I have nice boobs. Very, very nice boobs in fact. I also like to show my nice boobs and I like it when people look at them. Generally, my goal with showing my boobs is two-fold: 1) everyone in the world will fall madly in love with me and my boobs and 2) I will not look like an apple on sticks.
So surely this means I am whipping those sweater puppies out today for Boobquake right?
No. Boobquake bothers me. And not for the reasons many people think.
First, I hate empty protests. You can only raise awareness so much before you need to act. And raising awareness with people who are already aware is just preaching to the choir.
I had this argument with people about the “green screens for Iran” and the debate about calling for the arrest of the Pope. Talking about things all day long is great and can make you feel good and smart. But to accomplish anything in this world, you have to do work. And do you know why its called work? BECAUSE IT IS WORK!
Social justice movements are not fun. I wonder how fun it was for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of that bus, without even an iPod to block out the people screaming at her? I wonder if Malcolm X was just tempted to wear a t-shirt with a witty saying instead of standing up in front of people who wanted to kill him? Maybe Martin Luther King would have accomplished just as much with an Equality Ho Down in Alabama? Or maybe instead of collaborating with Theo Van Gogh on the film Submission (for which he was ultimately murdered) Ayan Hirsi Ali could have just gone to Cabo for Spring Break and convinced some of the Girls Gone Wild crew to help her write Koran verses on naked young white women? Not so powerful, is it?
Aside from the fact that it could be considered not only EXTREMELY culturally insensitive for American women to shove our freedom in the face of Iranian women, how many of the women who participated in Boobquake normally dress modestly? Based on comments, not many. Many of the women just seemed so excited to have a day to “show off the girls!”
And therein lies my second point. EVERY DAY should be a day when you feel comfortable expressing your sexuality and seeking sexual attention. Why has this event taken off like it did? Could it be that there is STILL shame in women expressing their sexuality? Of course there is!
But you don’t need a fake protest, catcalls from supportive men, alcohol, or the approval of your friends to be sexual. If you dress in a sexual manner, some people will think you are slutty. If you dress in a modest manner, some people will not give you the time of day. But the way we use Halloween, Girl’s Night Out, and now Boobquake as holidays in which “good girls” are given permission to be sexual pisses me off. You don’t NEED permission. You just need courage, and the willingness to take responsibility for your decisions. Part of that responsibility means being willing to give up the labels of good girls and bad girls, and just be.
Sexuality is a part of each of us, and people should feel comfortable expressing that in ways they find comfortable. Just don’t hide your need for sexual expression under the guise of the greater good. Because when you do so, you imply that sexual expression for its own sake is invalid. And to me, the greatest reason to be sexual is the pleasure of sexuality itself.
Thank you!
“holidays in which “good girls” are given permission to be sexual pisses me off”
I’m pretty sure that’s not the point(here)though. Perhaps that’s some of it…online…by silly little girls…but there’s also a valid, organized protest in Indiana today, national/international coverage and shirt sales, the proceeds of which go to Red Cross disaster relief.
Proceeds also go to JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation), a non-profit group whose goal is to: promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.
But that’s just it. It’s not preaching to the choir. Jen’s movement has gotten media attention outside of the ‘usual’ skeptical coverage. CNN, Yahoo and several others have covered the story. I got this story sent to me by a former co-worker who would never fall into the Skeptic-with-a-capital-S group or read anything from them unless I happened to send it to him. So, it’s raising awareness about a fairly large issue – the issue of mistreatment and inequality in other countries.
It’s easy to forget, living in Western countries, that these problems exist. And I think Jen’s method is a smart, funny way to bring the problem to light.
Also, I agree that we shouldn’t have to have a day to express our sexuality. That every day should be a day when we feel comfortable doing just that. And nobody, not even Jen, is asking women to come out of their comfort zone:
(from her site – http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html)
I think that to your point – there are still issues in our current society with how we express our sexuality. And this is a great way to allow for the discussion about those issues to happen and to raise awareness of those issues as well. Picking a day to ‘wear something immodest’ makes me think about what ‘immodest’ is to me and why. And that, to me, is also worth discussing.
I agree with Masala. Jen’s idea was to reflect the stupidity of the cleric’s overall position that women are the root of an evil that cause earthquakes.
By all rights we celebrates “boobquake” day every single day simply because we’re not forced to wear burkhas.
