Hey Skeptics!

[rebecca]

Hey, anyone read anything about that Skepchick calendar in the Bad Astronomer's Blog? I bet it's great. Not like I would know or anything.

http://www.skepchick.mu.nu

In all seriousness, Skepchicks, Intl. is a great new organization promoting critical thinking amongst the fairer of the species, and I thought many of you might . . . appreciate . . . what we're doing.

:D

[genebujold]

I appreciate both beautiful women as well as healthy skepticism, provided it's not of well-established and oft-verified knowledge (let go apple, apple goes down).

[Candy]

Hey, there's a forum associated with the site. I signed up.

[HenrikOlsen]

I ordered one. :whistle:

[Marlayna]

What's the point? There are so many such calendars out there. Why would anyone buy this one, just because the women also happen to be skeptics?

And what does this have to do with skepticism, anyway? I think the whole thing trivializes the notion of skepticism. "Hey look, we're skeptics, and we're beautiful!"

[rebecca]

Thanks for your support, folks!

Marlayna, thanks for your thoughts on the subject. To answer your questions, the point (and what it has to do with skepticism) is to raise money to strengthen women's role in the skeptical movement. You can find out more about the project and Skepchicks, Intl. at http://www.skepchick.mu.nu/about or on the forum at http://www.skepchick.mu.nu/forum .

Have a great day everyone, and thanks for the orders, kind thoughts, and encouragement!

[MrClean]

You mean it cost money to be skeptical? Here and I've been doing it for free for so long.

[HenrikOlsen]

It does cost money to travel to meet other skeptics.

[Candy]

The Amazing Meeting 4 - 2006 (http://www.tam4.com/)

It's January 26 to 29, 2006.

Dr. Plait is the Master of Ceremonies.

I'll be there, and so will tmosher! :)

[Moose]

What's the point? There are so many such calendars out there. Why would anyone buy this one, just because the women also happen to be skeptics?

Hmm. Would I rather shell out for twelve months worth of stale comics I've already seen in the paper, 3D art (ten seconds of entertainment), cute puppies (meh), sports cars (I can google for as many of those as I like), or skepchicks?

Seems to me that skepchicks are at least as worthwhile (and almost certainly far less pointless) as any other calendar subject I've ever seen.

Rebecca, here's a question for you: what's the word on international delivery? Do Canadian skeptics get left out in the cold? ... I mean, more than usual, considering winter? [Edit: never mind, I've found the relevant page. Paypal. Hmm.]

[rebecca]

You mean it cost money to be skeptical? Here and I've been doing it for free for so long.

Yes, we've been meaning to talk to you about that. You're $5,622 behind in your monthly skeptic dues.

Candy, I'm so glad to hear you're coming to TAM! Be sure to check back at the skepchick forums for information on the Skepchick Pajama Party, a fun event that's been growing each year, allowing more women to meet one another.

Moose, glad you found the relevant info on the order page! It took me an extra couple of hours of work to figure out the best, most economical way to serve our international friends, but I think it is worth it due to the amazing response we've received from all over the world, including Canada, the UK, Hong Kong - it's really been inspiring to see a community so spread out rally together for a good cause.

[Marlayna]

Hmmm... "funds will be used to cover registration costs for women in need who wish to attend The Amaz!ng Meeting 4".

...what about the men in need? Why are you only helping women? Also, why do you call yourselves "chicks"? Last time I checked, that was a derogatory term.

[Moose]

From a male perspective:

Also, why do you call yourselves "chicks"? Last time I checked, that was a derogatory term.

Only if you let such a term degrade you.

"Gay" used to be a fighting word. It doesn't hold much power anymore (except among the severely immature) because it was taken back by the gay community. "Canuck" is technically a derogatory word, and I've heard it used that way before, but you'd be hard pressed to find many canadians who would be offended by the term. (Heck, we even have a hockey team by that name.) As such, it has no power to threaten or intimidate us whatsoever.

