|
|
||
|
====================
I am Heidi Anderson, a foxy feminist atheist skeptic fat chick, wife, and mom with a hard-core science fetish!
====================
 |
In over three days, we have managed to raise $500 of the $3,000 needed to bring LGBT activist Will Phillips and his family to Atlanta this Labor Day for the nerd herd that is DragonCon! I will continue to talk, tweet, blog, and FB about this until I have raised the money, and there is no stopping me when I have a goal in mind. So thanks to all of you who donated to support the boy who supports marriage equality! To those of you who have not yet donated, you can do so here: With all the controversy going on between “accommodationists” and “asses”, a new friend I met this weekend at the Center for Inquiry, Randy Pelton, sent me a message with one piece of the puzzle we are ALL missing. He says it beautifully, and has given me permission to share. “Hello Heidi. We met and spoke very briefly this weekend at the CFI conference in Amherst. Randy Pelton is the name. I was the one who spoke to you about the ethical and moral dimension of the snark in the skepticism movement. Greatly enjoyed your talk and allow me to reiterate my agreement with your main thesis that the snarkiness needs to end. But I think it needs to end less because of the image problem it presents and more so because it demeans real humans. It is easy to dismiss a person via electrons when you have never met the person, never seen them face-to-face, never had to actually confront their humanness. We all, regardless of what label we place upon ourselves (atheist, skeptic, freethinker, humanist, materialist, naturalist, etc.) need to approach every human and conversation with them from an ethical posture. Every person needs to be accorded a modicum of respect and dignity. I am a humanist and this conviction threads deep into my emotional, rational, and intellectual marrow.” Thank you Randy, for this. People like you inspire me to be a better person. 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.
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. First things first. In writing about an argument between women in my previous post, I gave the post just about the worst possible title I could have. I apologize for calling it a catfight. It demeans the women involved and was the result of a creative fail, not an attempt to be snarky. Now the title to THIS post?? Mildly snarky, and if you have seen the movie, could be possibly construed as homophobic. See?? Not me. While the majority of the response to my previous post has been positive, I have received a few very impassioned responses on both sides. One side is upset that I have said these things (?) about Skepchick considering some of them are my friends, that I even dare to talk about this considering how much I write and talk about sex, and that I am allowing a supposed personal vendetta against the Skepchicks to get new life. The OTHER side is hoping I will create the anti-Skepchick, fight Rebecca in Las Vegas, and expose her as the supposed downfall to feminism that she is. Uh, no. To both sides. Continue reading I Am Not Spartacus This past Sunday, my son Hollis and I, and eventually the youngest Max, joined Derek and Swoopy on Skepticality to talk about Santa. Hilarity ensues.
SO I was called a concern troll and a spammer for posting my opinions about the sexism/anti-vaxxer/skeptic brouhaha on Respectful Insolence yesterday. I had to look up what those meant, as I have not studied the rule book on internet posting as deeply as many others have. Why do I get the idea that much of the internet is composed of old D&D people who love their rule books? Anyway, I was called a spammer because I posted on more than one site at once about the same thing. I am apparently the world’s laziest spammer. Today two sites, tomorrow THREE! Before you know it, the all of Al Gore’s creation will be MINE!!!A concern troll is someone who derails an argument with concern for the other side. Actually, I was trying to put the pro-vaccination movement BACK on track to what it needs to be about, science and vaccines. So here is my last comment, because I seem to be a masochist and had to get back in it. Which is kind of weird, because submissive yes, masochistic no and those . . . Never mind, we are not talking about sex, we are talking about vaccines! Orac, you are right. It did look like I said you specifically called her Chris, I did read the blog entry, and all the comments. And you and I The reason I posted on this site, as well as Skepchick (you said there When people who are neither skeptics nor anti-vaxx search for I am confused as to why I would be labeled a spammer or concern troll, And when ANYONE, anti-vaxxer or skeptic, uses sexist and misogynistic My mistake is clearly that I have chosen the wrong forum to discuss But please, do not discount my sincerity at wanting to increase the
You know, I guess I should not expect more from a blog entitled Survival Station, but I would have thought that the most likely libertarian leaning writers of this post would have thought it completely proper for a PRIVATE pediatric practice to decide who their patients will be. Also, in this post, they say they do not understand what the practice means when it states it is doing this as a protection for others coming to the clinic. The author states that since everyone else is vaccinated, what harm would these unvaccinated children pose? When children who have immune disorders or are too young to be vaccinated are UNABLE to be vaccinated, they need to NEVER come into contact with people who have the diseases that vaccines prevent, like whooping cough. If you bring your unvaccinated child to a pediatric clinic, and YOUR child has whooping cough, your child can spread it to the weaker patients. Besides, with health care being a free market, it's not like you can MANDATE doctors to provide care when to do so would be disruptive to their profits. Right?
