So, if you want to help get Will and his family to DragonCon in Atlanta THIS Labor Day for his birthday, [...]]]> Thanks to the incredible generosity of SO many donors, I only have $700 $600 $500 $330 (As of July 26, 2010) to raise fully fund the trip to DragonCon for marriage equality activist Will Phillips.

So, if you want to help get Will and his family to DragonCon in Atlanta THIS Labor Day for his birthday, PLEASE help me by donating below! Click on the photo to be taken to Paypal :)

============
This post, Only $330 Left to Get Will Phillips to DragonCon, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on July 19, 2010.

“Hello Heidi. We met and [...]]]> 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.

Ladies Who Do Skepticism is a group aimed at broadening our skeptical community, bringing balance to skeptical events and discussing the pseudoscience specifically targeted at women! It was the brainchild of UK scientist Janis Benion.

Ladies Who Do Skepticism was founded in April 2010, with the aim of bringing together [...]]]>

Ladies Who Do Skepticism is a group aimed at broadening our skeptical community, bringing balance to skeptical events and discussing the pseudoscience specifically targeted at women! It was the brainchild of UK scientist Janis Benion.

Janis has also been interviewed by Kylie Sturgess for the SkepticZone podcast that should publish on June 18, 2010.

In a Madonna/Gwynethesque effort to cash in on the coolness of all things British, SheThought.com is bringing the UK sensation stateside!!

At The Amazing Meeting 8 we will be reserving a group of tables specifically for a women’s mixer at the Friday lunch. White gloves and pearls are optional, but critical thinking is not! We hope to see you there.

============
This post, Ladies Who Do Skepticism (and Lunch!) at TAM8, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on June 18, 2010.

The Amazing Meeting is an annual gathering of skeptics, atheists, secular humanists, debunkers, jugglers, magicians, curmudgeons, and beardy white men with glasses. Usually, James Randi wins the beard contest hands [...]]]> Every year in July, a nerd herd of epic proportions descends upon the sleepy little town of Las Vegas, Nevada. Why? The answer may amaze you!

The Amazing Meeting is an annual gathering of skeptics, atheists, secular humanists, debunkers, jugglers, magicians, curmudgeons, and beardy white men with glasses. Usually, James Randi wins the beard contest hands down, but the possible appearance of champion punter and Adidas spokesmodel Aubrey de Grey at the meeting may finally end Randi’s hirsute reign of terror.

To kick things off with style, Swoopy of Skepticality, Desiree Schell of Skeptically Speaking, Barbara Drescher of ICBS Everwhere, and I will host a suite party/live podcast Ustream event in conjunction with the realVirtual Drinking Skeptically in the bar. You can join us in the suite, in the bar, or on Ustream or Tokbox. MINGLE with our  *ACTUAL CELEBRITY GUESTS!!!

When: Thursday July 8, 2010 at 9:30pm

Where: Suite Level at the South Point Hotel and Casino

RSVP here or on the FB event page. Seating will be limited.

*your definition of celebrity may differ from ours

============
This post, Skepticality Speaking Beyond BS, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on June 17, 2010.

Raymond Anthony Anderson from Heidi Anderson on Vimeo.

Every day, while working, blogging, or rousing rabble on the Internet, I sit on the most precious resource on Planet Earth. Not only is it beautiful to look at, tasty to snack on, and delightful to touch, but it can birth babies, bleed for days without injury, serve as a food [...]]]>

Every day, while working, blogging, or rousing rabble on the Internet, I sit on the most precious resource on Planet Earth. Not only is it beautiful to look at, tasty to snack on, and delightful to touch, but it can birth babies, bleed for days without injury, serve as a food storage unit in the winter, and lead men to fake results on psychic challenges!

On the April 3, 2010 Skepticblog, Mark Edward bravely tries to warn gullible male skeptics of the danger of psychic vagina. Psychic vagina is like normal vagina, THAT KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE THINKING! A pussy with x-ray eyes, if you will. It is a weapon of mass distraction, and can lead otherwise capable skeptical investigators away from their mission of proving that Bigfoot does not indeed exist. Perhaps Big Crypto is a woman.

Some things never change. It has come to my attention that a few “prominent skeptics” may be falling under the spell of the charms of a few “prominent mediums.” I’m not naming names here, but recent developments have given me pause to reflect on a time when such things happened before and as they say, if we don’t learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it. Mark Edward, April 3, 2010

Men have been powerless against vagina for years. Just last night, I asked my husband to do the dishes. When he said no, I unleashed the vagina, and he helplessly began cleaning (you’re soaking in it!) the ENTIRE house!

Vaginal power is the reason that women earn more than men, have better access to healthcare, and are treated with dignity and respect throughout the world. I hate to think of a world where my vagina would be held in such esteem.

In order to bring more attention to this problem, I offer my own magical vagina up for testing by the JREF. Preliminary tests could be conducted with the JREF President DJ Grothe, but once I achieve vaginal victory over him, I expect to be offered the chance to go up against Randi himself.

I can already smell the money!

My own response to Mark Edward:

Some things never change. It has come to my attention that a few “prominent skeptics” may be using their fame and power to cause young women to “fall under the spell of their charms”.

I’m not naming names here, but recent “developments” have given me pause to reflect on a time when such things happened before and as they say, if we don’t learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it.

Apparently, men have for YEARS been using their fame, money, and charisma to lure unsuspecting young women into bed. These women may be in a situation where they seek employment, respect, or standing in the skeptic community, and these men offer to provide these things in exchange for sexual favors!

If you are reading this and are a skeptical man who has been dallying with a young skeptic who is begging for your help, you know who you are.

If you feel weak and in need of poking something, might I suggest going to your adult store and getting a Fleshlight? These toys will always be available, will never tell your other partner, won’t threaten your reputation and eat far less.

============
This post, Thinking Outside My Box, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on April 5, 2010.

Now the title [...]]]> 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.