There's unfortunately a similarly misguided (though perhaps far less dangerous) stigma about women with brains somehow being unattractive or undesirable. This attitude sandbags half of the population with valuable contributions to make towards our future survival. It's a real pity (if not outright criminal) and something I think needs to be corrected in short order.

As for the calendar: to show in a concrete way that it is possible to be smart and skeptical without sacrificing anything from cool and attractive; I think it's a marvellous idea. And not just because I've got fire in my blood (or at least breathing) and a helpless fascination with smart, sensible women.

[Swift]

I don't know, could someone give me well thought out logical arguments for buying this calendar? And how do I know that this calendar even exists, just because it is on the internet? Maybe this is some sort of government conspiracy to find all the guys who like smart, beautiful women, so they can make a list of the ones to eliminate (are those black helicopters I hear)? :think:


:lol:

[Marlayna]

Moose:

"Chick" is still derogatory. Think of a woman you look up to. Do you find the word "chick" fitting for her?

Attractive and desirable women are not "half the population", as you say. That aside, maybe these women should try to prove their worth instead of pointlessly showing off their body.

Also, what's with "smart=sexy"? What about those smart women who are not sexy?

[rebecca]

...what about the men in need? Why are you only helping women?

Hi Marlayna, I'm glad you asked! Since you're interested in helping out skeptics - both men and women - in need, I encourage you to check out the JREF forums at forums.randi.org (though they are going down today and relaunching on Saturday), where we have a yearly scholarship drive to get people to TAM.

Skepchicks, Intl. focuses on increasing the presence of women in skeptical activism.

Also, what's with "smart=sexy"? What about those smart women who are not sexy?

Marlayna, for shame! I have yet to meet a smart skepchick who did not possess an astounding level of sex appeal. :D

Swift: as a proper skeptic, it is predictable that you would demand evidence. Please proceed immediately to our Order page and request that this evidence be sent directly to your home!

(edited to add)Moose, thank you for your support and well-thought out response!

[Humphrey]

Aww come on! its well known that Men's I.Q. drops when a beautiful woman is around. I blame all of you women who come on turning all of the people at the amazing meeting into doofuses who can barely run into walls.** :-P


Rebecca: Can i ask, how do you decide who to give the money to? i mean where or how do you find the women? IF you do not find enough and have money left over, what happens to it? Will it go to pay for deserving men, or just roll over to next year? *


*Note: i believe you are real and a real organization. I was just wondering how you did the above. :-)

**: just a joke folks. That happens to all men except me. So do not worry Your glorious leader is fine. I am above it all. My maleness was stolen when i got married. :-P

[Humphrey]

Marlayna, for shame! I have yet to meet a smart skepchick who did not possess an astounding level of sex appeal. :D


Just5 to expand on this, and i have found it to be 100% true for ALL women. I have yet to find a single woman that th8is rule of life does not become true for:

Every woman, EVERY woman has something absolutely beautiful and stunning about them. Some might have a greater concentration than others, but there is not a single woman alive on this planet, (except for my sister) who any man (or woman) cannot find something abosluetly lovable.

[rebecca]

Aww come on! its well known that Men's I.Q. drops when a beautiful woman is around. I blame all of you women who come on turning all of the people at the amazing meeting into doofuses who can barely run into walls.** :-P


Rebecca: Can i ask, how do you decide who to give the money to? i mean where or how do you find the women? IF you do not find enough and have money left over, what happens to it? Will it go to pay for deserving men, or just roll over to next year? *


*Note: i believe you are real and a real organization. I was just wondering how you did the above. :-)

**: just a joke folks. That happens to all men except me. So do not worry Your glorious leader is fine. I am above it all. My maleness was stolen when i got married. :-P

Hi Humphrey! To answer your questions, for starters, we do have a few women who have expressed a desire to attend the conference but an inability to afford it. This began as something very small, but with the tremendous response we've received, I foresee it growing exponentially in the future. Therefore, any leftover funds will be used in the coming year to support new initiatives and to help us grow as an organization.

