If you're new here, you should subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting and come back again soon!
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.
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.
My blog is called the Fat One in the Middle. I have been fat ever since I remember, and even when I was skinny for me, I was still fat. Once when looking through old pictures of myself I noticed that I put myself in the middle of the all the pictures when I was with people. It made me laugh, and that is how I got the blog name. At first I thought it was because I was trying to hide my fat, and now I know it probably has more to do with me being an attention whore. This comes in later, I promise.
See??? My sister and best friend, Wyndi Anderson
When I first got involved with skepticism, I noticed that it was a total sausage fest. Except for one prominent group of women, the Skepchicks, the attention paid to women in the skeptical movement was slim. And how did I feel about the Skepchicks? A little jealous honestly. Not because they were smarter or funnier or sexier than me (they may or may not be all of those things),but because they got all of the attention. Why did they get the attention? Well, because they are smart, funny, and sexy. Duh. Skepchick was also groundbreaking in being the first site to specifically encourage women to get involved in skepticism.
Now whenever I notice myself feeling threatened, I look to see if a lion is about to eat me. When I surmise that there is no lion, I try to find out WHY I am feeling threatened. When it is because someone is getting more attention than me, I do what I learned to do when I felt threatened by my sister, who is ungodlyhot. I remember that there is not a finite amount of attention in the world, and that if I want attention, I can get it.
Side note. We ALL want and need attention. Everyone likes to feel validated and appreciated for who they are, and to think that people want to be around them. Some of us also like to receive attention for our sexuality, while others prefer that not be up for public debate. It is ok to want attention, but it helps to know what kind you want and the best way to get it. That way you don’t end up funding your senior year of college doing a Tijuana donkey show just for the screams of your adoring fans. Trust me, not pretty. Continue reading Skeptic Catfight – Can’t We All Just Get Along?
My article on Skeptical Parenting that was published in Skeptical Inquirer is finally available online. I know it has been hard for you to sleep at night while waiting for this day.
There comes a moment in every parent’s life when your child asks you
the question you most feared hearing from your dear one’s lips.
“Mom?”
“Yes, honey?”
“Where did people come from?”
“You mean babies? Well, um, first the man takes his penis and . . .”
“No, no, I mean the very first people. Where did the first people on Earth come from?”
I was dumbfounded. What could I say? I knew this moment was coming
and yet was completely unprepared. I would be more than happy to
discuss sex with him, but evolution? How could I explain evolution to
my three-year-old when I myself was fuzzy on the process? I was, after
all, the product of the South Carolina public education system.
And that is when I said the worst possible thing any parent can say
to a child asking about this controversial subject. No, I did not tell
him that we came from God or that we were planted here millennia ago as
an extraterrestrial experiment. I told him something much, much worse.
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
a slut. I apologize. My wording did indeed paint ALL skeptics with the
same brush stroke. It was not what I meant to say, but what my wording
said.
Chris, I did read the blog entry, and all the comments. And you and I
agree that we need to focus on attacking the issues and not the people.
We also agree that skeptics are not immune from criticism.
The reason I posted on this site, as well as Skepchick (you said there
were more, I have honestly forgotten if there were) was that the issue
of sexism and disgusting personal attacks was raised. That is the issue
I commented on. They are not ok from either side.
When people who are neither skeptics nor anti-vaxx search for
information on whether or not to vaccinate their children, they want
facts and advice written in a way that neither offends them nor makes
them feel stupid. I am a pro-vaccination mother of two who in the
trenches EVERY DAY with mothers making decisions about whether or not
to vaccinate. I post about it on my FB page, talk about it with female
co-workers, and educate about it with breastfeeding and mother’s
advocacy groups.
I am confused as to why I would be labeled a spammer or concern troll,
when my concern is and always has been, on how to increase the number
of children vaccinated. That’s it, bottom line.
And when ANYONE, anti-vaxxer or skeptic, uses sexist and misogynistic
attacks on a woman for her opinions, other women will get turned off.
And in THIS country, who is still responsible for the majority of
decisions made about children and their health care? Women.
My mistake is clearly that I have chosen the wrong forum to discuss
this on, and not followed the rules you have set up on your forum. That
is tacky and rude on my part.
But please, do not discount my sincerity at wanting to increase the
number of women who hear the pro-vaccination message and choose to
protect their children and mine.
Yesterday on Skepchick, Rebecca Watson brought up the horrible misogynistic crap directed at a female journalist who interviewed Paul Offit. It involved talk of rape, whoredom, and the general stuff that gets thrown at women. It also featured a gross depiction of pro-vaccination people eating dead babies.
This is disgusting. Very much so. However, skeptics need to clean their own house of the same type of behavior. In less than one hour and five searches, I was able to pull up equally disturbing imagery and comments directed at Jenny McCarthy. I have also heard skeptics refer to Jenny and Oprah as evil on more than one occasion, and refer to Oprah as fat and insinuate she is unfuckable. Continue reading Sluts are Stupid!!!
Fat's no good. Neither are carbs. Red meat's got cholesterol. White meat's full of hormones. Dairy's got too much lactose. Fish has some good cholesterol, but causes mercury poisoning. Vegetables give you gas and require vitamin supplementation. Cannibalism is illegal. And I'm too self-conscious to take my jiggling torso to a public gym.
A Kansas City clinic has set a disturbing precedent by kicking out a two-year old boy because his mother had failed to follow childhood vaccinations schedule guidelines set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
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.
Blake Smith, an Atlanta Skeptic, (aka Doctor Atlantis) is one of the funniest
people I know. Yesterday on Twitter, I asked a friend what I should wear to meet Richard Dawkins next week. Blake's response? My selfish jeans!!
