The September issue of The Humanist contains an interview with a woman who is witty, intelligent, a humanist, lover of science, former nurse, a feminist, and just happens to be a porn star.

Marie Hartman graduated with honors from San Francisco State University and is the author or coauthor of several [...]]]>

Nina Hartley

The September issue of The Humanist contains an interview with a woman who is witty, intelligent, a humanist, lover of science, former nurse, a feminist, and just happens to be a porn star.

Marie Hartman graduated with honors from San Francisco State University and is the author or coauthor of several books published by major publishing houses under her stage name, Nina Hartley. She is also the star of more than 600 adult films spanning three decades. In addition, Hartley is a humanist, a proud atheist, and a vocal feminist. . .

The Humanist: I’m curious about your hobbies and education growing up. You mentioned that your grandfather had a PhD in Physics. Were science and medicine an important part of your life?NH: Both of my parents are science folks. My mother was a chemist and statistician for the State Department of Public Health and my dad has a good layman’s understanding of science and biology. I loved all natural science as a child and wanted to be Jane Goodall when I grew up. I especially liked human biology and anatomy. I’m an RN with a BS in nursing and I love science to this day. I keep up with the latest advances in science and enjoy physics, biology, psychology, brain science, and more.

The Humanist: You weren’t raised in a religious home, but one full of values. For the religious, values and religion are synonymous. Could you explain the difference?

NH: We were taught social justice at home. My maternal grandparents were early supporters of civil rights in Alabama, where my mother is from. As secular Jews (my grandfather refused Bar Mitzvah) they were already a minority, but when my grandfather turned to socialism for its sense of social justice it put the family in jeopardy and they were subject to harassment by the Ku Klux Klan. My grandfather almost lost his life to goons.

This sense of social justice carried over into my parents’ marriage, and I grew up participating in civil rights marches and anti-war demonstrations. There was never any mention of God as a reason to do right. It was just the right thing to do. I feel strongly to this day that right and religion don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

As a believer in evolution, we can “take the best” from religion and “leave the rest.” We no longer need the story of “God” to explain why the rain falls, or the wind blows, or spring comes again each year. I’m comfortable with there being things about people or the world that I can’t know, or that we don’t know yet. I’m fine with life as we know it being random or an “accidental” result of chemical and physical processes.

For the full text of this truly delightful article, go to The Humanist website.

============
This post, Thoughtful Intercourse, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on September 10, 2010.

I will continue to talk, tweet, blog, and FB about this until I have raised the money, and there [...]]]> 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:

============
This post, Over $500 Raised for Will Phillips Birthday in Three Days!!, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on July 3, 2010.

“Hello Heidi. We [...]]]> 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.

============
This post, The Ethics of Conversation – Thoughts on Confrontation vs. Accommodation, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on June 28, 2010.

Now [...]]]> 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.

Questioning the effectiveness of skeptical outreach is a good thing, even if your friends are are the ones who are doing the outreach, even if they have been criticized in the past for their manner of outreach, and even if it is true that there is a personal vendetta against them. NONE of those issues matter to science.

Science does not care how long you have been friends with someone. Science does not care if the results it gives are used to bomb countries or cure asthmatic baby seals. Science does not care if you think something is good, fun, and awesome, if it proves you and your assumptions wrong, you are wrong.  Science also does not care how distasteful you find something, if it is shown to have no harm, then you are strictly talking from opinion.

I see LOTS of evidence that Skepchick has helped raise the profile of many female skeptics and become one of the strongest sites around for people to learn about issues, events, and cool people. I have no doubt that Skepchick has made skepticism more hip and cool for LOTS of people who may otherwise have passed it by. The very fact that a new population of  people think skepticism and science are interesting is pretty amazing and indicative of all the hard work Rebecca and the others have done.

What I am interested in learning about is evidence on whether or not actual critical thinking skills are being learned. By ANY approach. From ANYONE.

And THAT is what I defended on Greg Laden’s blog. I defended Skeptifem’s right to assert that it may not be an effective way of teaching those skills. At a later time, and in this blog, I also defended those who claim they had felt excluded by Skepchick, because I had felt the same way at one time. But notice, I qualified my remarks by stating that these were feelings. Feelings are fleeting. And just because you FEEL one way, it does not mean another person tried to make you feel that way.

The evaluation of teaching critical thinking skills is a testable issue. This is SO important to me because in my fifteen year career in the domestic violence and sexual assault victim services field, we spend a great deal of time researching whether or not the educational programs are teaching what we THINK they are teaching.

First, we decide what we are trying to teach. We pick out our key message(s), such as “there are online resources for teen victims.”

Secondly, we create measurable objectives surrounding that message i.e. “participants will be able to identify three resources online for victims of teen dating violence.”

Next, we create a method of evaluation to determine if we met that goal. One of the most frequently used in my field is pre and post tests, to ascertain knowledge levels before and knowledge levels after. In our example, the pre-test would have the participant list online resources for teens that they know of. The post-test would ask the same question.

Finally, we compile all of the data and use the results to modify our program. In this example, we would compare pre and post tests to see if there was an increase in knowledge. Even if I am convinced that my gorgeous PowerPoint presentation is clear and concise, if the results show no increased knowledge, then it did not work.

Of course, audiences and presenters are different at different times. This is why it is so important to get lots of evaluations to look at averages and trends.

How does this relate to skepticism? Each group needs to decide what their message is and scientifically examine how they can most effectively deliver this message. Is the message that science is accessible to all? Or is the message that ghosts are bullshit? Or is the message that women can be smart AND attractive? Or is the message that you do not have to be stuffy to think critically?

We need to approach this in a calm, rational way, and have each group and/or skeptic pick their message. While individual groups do not need to change who they are or their messages, they may want to take some time to think about what that message is and what they want it to be. It is entirely possible to send not only more than one message, but opposing messages. Sometimes this happens when people speak in areas they are less than informed in, and sometimes it happens when people try to be all things to all people.

So no, I am not Spartacus, and I will not be leading a charge against anyone.There is nothing to charge against. There is enough room for everyone who wants to be involved in this movement, and for some of you, endless hours on the internet to continue your shadow wars against each other. But this is not my war.

I am channeling my energy into different ventures, including my family, my full-time career working with victims, and my new part-time career as a writer.

My skeptical energy is going to go to a new website I am creating called shethought.com to publicize the work of women in science, critical thinking, and skepticism. Many of these women are loathe to promote themselves and need the push of a bossy, obnoxious, ballsy  person who will go to bat for them and get them the attention they deserve.

And I am just the pushy broad to do it!

============
This post, I Am Not Spartacus, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on January 26, 2010.