Comments on: Skeptic Catfight – Can’t We All Just Get Along?

By: Heidi Anderson

Heidi Anderson — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:14:17 +0000

Thank you noblecaboose!

By: noblecaboose

noblecaboose — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:17:52 +0000

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.

By: Heidi Anderson

Heidi Anderson — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:17:24 +0000

Theoreticalgrrrl, to be clear, I have never heard of the Skepchicks stripping for the fellas.

By: Theoreticalgrrrl

Theoreticalgrrrl — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 05:41:57 +0000

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.

By: The Beautiful Kind

The Beautiful Kind — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:22:05 +0000

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.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:47:09 +0000

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.

By: Tim3p0

Tim3p0 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:41:33 +0000

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.
~

By: FatOneInTheMiddle

FatOneInTheMiddle — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:10:52 +0000

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.

By: FatOneInTheMiddle

FatOneInTheMiddle — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:01:54 +0000

Thank you Barbara.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.

By: FatOneInTheMiddle

FatOneInTheMiddle — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:01:05 +0000

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.