Today was a day that we were able to remind ourselves just how lucky we are that women like our foremothers and their supportive male spouses and friends worked so hard to allow us the freedom not just to show cleavage without fear of government retribution – but merely our very own ankles.
If anything – the whole ordeal has gotten a lot of women to talk about what this means to them and that’s a very, very good thing for all of us.
So while I don’t feel it was an “empty protest”, Jen’s tongue-in-cheek (or shall I just say “cheeky”) call was a perfect tie-in with ABC & Fox decision to withhold the Lane Bryant ad because the model had too much cleavage – which shows just how much in common Iranian Clerics and American business people have in common.
A deep-seeded fear of women.
But I’m glad I found your blog!
I’m a supporter of the original (read: not the “Girls Gone Wild”) intent of Boobquake, but I think this was the clearest and most thoughtful (read: not knee-jerk anti-male) argument against it.
Well said.
Heidi, what was the point of the misleading tweet? You oppose #boobquake and for all the wrong reasons. See: http://is.gd/bIgxe
Excellent post. And I agree 100%.
There is a big difference between (what we call in the science communication field) ‘output’ and ‘outcomes’, although a lot of people get them confused. I’ll often ask in regards to a stunt or outreach effort, ‘How do you know if it was effective at all?’, and the answer is inevitably ‘Because we reached X people.’
If your goal is to only get noticed, to get CNN’s attention, to be on page four of the local rag, then I guess you can say your output and outcome are the same thing, and you can claim success. But that is my chief beef with a good proportion of skeptical outreach – it cares little for doing more than being heard. So long as it makes waves, it can dust its hands and say it’s done something.
Boobquake is good fun. I like boobs. Really. Like most blokes, I also like any opportunity for girls to put them on display. And, sure, outreach needs high output. But we need outcomes too, and I fear the celebrity appeal of high output is far more seductive than the hard work (and invisible nature) of putting some energy into finding out how to do more than preaching to the already converted.
@TribalScientist: What would be a better way to generate good outcomes? I’d like to see some examples of efforts that tried for outcomes and failed or suggestions that would create good outcomes, particularly when it comes to this issue.
At a time where the media is so often wrong about skeptical and scientific efforts, it’s nice to see coverage being provided to actual skeptical blogs and efforts. Plus, Jen’s blog got lots of coverage so people might come for the boobs and stay for the skepticism.
Finally, I think there is a measurable impact to boobquake. All sales of boobquake t-shirts are going to the JREF. I’m not sure how much was raised but there’s a measurable actual amount of funding that the JREF has that likely wouldn’t have existed without boobquake.
I am a big fan of the breasts… I have a lovely rack – odes have been written to the wonders that are my breasts. I don’t use the term boob because I reserve that for particularly ridiculous people.
Yesterday, 13 Little Girls were poisoned in an Afghan school by people who are against the education of girls. POISONED. You don’t have to look very hard to find stories of women being beaten, burned, or sold into marriages because as women they are not considered worthy of basic human rights.
Boobquake is a meaningless gesture. Meaningless because tomorrow someone else will come along with yet another ridiculous protest that will serve no purpose and the words of the Cleric will be forgotten, much like the plight of the women who must live under the yoke of that kind of ignorant backward ass religious nonsense have been forgotten.
Jen will be the ‘Boobquake Chick’ forever. Her serious scholarship will carry the stench of “BoobQuake” and no amount of scraping will get it off. Next year on the 26th, there will be someone else who wants a few moments of fame who will try to make it “BoobQuake the Quickening”. I’m guessing that it will be a Topless Event or a Wet T-Shirt Contest because that is how these things evolve.
In the meantime… somewhere in a thought forsaken corner of the planet, a little girl is being told that having her genitalia mutilated is for her own good, a girl is being refused an education, a widowed woman is becoming the property of her brother-in-law, a woman is unsure how she will feed her child because she is unable to work, other women are making .70 to every $1 made by a male coworker, a woman is unable to get a legal abortion or she is being forced to have an abortion because the fetus she is carrying is female…I am sure that you get the picture.
I hate to be a wet blanket… I like fun, and I get jokes. But no one is forwarding this story because of the science – no one will embrace skepticism and when it gets out that she is an Atheist… BoobQuake will be the topic of a lot of Sermons on Sunday.
Absolutely nothing was gained… but thanks to BoobQuake, a narrow minded, religious misogynist has been defanged in the eyes of people who have no idea that the Cleric preaches to his own choir. And that Choir will have no difficulty putting a rape victim to death for being “Provocative” or “Encouraging Adultery”.
