, and not the horny male community. Lots of people go there and really enjoy it as a way to interact with other skeptics. I comment on there as well.
I will still say though that popularity, be it commenters, hits, etc is a measure of effectiveness. And I personally think we can FIND a way to measure effectiveness, at the very least to improve advocacy and outreach.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
And I would be no help to you in grad school. You know exactly where we would be!
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
I KNOW!!! It is SO hard to imagine that not only do I like to talk about sex, but I also understand that not everyone does. It is almost like I am able to think one thing about an issue, AND let other people have their own opinion about it.
Weird.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
Once again, whisper campaign people. I KNOW WHO YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! If this person you are talking is indeed crazy, you guys are assholes for fucking with the mentally ill. If she is NOT crazy, you guys are assholes for insinuating she is. If she is a mean stalker chick, then you need to deal with it.
Is there some legal reason you guys can not just deal with this? Why you can’t call each other by their real names?
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
Yes, we must be skeptical of ourselves. When someone called me on the title of this post as being less than helpful, I responded that I can see that. It is a bad title.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
Thank you Barbara.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
In the same token that people who are claiming that the Skepchicks are hurting skepticism need to make their case ( I AGREE!), people who claim the Skepchicks ARE helping skepticism ALSO need to make their case.
I see no evidence either way.
As far as bringing it TO the Skepchicks, after the way people are trashed on Twitter, blogs, and Skepchick itself (not by the Skepchicks, but the commenters), why would ANYONE come forward by themselves with criticism. One girl says on a science blog that the Skepchick method is crap and does not promote science (I have had worse things said about me on Orac’s blog, it is not that big of a deal), and she is piled on as if she had shot the holy father himself. If she is wrong, let her discuss it, hear her out, and then prove her wrong. But claiming that the Skepchick method of outreach/advocacy may not be effective is NOT the same as calling them boozy floozies, to use Elyse’s term.
As far as you telling people to give it a rest, you can not give things a rest when there is still work to be done. This is still clearly an issue with people, and not just this anonymous sock puppet regime you refer to.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
thank you heidi for all the comments, but you see no evidence that skepchicks help skepticism? you do not see that is has become a huge beacon in the skeptic circles for women and men to go and talk about current issues and humorous issues and new scientific things? they are the largest female-focused skeptical site, and do many good things and thanks to that site you (and many many other people) have found and made some very good friends. that to me is a great thing, and is a great thing for getting people together to share their love of science and also welcome them into your circle. honestly, you and i would not probably know each other and therefor would not be the great friends we are now, if there was no skepchick website to connect us way back when.
yes, there is something to be said about sniping on twitter. but when a twitter comment is posted onto a blog comments section and not given any context, then that DOES do harm and DOES paint a negative picture. so while i will be honest and address that i believe kylie to post on here under a different name with mean-comments (and if she indeed is not on here doing that, then i sincerely apologize). Buuuut, if you also claim to be thinking the same person as I do, then i would like you to address that person as well if indeed it is her.
anyways, thank you for replying on here heidi.
~
An objective measure of effectiveness is *really* important, and that’s an issue I think about with regards to astronomy outreach as well. I would love to know how this is done, and anecdotes are not going to cut it. Questionnaires and statistics help, but we’re talking about a mostly unfunded grassroots movement here (whereas certain science outreach projects have to take stats in order to then get funding.) I’m new to this facet of outreach and willing to learn anything I can.
Also is is possible that the Skepchicks have been criticized for being “boozy floozies” (to paraphrase) in one way or another without backing evidence just a few too many times, and thus are tired of it? Just a total guess here, but if that’s the case, I can imagine that wears on people. Should they have to defend their methods of outreach every time? Can a rational discussion of methods be undertaken when the initial comment is unsupported? I think you are right, Heidi, there is no evidence either way, and without it, maybe there’s no point even bickering over this anymore, and everyone just needs to do skepticism their own way and not get bitchy over differences.
What do I know, I’m just a damn spectator to this drama. A mouthy spectator at times, but still.
Do you know http://www.ziztur.com ? She is a local (I’m in St Louis) female skeptic, rising up in the ranks! One of the quirkiest girls I know.
Wow, I’m new to this. Seriously, Skepchicks? Stripping for the fellas to be taken seriously? ‘Reality never looked so goood’. Seriously??
And ‘if you don’t like it, you’re just jealous!’? What is this, middle school?
Thanks, it’s nice to know that we have to use our Tits and Ass to get things done. Well yeah and brains too but T&A it what brings ‘em in. Gotta serve massa. Don’t mind them field negroes for complaining.
Theoreticalgrrrl, to be clear, I have never heard of the Skepchicks stripping for the fellas.
I’m late to this party, but I just started checking out your blog and this post almost made me cry.
I recently made the mistake of criticising Skepchick on the JREF forum and the ensuing discussion got so ugly that I haven’t gone back to what had been a cherished community for me.
I was shocked at how quick some people were to call me a hypocrite since I had been a model for the 2009 Skepchick calendar but I had a problem with the theme of the Skepchick TAM party (Wild West Bordello? For real? WTF?).
Your post describes some of my feelings pretty much exactly, and I’m so happy to hear that you’re involved with the LWDS event at TAM and I’m grateful that SheThought.com is around to balance out the “Look at my BOOOOBS!!” approach to women in skepticism.
Thank you noblecaboose!
Just a quick note about the word “Skepchick.” It did have its start on the JREF forum, but it pre-dates Rebecca by a bit. In fact, Girl 6 used to own the domain name skepchick.com, but I don’t know what’s up with it now.
As for the term “Skepdick,” well…