============ This post, Science in South Carolina – No! [...]]]> I was not aware that women like this existed in my state. I am so thrilled that I am considering driving an hour and a half JUST so that she can be my vagina doctor. It would be an honor to receive a pap smear from this lady

============
This post, Science in South Carolina – No! Seriously!, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on February 1, 2010.

============ This post, Whores, originally appeared on The Fat One [...]]]> Finally, let’s talk about the women who are too much. Tell me about women who are too sexy, show too much, talk too much, do too much. These are the women that cross that line and go into the area that mainstream society starts to frown upon.

============
This post, Whores, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on January 30, 2010.

These are the females mainstream society holds up as the ideal.

============ This post, Sexies, originally appeared on The Fat One in [...]]]> Talk to me here about girls and women who are viewed to be the “just right” amount of sexiness. How do they dress? How do they act? How do they talk? What risks do they take?

These are the females mainstream society holds up as the ideal.

============
This post, Sexies, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on January 30, 2010.

This is the group considered not sexual enough for mainstream approval.

============ This post, Prudes, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on January 30, 2010.

I want to create a list of three categories prude, sexy, whore. In each, I want to have behaviors that typify each definition. Then, I want to somehow graphically show how each of these is a social construct of the time [...]]]> All this recent talk of feminism, sexiness, and societal expectations has spurred something within me.

I want to create a list of three categories prude, sexy, whore. In each, I want to have behaviors that typify each definition. Then, I want to somehow graphically show how each of these is a social construct of the time and/or social group.

WHO’s IN??????

============
This post, NO ONE Parties Like Feminists, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on January 30, 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.

In fact, Steve Shanafelt says “In an area not exactly known for looking favorably on sex-positive, GLBTIQ-friendly discussions, Anderson’s tweets are refreshingly unrepressed without being needlessly naughty. And while she’s not limited [...]]]> Hell yeah!!!! The Spartanburg Spark, the alternative press in my town, has named me one of THE people in Spartanburg to follow on Twitter.

In fact, Steve Shanafelt says “In an area not exactly known for looking favorably on sex-positive, GLBTIQ-friendly discussions, Anderson’s tweets are refreshingly unrepressed without being needlessly naughty. And while she’s not limited to the subject — science, atheism, skepticism and personal insight are all part of her charm — it’s the smart smut that makes her Twitter account worth following. Her blog is pretty good, too.”

That’s right motherfuckers, PRETTY GOOD!!!

However, I do feel slightly sorry for any new twitter followers who were promised sexually provocative tweets and logged in to only find ramblings of a daughter losing her father.

Oh well, at least they can witness the black humor that is me. Nothing funnier than tweets of me calling my father a fucking rock star skateboarder.

My dad, Ray Anderson, 30 years ahead of his time.

============
This post, I Am One of THE People in Spartanburg to Follow, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on January 19, 2010.

============ This post, My Son Pwns Me on Skepticality – Will Now Be Shipped to Swoopy, originally appeared on The Fat One in the Middle on December 23, 2009.