I want you to ask yourself while you chuckle if you would support BoobQuake if it was a ‘protest’ against a Rapist who was freed because the Victim “Asked For It By Dressing in a Provocative Way”.
I agree with some of the points you made, though I weirdly had this whole event pass me by until today. I’m playing catch up right now with the back story.
I just wanted to say that I love your blue footed booby. That fellow is definitely comfortable in his sexuality.
Are you hitting on my booby?
Masala; that would depend ultimately on what your goal is. As I said, if it is purely to say to a million people ‘We think this Islamic guy is a nutcase for suggesting that a bit of exposed skin is linked to earthquakes’, then the fact you have evidence of a million people hearing you means your outcome has been achieved.
But is that really the ultimate goal? Has a goal even been considered beyond pure exposure (mind the pun :P)? Or is there – as I suspect – simply a vague sense that having a large number of people hear you equates some form of success?
My point is that we see a lot of these stunts with a massive amount of focus on ‘being heard’, but rarely get much discussion on whether there is a point (or even if there should be a point) beyond making a statement or enthusing the those who already agree with you. We celebrate success in terms of audience size as if that equates changes in behaviours or a social impact, wishing to combat naivity as if the failed old-school method of deficit-model education will somehow still work for us even if it has consistently failed others in times past.
You claim that attracting newcomers to the skeptical community is a success. If that was the goal, then it is indeed a success. Having a skeptical community does provide people with support and a sense of belonging, so I can’t say it’s a bad thing. Yet I’d like to think that there is more to Skepticism than simply attracting attention and swelling the ranks of those who subscribe to a blog or an online forum, that perhaps rationality and an appreciation for science spreads beyond the choir.
On your comment regarding fundraising, once again I can’t say it in itself is a detrimental effect. However, I’ll assume it is a fortunate consequence and not an explicit outcome.
There is often a lot of focus on numbers, as if that is the be-all of an outreach effort. The recent 10:23 stunt was no different, and many used output in the same manner as if it was the prime goal. Unfortunately, when it’s challenged, skeptics are rather quick to become defensive or fending off suggestions on better goals and evaluations and wagons are rapidly circled. It makes it rather difficult to make room for improvement when we’re too busy patting ourselves on the back for being clever in managing to make the headlines, believing we’ve done more than just briefly attract the attention of the masses.
@frostitty – sorry, I just don’t see it that way. What is the alternative? Back off, don’t discuss it, don’t say anything, and let these things happen? In all the cynical responses to boobquake saying “this is just a flash in the pan of media coverage because of boobs,” I have yet to see any actual suggestions for what we could do to raise awareness of this or to resolve this (or the Afghanistan issue or any other issue) in a better, more productive way.
You may not agree with the methods of what Jen is doing. But it’s unfair to disparage and marginalize her results because you think it’s not the right way, when you don’t offer real alternatives.
I’m not saying there aren’t alternatives. I’m just saying that it’s pretty hard to reach the ‘general population’ and make any dent in reaching the public consciousness. Jen has done that and more power to her.
@tribalscientist So what would YOUR goals be? I’m not being snarky – I’m genuinely interested in what activism means to different people.
@frostkitty – hur hur hur, I called your frostitty. No pun intended :)
You, not your. AGH. Time to stop interwebbing.
Maria, frosttitty just made me about pee my pants. I did not even notice it until you pointed it out.
@Masala – You know that I do not subscribe to the “Do Nothing” school of thought. When it comes to the plight of women living under the yoke of Religious Extremism – I put my money, time and effort into organizations that support change and freedom and they do it a daily basis. Much like I support skeptics/science organizations that I believe in.
Here is where my problem lies… Let’s come up with alternatives – come up with a real protest within the Skeptical Community that does not involve the flashing of tits and let’s see how much enthusiasm it generates in the name of Skepticism, Rational Thought, or Critical Thinking… You are out there doing outreach – compare what you and the SkepChicks raise, what the NCSE or JREF raises to what the Teabagging Loons have managed to accomplish in a year.
Did you read the comments on the FaceBook page? How many people do you think actually gave any thought to the reason behind the protest… not the superficial naughty cleric reasons – but the ignorance behind those comments? After page 1 of the comments it was “Show Us Your Tits”. Do you seriously think that the reason that CNN and others are covering the event has anything to do with Skepticism? Seriously?