Here is Blake’s response and why I believe he is a modern day Mark Twain:
I found the subject of this posting so moving. I remember one time
in Spring – when I was much younger – a fine morning found me walking
in downtown Marietta, GA. The weather was so lovely that it made me
tear up just a bit. (Or perhaps that was my allergies kicking in…
memories are often confusing.) At any rate, on this particular day I
went… Read More by an antique store. Marietta has a lot of these. And
I saw a book there – all musty and worn, but clearly often read. I'd
never heard of it before. The authors name had been worn from the
cover. Yet someone took great care of the book despite how often they
read it. In the pages were little notes that said things like "How
true" and it made me wonder how long people have had highlighters
because some of the paragraphs were carefully underlined in red pencil
instead of the familiar yellow swaths of modern notation. Anyway the
ambulatory effects of reading the subject of this story from the
telegraph almost made me lose sight of the purpose of my posting this
reply in the first place.
Let me get back to my story. I had to buy this little book. I wanted to
get to know all I could about it and the person who'd owned it. There
was an Ex Libris sticker inside with a name, "Whitney A. Colmby" and
that was all I had to go by. A sticker on the cover of the book said
$11. In my ratty wallet I only had four dollars. So I took the book up
to the proprietor – this was before check-cards became so popular – and
I asked the owner if he'd hold the book for me while I went to the bank
and got some money. He agreed and I walked a couple of blocks over to
the ATM and got out a twenty. (The machine only gave 20's. And at this
time in my life that often meant I didn't have enough cash to get out
any cash because my balance didn't exceed the minimum withdrawal. Sad
times.)
But this time I was flush with cash because it was a Saturday and I'd
just been paid (via direct deposit) the night before. With my twenty
firm in hand I went back to the antique shop to conclude my purchase.
When I got back the antique store owner was reading the book! He was an
older gentleman, perhaps in his late 50's, and I noticed his eyes were
somewhat teary. I asked, "Are you okay?" He said that he was. He'd just
started flipping through the book while he waited on my return.
Business was slow that morning as it often is early on Saturdays in
Marietta. He'd come acoss a passage in the book where the owner had
underlined a long passage and written a note by it. The section was all
about the importance of finding a good husband and how that exemplary
servitude in a marriage is best rewarded by wonderful children, or at
worst, a great reward in heaven. And out to the side in lovely cursive
script Whitney A. Colmby had, in beautiful cursive, written, "Meh."
Anyway, the title of the Telegraph piece reminded me of that.
For more of Blake's funny goodness, follow him on Twitter @doctoratlantis, visit his website, or listen to Monster Talk the podcast he does with skeptiocal investigators Ben Radford and Karen Stollznow.
I just received a lovely email from Kennedy Goodkey, who enjoyed Kylie Sturgess's interview with me on the Skeptic Zone Podcast. The interview was about the different types of activism within the skeptical movement. Kennedy has a blog called "Confessions of An Asshole Skeptic" and has placed me on the Asshole Skeptic Honour Roll. I feel as if I have been training for that placement my whole life :)
The Skeptic movement has so many wonderful, nice, highly intelligent and ever polite people in it (Richard Saunders, DJ Grothe, Daniel Loxton, Derek and Swoopy, Dr. Rachie, Evan Bernstein, The Iwan's, Jeff Wagg, Ginger Campbell, and plenty more that I as an asshole have forgotten). These are the people who need to act as spokespersons for skepticism.
There are also the skeptics that are generally nice and professional, but do not suffer fools lightly (James Randi, Phil Plait, Steve Novella, Kylie Sturgess, Tim Farley, Maria Walters, Ben Radford, Joe Nickell (swoon), Shermer, Dunning, and again, probably a few others). Watching Joe Nickell switch from his uber professional demeanor to his equally professional but clearly righteous tone when calling out the ghost hunters at Dragon Con this year was a highly "stimulating" experience for me. Ben Radford did the same thing last year when he told a priest that "unlike the Bible, at least science updates its books when it learns it is wrong." These are the folk who need to represent us whenever there is any type of public debate with believers, anti-vaxxers, and woo mongers.
Finally, you have your assholes. I am hesitant to place anyone in this category other than myself and the self-described Asshole Skeptic, but I may be willing to make an exception for certain tall magicians, only because he has called himself an asshole as well. The assholes are the ones you need to engage the opposite side's assholes.
In terms of skeptical outreach, I like to imagine that Daniel Loxton, Dr. Rachie, and Richard Saunders will get us in the door, Randi, Nickell, Radford and Novella will lay down the law, and assholes such as myself can be hidden from view until we need to rally the troops with inflammatory remarks or get into ridiculous yet funny screaming matches (real OR online) with the asshole believers.
So why are assholes such assholes?
My son had some difficulty with authority at school last year
(genetics much?) and the school psychologist wanted to label him with oppositional defiant disorder. Upon hearing this, I went to EVERY therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist friend I had, described his
symptoms, got their opinion, and systematically used the DSM IV (diagnostic guidelines for mental
illness) to completely demolish the school psychologist's report and diagnosis, not to mention her competence. Bottom line, he hadadjustment disorder and anxiety, not oppositional defiant disorder. This was later confirmed by a several practitioners at the doctoral level who spent more than two hours on his case.
After the meeting where I presented MY findings to the school psychologist, my son's Nazi
teacher, and the principal, my husband looked over at me and said
"Sweetie, you were right. Hollis does NOT have oppositional defiant
disorder."
I beamed. He was proud of me!! Even after 10 years of marriage, there is no other person in the world whose approval means more to me :)
Then he said "YOU however, sure as hell have it. In fact,your entire family has it."
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?