Oh Ben Radford. I am so so sorry that you had to go see this. I recently attended The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas. It is the world's largest gathering of skeptics, with about 1,007 in attendance this year. It was a wonderful event, and though I was there only for 52 hours, I met many lovely people and had "much excitement". Less than lovely was the fact that the majority of the speakers were male, and that two of them said things that were stupid, if not downright offensive. Bill Prady, creator of the Big Bang Theory sitcom, apparently made a joke implying that it was not worth it to try to teach "beautiful women" the difference between astrology and astronomy. Even more upsetting was the fact that Brian Dunning of Skeptoid thought it hilarious to replace the photo of a Russian cosmonaut in his presentation with a more attractive woman because the Russian was too ugly. Right. After TAM, a few blog posts were made about the incidents, as well as the a dress of the women attendees at TAM. One blogger, Barbara Dreshcer of ICBSEVERYWHERE, commented that one of the female attendees was clearly inappropriately dressed for the event in fishnets, short shorts, and spike heels. This led to a post on Skepchick, where Carrie discussed that post AND the incidents at TAM. Barbara Dreshcer has since apologized for that remark and I believe her sincerity. The comments on the Skepchick page, however, are very interesting. It appears that many people are of the belief that when presenting yourself, if you include your sexuality in the presentation, you should not be surprised when that is the only aspect that people respond too. Honestly, THAT would surprise me. I often dress in a cleavage displaying manner, for two reasons: 1) I have a great rack and 2) I look like an apple on sticks if I do not define my bustline. I do not mind when men (AND WOMEN!) look at my cleavage; like great art I WANT it to be admired. However, like great art, there is also a look but don't touch policy. I sometimes wonder if THAT is not the reason for the hostility from men regarding provacative dress. It seems to anger the penis driven part of the brain that BOOBS ARE DISPLAYED AND IN TOUCHING VICINITY, but they are not allowed to touch them. Like a dirty trick that makes the reptilian brain very mad. I can not speak for other women, but when I dress in a sexy manner I am fully aware of the effect it has on people. I like it, I am somewhat exhibitionistic, and enjoy showing off my attributes. Why is that a personality flaw? Lord knows many of the male presenters at TAM were swinging their "fame" around for all the ladies to admire, but THAT appears to be completely acceptable! Are we supposed to hide our sexuality and display it only for those we are going to have sex with? Also, why can't you look at my boobs AND listen to me talk? I enjoy sending and receiving sexual energy from other people, even those I am not intimate with. If this bothers you, just move along. But don't dare think that you are smarter than me because cleavage distracts you. Because if you think my tits are big, you should see my brain :) At what point is my cleavage offensive and distracting???? Picture A – What A Nice Wholesome Skeptic – She Must Be Smart! Picture B – How did THIS girl get into TAM? Maybe she is lost! I will go tell her that she has pretty eyes! Picture C – WHORE!!! EVIL SLUT!! TEMPTRESS TRYING TO DISTRACT US FROM THE IMPORTANT WORK OF HUNTING GHOSTS AND PERFORMING MAGIC!!!!!!!! BURN HER!!!!!!!!!! Just in case you could not tell, my IQ stayed the same the ENTIRE time, no matter how much cleavage was showing. How much did yours change while looking at them? *142 and 38K, FYI On a Skepchick, a skeptical blog that I frequent, there was a question posed about spanking children. Was it ok to do so? What does it teach children? Is it an effective tool in the arsenal of parenting? And here is was response: I believe that it is never acceptable to hit a child. My job as a parent is to raise my child to be an independent person and thinker. That said, it is not ok for one person to hit another when they disagree. I was spanked occasionally as a child, and yelled at as well. I understand the urge to do so to my own children, but triumphing over my instincts is one of the things that