The ABC story leads with “Can Cleavage Cause Earthquakes?” No mention of Skepticism, NONE. Same for CNN and others I’ve read. Boobquake made the front page on MSN.com – No mention of it as a Skeptical Cause… and the women who were interviewed both for and against didn’t mention Skepticism – it was more a Feminist thing. If I hadn’t read your post about the T-shirt sales benefiting JREF, I wouldn’t have known that they were for sale, or that the JREF was involved at all. According to ABC more than 300,000 women participated – how many T-shirts do you think will be sold? Should we use that number A La Jen’s Metrics to gauge the effectiveness of the outreach?
Jen is a brilliant young woman, I may not agree with her take on the effectiveness of this stunt but that does not disparage her – I think of it as a testament to critical thinking and to the value of intellectual discourse. I do not have to agree to understand that for some it sends a powerful message. It is not the message I would personally send.
@Masala
Oh and YOU can call me FrostTitty… but no one else!!
Masala: It’s a fair question.
Personally, I’d like people to learn better decision-making skills. I’d like there to be more critical thinkers in the next generation, and more in the generation after that. I’d like those people to be tolerant of differences in opinion but able to evaluate information for its pragmatic qualities in order to make good decisions.
The thing is, I also know how difficult this task is. I’ve spent many years trying to find out how to get those who are disenfranchised from science, those who are scientifically illiterate and those who are overly influenced by social thinking to change how they think. The programs that do seem to be most efficient in achieving this aren’t typically those that make the headlines or have the largest output.
In my own field (science communication and education), I’m concerned that a lot of resources are being poured into areas which have either little evidence of being very effective or for which there is evidence to show they are ineffective. The justification I is often the same as that given by skeptics in support of such stunts as this – it’s better than doing nothing.
Is it? How do you know it isn’t detrimental? Skeptics love evidence, and yet when it comes to outreach, there’s none to be found, either positive or negative. It’s seen as a waste of resources to evaluate and demonstrate that the outreach effort is doing more than just attract more bloggers.
Believe it or not, I can understand perfectly well why such stunts are popular. There is a reaction that presents a sense of success (even if there was no primary goal outside of output). They’re simple. They’re rich with praise and positive feedback. They’re empowering in the face of a community which is full of antagonising voices preaching all manner of nonsense. So…I get why it’s done.
But given the number of years it took the JREF to even consider getting an educational consultant on board (which isn’t exactly glamorous, even if educational programs have demonstrated worth in changing attitudes in the next generation), versus the support of stunts over the years (which are high profile but for which there is little evidence of doing more than preaching to the converted), I hope you can understand why I might be somewhat critical of such acts.
I certainly feel that displays of breasts should not be reserved for days that society seems to deem it appropriate, as Heidi wrote. I agree that Boobquake started out as a fun, but mostly empty protest, but it has turned into something that is raising actual cash for charities. That, IMO, separates this from the lame “green screens” protest of last year. This certainly will not change the minds of any discernible number of people, especially not those that abuse, murder and discriminate for no other reason than gender difference, but I think that it has been good for at least getting a very modest amount of money to charities that will use it for good.
We can all agree that provocative dress by any standard does not lead to literal geological events. What I feel is more telling about Boobquake is that this debate highlights the very real figurative earthquake-causing ability that sexuality holds, even in so-called progressive circles. It’s easy to reduce the existence of metaphoric temblors to a binary of sluts vs prudes, but that does a disservice to both “sides.” It is more interesting to note that no matter how much we want to get beyond the othering of the female body, we are still acutely aware of the fact that all genders that are not biologically male are still often defined by that characteristic before most anything else. This holds true for the child brides of Yemen, the 10 year old raped by her stepfather in the Yucatan, Secretary of State Clinton and my own sister as she tries to balance family planning and academic tenure. How we choose to highlight or downplay our gendered differences is a direct acknowledgment of our awareness of the importance and influence of those differences in our daily lives, whether in matters of mortality, morality, work or family.
I agree, quantification of success is important. I also think it’s important to keep in mind that Jen posted the idea as a throwaway joke and it turned into something that people got behind all of a sudden. So she took advantage of it.
Maybe 90% of the people who heard of boobquake went ‘Hur. Boobs.’ And, maybe less than 10% went and read up on the Iranian cleric. And maybe 1% of those found a blog they will read again. I guess I think even a little good is better than none at all.
And sure, we all want people to think critically. But I think your definition of what is a ‘stunt’ versus a legitimate protest is very personal. I am sure many would say that the JREF million dollar challenge is nothing more than a stunt… it’s all a matter of perspective.
At this point, I’m just babbling so I’ll stop. BOOBS. That is all :)
Tch, TribalScientist – who let you out of your cage? Disgusting lout. ;) Oh, check your email, got to coordinate interview times so you can take over my podcast again… maybe you and Heidi can discuss a topic in the future? :D
People can hear more of TribalScientist on Token Skeptic Podcast – http://tokenskeptic.org/2010/02/05/episode-nine-on-skepticism-and-communication/
Masala: I agree and am certainly not out to vilify anybody here. However, I again point out that we simply don’t know if ‘a little good is better than none at all’ in absence of any real evidence on the matter. As skeptics, shouldn’t that be a concern? And I’d define any act that appears to aim to attract attention as a stunt. That doesn’t make them intrinsically good or bad, mind you. So, yes, the challenge is a stunt. It’s how this grab for attention is used that makes it either worthwhile or a potential waste of resources.
Podblack: I’d be more than happy to blather on. You know me. :P
“marginalize her results”
???
What “results”?
Do you mean the major earthquake or two that give people like that cleric even MORE ammunition?
Or could it be way that many women (including myself) were verbally abused for refusing to “lighten up” and accept that it was just a cute joke? (and perhaps they’ll say the same thing the next time I complain about having to repeat myself because when I’m talking about something I think is important and they were looking at my boobs instead of listening to my words)
Or could it be the gains in science education as people learned that it doesn’t matter if nothing is defined and the experiment is terribly designed – we’ll still call it “science”, just “tongue-in-cheek” science – and it’s perfectly okay if things don’t work out, we’ll just define our variables AFTER the fact so that the outcomes support our hypothesis?
There are no results here. Some men got to look at boobs. What’s new?
I think that movement like this one, and the call for the arrest of the pope, are great because they DO get lots of publicity and may cause some people to think a little differently.
“Jen will be the ‘Boobquake Chick’ forever”. As a sceptic I can’t give any credence to future predictions like this one.
@Badrescher – I’m not abusing you but I would say lighten up a little. She applied a scientific approach to a well-publicised claim. And lots of people picked up on the idea, ran with it and had some fun.
Ethann: You happen to be making the same assumption many make – that lots of publicity equals people thinking differently. Where is your evidence that this is the case? How do you know it didn’t have the opposite effect? As Badrescher pointed out, there were in fact a couple of earthquakes following this event. Obviously I’m not insinuating that they were connected in any way, but who’s to say that this coincidence wasn’t in fact counter to the cause?
The fact this is in the name of being skeptical is what is rather sad. It indeed states that even poor science is still science, and that’s acceptable as it’s better than nothing at all. It’s all well and good to ask people to lighten up, but I fear we often feel that because science has been so serious in the past, the trick is to simply make it more flippant in order to attract more people. We risk losing the very things that make science so useful simply to give it the Page 3 Girl factor and draw an audience.
First, “a scientific approach” is getting thrown around a little too casually for my taste. The only science here was incredibly BAD science – the very thing I fight tooth and nail against, in the trenches, every day.
Second, honestly, did you actually read what I wrote and are just piling on more “for fun”, or do you really think that if you just say “lighten up” one more time I will suddenly think this is all funny?
I think there was good science going on, assuming the experiment was “Is it possible to do something so innocuous that no one is offended by it?”
Haven’t reached any solid conclusions yet, but yesterday we did gather data that indicates “NO.”
I’d like to point out an unfortunate side-effect of this event. Part of my focus within the skeptical community has been the active recruitment of female critical thinkers. Some of these women are quite shy, and/or aren’t prone to being publicly sexual. For some it’s because that’s just not their thing and for others it’s because they work in male-dominated industries and have used the old “blend in with the dudes” strategy as a coping mechanism, and they’ve found it works effectively for them. I understand other positions/methods work well for other people, but I’m speaking solely of those not-comfortable-for-whatever-reason right now.
I spent large swaths of yesterday attempting to explain to hurt and/or deeply uncomfortable women that no, “this” is not what “Skepticism” is like, and no, they weren’t horrible/flawed/prudes/humorless feminists for not wanting to be involved. I understand it wasn’t Jen’s intention to be divisive, but events have a way of getting away from the organizers, and she obviously can’t control all the participants/supporters comments. But some of those comments were downright mean or misogynist, which does affect someone’s perception of the event.