got me into skepticism in the first place. Even for skeptical parents, intuition is NOT a basis for making decisions. Rational thought, and critical thinking are. Children are people, albeit much smaller. It is not ok to hurt other people unless it is in self-defense, bottom line. When your child goes into the "real" world, they will not be allowed to hit the people they disagree with, nor will they have someone there to "whack" them when they make a mistake. The purpose of parenting is to raise children who can make decisions in a critical manner with rational thought. Violence as a behavior modification system is neither rational nor ethical. I truly believe that people spank because it makes you feel good to hit something that pisses you off, bottom line. Now before many of my friends anf family who spank jump on my ass, I do not think that people who spank are wrong, evil, or abusing their children. But I do think its wrong, and I think that it does not work. My children are no better or worse behaved than children who are spanked. In fact, here is what the research say about spanking: From the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Guidance for Effective Discipline (stolen from Skepchick's Elyse):
Now consensual, sexual spanking between two or more adults? Bring it on!
So the past few days have been fucking amazing. Friday night some lovely things happened of which I am not at liberty to share, but take it from me, I was happy! Then on Sunday, I reconciled with my best friend from college, who I have been estranged from for many, many years. Our lives are completely different, and yet we share almost ALL the same values. I have missed her so much, and am glad that things are in the past. Lesson learned: communication is the most vital thing in a friendship and don't avoid conflict. Conflict is necessary to work through the crap that happens in ALL relationships. The pain comes from avoiding the conflict. And finally, yesterday. Of course, everyone knows that I finally got my iPhone. What you may not be aware of is the smokin' hot 25 year-old Lebanese AT&T employee that sold it to me, Wally. Wow. Youth does have its advantages, especially on him. He made my iPhone experience that much better. I wish there was some way that I can repay him? (MILF-O-Gram?) Finally, yesterday I was copied in a email that an aquaintance of mine sent about a documentary he is helping to produce about evolution, kind of a response to Expelled. So I was copied in an email that also was sent to just about every freaking scientist who is a hero of mine, including Richard Dawkins, Neil Shubin, PZ Myers, Daniel Dennett, and Michael Shermer. But it gets better. All of those scientists responded to my friend's email, and instead of reply, they hit reply all. That's right folks, my inbox yesterday had messages from all of those scientists. HOLY CRAP, in a roundabout fashion, RICHARD DAWKINS SENT ME AN EMAIL. Ironically, it was almost enough to make me believe in God. And the truly geeky thing I did? I put all of them, ALL OF THEM, as contacts in my iPhone. Because that is just how geeky and fanboyish I am. From Pharyngula, where the godless masses like myself report daily for our marching orders, comes the news that in the bleak, science-phobic plains of Texas, there appears hope from the unlikeliest of sources, two politicians, State Senator Rodney Ellis and State Representative Patrick Rose. These two gentleman have written an op-ed to the Houston Chronicle stating that the creationist filled Texas State Board of Education needs to be held accountable for their performance, especially as the state claims that it wants to be a leader in the field of scientific research. So, upon going to the Houston Chronicle site, I came upon this gem of a comment, from the so-called editor of EducationNews.org (THE INTERNET"S LEADING SOURCE FOR EDUCATION NEWS!!!!!) "Too bad Ellis and Rose don’t understand the facts of like. The same It's not always easy to connect the dots between gay sex, baby killing, and communism, folks, but hats off to Jimmy Kilpatrick. Chris, perhaps you can go thank him personally! Sometimes, I am glad I live in South Carolina. |
|
|
Copyright © 2010 All Rights Reserved
137 queries. 2.307 seconds. |
||
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!