I really, honestly hope the people that boobquake attracted stay to participate in and contribute to the community. And I hope their contributions balance the women who may now be reevaluating their involvement.
@badrescher: Here are her results: http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/and-boobquake-results-are-in.html
This is fantastic. We are on the same page with this one. Thank you for sharing!
PS: LOVE the boobie pic!
I heartily agree with this sentiment:
That said, still think boobquake was a pretty good idea worthy of support. :) I wonder, what do you make of the counter-event, Brainquake?
For that matter, what do you think of Femquake?
I don’t mean to be a stickler…but Rosa Parks didn’t sit in the front of the bus. She was where she was supposed to be, but would not vacate her seat for a white man when asked to by the bus driver.
Maria, this is incredibly BAD science no matter how you slice it. What she posted is not a set of results, but rather a post-hoc analysis Hugh Ross could have written.
The parameters she did define were defined after the fact. She discounted the Taiwan event post-hoc. There is no possible way to measure selection bias (cherry picking) or hindsight bias to account for those in the findings and conclusions.
The cleric’s claim was that women dressing immodestly encourages adultery. To set such a narrow time frame for this causal chain is as ridiculous as the claim itself.
Even if she had defined everything (with valid constructs) a priori, there is no pretest-post test design which can eliminate confounding variables – it is the worst design possible and it is NOT a true experiment.
Calling this “scientific” is a joke, and a very bad one.
I am baffled that so many people claiming to be “pro-science” and “pro-science education” would stand behind this MESS. We cannot hope to teach science if we continue to promote its abuse.
Science education took a step backward with this stunt, not forward.
We get so few moments where anyone in the general public or the national media pays attention. Taking those moments and shouting THIS IS BAD SCIENCE! DON’T LOOK! THIS IS NOT WHAT WE DO! is counterproductive. I promise we will loose more potential allies by coming off as humorless and stiff than we will by appearing willing to expose cleavage.
Until I saw the complaints on here, it never occurred to me that this was a feminism or sexuality issue. I still don’t think it is. It was a silly claim by a silly cleric, and the response to it was as respectful as it deserved. It’s not the type of thing that’s going to get written up in a major science publication, but so what? It’s a rudimentary experiment — “you made this claim about exposed bodies, we exposed some bodies, and your predictions did not come true – what else ya got?”
You are right that it missed the part about adultery. But if the cleric is right, incidents of adultery will be on the increase for a few days. All we need to do is look at the earthquake numbers for awhile. It still won’t be hard-core science, but it will be hard-core mockery, which I think has its place.
It was a shared chuckle by everyone who knows that those cleric’s claims were absurd. That’s all it was meant to be. It was not serious science, and I bet Jen knows that. As far as I know, no one has CLAIMED it was serious science. It was a joke that turned into an entertainment event. I’m sorry some of you were offended because it wasn’t the RIGHT TYPE of boob chat.
With that, I will leave you to carry on with whatever does not offend you. It’s been invigorating.
Lady Sid! Point taken.
Jeez. What a boob I was.
Counterproductive? As opposed to teaching people that “science” is a free-for-all? That science = fallacious reasoning?
Do you have any evidence that getting people excited about boobs is more productive? There is very little published research on the effects of these kinds of promotions, but what little there is does not support your argument. And a project completed in my classroom recently is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.
False dichotomy and a completely unfair comparison.
It is truly amazing, though, that people who claim to be inclusive and pro-science have no problem with offending others (repeatedly) and promoting fake-science so that they can share “a chuckle”.
It is true, I don’t particularly care about offending others when they are taking positions I find offensive – although that wasn’t my goal. I know it’s not your intention, and I doubt it’s a fair slice of what you’re like in real life — but your objections to this sound puritanical and judgmental. That’ll get people in line looking to sign up.
I am not holding up Boobquake as any kind of proper science. No one is saying “this is how science should be done – hang on, let me get a garden hose so we can get some REALLY accurate results.” We *have* to be able to laugh at ourselves if we’re going to have any credibility when we laugh at others.
Doing science properly is long and complex. Everyone here knows that. How much time do you think it’s worth to set up a legit scientific experiment to test the claims of this Iranian cleric? I think we collectively spent more time than it’s worth before Heidi finished writing the second sentence of her opening post.
I am *not* suggesting we teach science as a free-for-all. But when the mainstream media or The Colbert Report or anyone else looking for an entertaining human-interest story calls up to offer 10 seconds of TV or two paragraphs of newsprint, you are not going to get far with them trying to explain the scientific method. What you will get is cut out, and they will move on to whatever is next on the list.
I don’t know if Boobquake will attract more skeptics or get more people interested in science. But thanks to the coverage it received, what it did is give people another way to laugh at a completely insane religious claim. Who knows? Maybe a few of those people will find it easier to make fun of the next insane religious claim, which will likely be along very soon.
You said “Do you have any evidence that getting people excited about boobs is more productive?”
No. And that is not at all my point. (rim shot.) I’m not talking about boobs or cleavage specifically. I am talking about a sense of whimsy and the ability to be entertaining as well as informative. Boobquake was a clever approach by a clever young woman, which just happened to hit the sweet spot with the mainstream media. It may not be representative of real science, but I bet real scientists wouldn’t object to weakening that stereotype of uptight nerds that can’t interact with normal human beings.
If you are doing boob-related experiments in your classroom, then I admit to being curious about the results you are getting.
It is fair to say that you and I are not going to agree on this. And since you are a favored poster and I am the interloper, I will shut up now. Heidi, I am sorry for the threadjack.
Oh, I meant to say this: If being a proper scientist means I cannot find the humor in something like Boobquake, then I strive to never be a proper scientist.
I don’t think anyone anywhere has claimed this is meant to be ‘proper’ science. A lot of ‘proper’ science involves sitting down with a pencil and paper, it’s not particularly glam and it’s not necessarily attractive to people – this is why bridges need to be built. Boobquake is one such bridge – it’s tongue in cheek science.
I did the marketing for a viral video which become the biggest science communication video of all time – seen worldwide by some 85 million people (including YouTube and TV broadcasts). It’s called The Colour-Changing Card Trick, devised and performed by Richard Wiseman. We received very very similar criticism to that posted here, from only one person (another psychologist), that we had done a disservice to science by not only “dumbing it down”, but by not explaining the actual hard science that is behind our stunt version. My response to that was simple: if we had, 85 million people wouldn’t have watched it. As it was, we had thousands of comments and emails from kids worldwide saying “wow this is amazing, and I googled for X,Y,Z because of it and learned a lot!” – we even had kids making their own version for their science lessons.
The point of the above story is to illustrate that parody science can very often be a gateway – it’s a hook to debunk, or a hook to get people interested. In the case of boobquake, it would certainly lead some people to find out more about science and skepticism. And once they get involved in doing further reading, they are going to learn what ‘proper’ science is pretty quickly. Or they will find out that it’s actually a lot of paper and pencil stuff and get bored. Either way, I simply don’t believe that what turned out to be an excellent PR stunt can possibly do any harm, and I know from experience that such things can do a lot of good.
Carl Sagan said we’re all made of star stuff. That isn’t ‘proper’ science. Neither is saying that to make an apple pie, you must first make the universe. Nonetheless, here I am quoting the man who said those things, decades later.
Claiming that breasts cause earthquakes is an absurd claim. It deserves mockery and derision. It does not deserve serious testing. It deserves absurd testing, and that absurd testing deserves as many column inches as the imam got. And Jen got those column inches, against the odds, and I applaud her for that.
I’m honestly baffled as to how Wiseman’s card tricks can be compared with Boobquake. The goal of Wiseman’s card trick clips were (I assume) to demonstrate in practical terms some simple tricks of psychology. They were popular because the self-evident results were fascinating and the format was useful for people to access. You’re equating the value of the opinion of a sole psychologist who claimed this was dumbing down psychology with equivalent criticisms here of a stunt that aims to promote a preformed conclusion – the tools themselves aren’t at all comparable.
Phlebas – Let’s take a closer look at a core part of what you said – you claim in the same breath that you have no evidence of said event being productive beyond a grab for air-time, and then claim it’s informative. I’ll remind you that it’s the same assumption being made: a deficit in information can be rectified by just being heard. It’s known as the deficit model of education, and has long been debunked.
Essentially this is the equivalent of advertising ‘free sex’ followed by ‘now that we have your attention, here’s something that looks like science’ and then claiming success because you’ve had a million people look (and surely some of them must now be more scientifically literate more because of it!).
It is possible that more people will feel less intimidated by the concept of science because it’s associated with boobs. I’d hate to break it to you all, but this isn’t a big problem in the world. It’s been known for a while that the majority of people ‘like’ the concept of science. What is an issue is the level science literacy and ability to judge worthwhile science from flippant, dodgy or poorly conducted science. And it is just possible that stunts like Boobquake don’t really help in that regard.
What He said.
And what both he and I have said is backed by evidence.
Not that I give a rat’s ass what you think of me, but it’s also not exactly solid logic to assume that I never laugh at myself or at my profession or pursuits simply because I have criticized your friends and refused to laugh at things that *you* thought were funny.
I am at a total loss here. I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that you (those of you saying “everyone knows it’s not good science, but hey, people are looking at us”) can repeatedly argue that it is okay to trade the very thing you claim to be working toward (education) for 15-minutes of fame, because that is all it is.
Thank you for this post. I critiqued Boobquake a few days ago: http://www.mirandacelestehale.net/?p=3014 and am seriously shocked by how many negative responses/insults I received in response (mostly along the lines of 1) lighten up, 2) you are humorless, 3) you are uptight, 4) why are you trying to censor other women?). Ugh.
Yeah, frankly I had other issues on my mind besides Boobquake on Monday but here’s what pisses me right the fuck off about it: the name-calling. Exactly what Miranda said. I don’t care what “side” you’re on (and don’t tell me there aren’t sides) and I don’t care what you did that day. But telling women who didn’t want to be involved or didn’t care for it to lighten up, accusing them of having no sense of humor, and these other personal attacks aren’t just “bad for skepticism,” they’re simply bad for a civil community that ought to be able to respect and discuss people’s choices and opinions.
The fact that it became socially okay to *personally* slam women who opposed Boobquake (as opposed to sticking with the issues) is pretty much my entire takeaway from it.
What I have found fairly distasteful about this event is the poor form exhibited by those who have swarmed to defend Jen’s activism. Jen puts forward an idea and is criticized she responds and explains herself, her critics respond in kind – that is to say that its been civil and rational discussion. Then we get emotional retorts and attacks on female skeptics suggesting that they lack a sense of humour, they’re prudes or sexually inhibited.
Thoroughly disappointing, but hey I should probably lighten up.
Jen got world wide reach, the message – some western women shook their boobs in defiance of a silly muslim cleric and reinforced what an idiot he was (did this point need to be reinforced?). It was a really successful tongue in cheek statement – I wonder if, with the benefit of hindsight and with the reach she received Jen might have wanted to do things differently to achieve some serious, measurable outcomes for skepticism?
Perhaps she might want to team up with experts in science communication like Mike McCrae and BA Drescher.
This sounds a lot to me like the debate among skeptics about what the “proper” way to debate skepticism is. On the one side we have people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins who don’t pull any punches and who say exactly what they think. On the other side we have, what Dawkins and Myers would call the “apologists”, the guys who think we ought to be nicer to the religious folk in order to win them over. The hardasses think the apologists are wishy-washy and compromising their values while the apologists think the hardasses are jerks and scaring people away. Both sides are convinced that their method of debate is the only Right Way even though there doesn’t appear to be any evidence to suggest any particular method works with everyone.
I’m one of those people who thinks that different methods reach different people. I know, it’s crazy, but I think that we are such a varied species with such a wide range of personality and learning styles, that I think there is room for both approaches, and probably even a couple of others.
I’m one of the “asshole skeptics”, but I don’t have a problem with those I see as apologists because I think their method works where mine doesn’t. And I think this episode fits into that same concept. Some people will be attracted to stunts like Boobquake and some won’t. This “protest” reached those who appreciate these kinds of things. Other outreaches will reach the people who don’t appreciate these kinds of things.
I think what doesn’t hep is the debate within the community over what is the “Right Way” to reach people when there isn’t any evidence on either side of what is the best way to do that. And I think there won’t BE any, because I feel confident that any studies in the area will show conflicting results (as they have so far) because we are all unique individuals who like different kinds of things and will be attracted to different kinds of approaches – and which ones we like and which ones we don’t like may surprise the researchers because they may seem contrary, such as someone as sex-positive as Heidi being repelled by Boobquake.
So, no, I’m not telling anyone to “lighten up”, but I am saying that, without some evidence to suggest this stunt harmed “the movement”, the opposing side has no real ground to stand on either. This probably did push some people away, but it also probably attracted the kind of positive attention the skeptical community could use – a few new members, some additional donation money, etc. Different people require different approaches.
Frankly, it’s a little surprising to see someone who has been on the receiving end of “your approach is the Wrong Way” and who once claimed that there was a need for multiple approaches, to be calling others out on “the Wrong Way”