Because I won't always be able to check in here and reply, for more information please sign up at our forums, at http://www.skepchick.mu.nu/forum/ to stay up-to-date about what is happening. We have big ideas, and we're going to try our best to use our momentum to make a big difference in the skeptical community as well as the world at large. Thanks!

[rebecca]

Just5 to expand on this, and i have found it to be 100% true for ALL women. I have yet to find a single woman that th8is rule of life does not become true for:

Every woman, EVERY woman has something absolutely beautiful and stunning about them. Some might have a greater concentration than others, but there is not a single woman alive on this planet, (except for my sister) who any man (or woman) cannot find something abosluetly lovable.

Okay, one more thing before I stop this posting spree I'm on. You can't be more right, Humphrey.

The women in our calendar are not models. They range from 21 up through their 40s (maybe even 50s, but one does not ask such information of a lady), and many are mothers. Every one is beautiful, whether she knew it or not at the beginning of this project. One thing is for sure - every one of them knows it now. :)

[Candy]

Just5 to expand on this, and i have found it to be 100% true for ALL women. I have yet to find a single woman that th8is rule of life does not become true for:
Off-topic: Humphrey, you must have really big hands to get not one but two numbers into your sentence. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/froehlich/k045.gif

[Candy]

Okay, one more thing before I stop this posting spree I'm on.

Can you fix your link in your signature before you go? http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[farmerjumperdon]

I always wonder about organizations based on gender. Sure, it's based on being a skeptic, but why the necessity for a gender specific skeptics group?

Organizations that base their existence on unnecessary distinctions (is there a difference in the qualities of male versus female skeptics that necessitates they have a female organmization?) are more separatist than anything. I've long felt the same way about organizations that are just for men, just for blacks, just for whites, just for (fill in the blank) as an addition to their chosen interest.

I think one of the problems slowing down the erasure of sexism and racism is the multitude of entities that continue to emphasize differences as a means of belonging.

Slightly off topic, and I don't mean to ruin anybody's party - just food for thought. Why can't all the skeptics party together all the time, unless there is a need to distinguish based on something like area of interest. To distinguish who you can meet with due to the accident of what sex you were born seems archaic.

[Moose]

(is there a difference in the qualities of male versus female skeptics that necessitates they have a female organmization?)

According to the demographical numbers I've seen, participation at the last three TAMs has been overwhelmingly male (far worse than 90%-10%). I would offer a cautious "yes" to your question without any real objectively-based idea as to what that difference might actually be. The best I can offer is my strong suspicion that the cause of such a difference is likely to be cultural in nature.

I also have to acknowledge the role of the various "Gay Pride" awareness-raising activities in positively changing the overall cultural climate for our homosexual friends much faster than the political climate has been comfortable keeping pace with or even admitting.

So while I do agree with you in principle, FJD, that ideally there would be no need for organizations centered around visible-minorities at all, I find it difficult (read: impossible) to fault what the skepchicks are trying to accomplish (along with their methods for doing so) to any degree, given the present landscape. My view may change somewhat when some degree of gender parity among skeptics has been achieved.

It seems to me that what's most effective in this day and age is to get out there and stay visible.

[Lianachan]

While I'm all for skepticism, I can think of several hundred charitable organisations which I feel are, for want of a better way of putting it, worthier causes.

*edited clarification - reading that post makes it sound like I'm opposed to the whole idea, I'm not, not in the slightest, it's just... you know... not for me*

[Gillianren]

while I haven't been to TAM (though I desperately want to; I'm one of those who can't afford it), I have been in a lot of groups where I'm Token Woman. most notably, or at least most noticeably, the gaming store back in my hometown.

I think the point of groups encouraging larger numbers of women to go to TAM or similar things is to help fight that dangerous stigma against intelligent women. some of you may not believe it exists. I would hypothesize that it's because you aren't intelligent women. in fact, most of you aren't women, whether you believe in the stigma or not. have you guys ever thought about that? I can name fewer than a dozen people here that I'm absolutely certain are female, even including myself. I can name way more than a dozen that I'm absolutely certain are male.

it's not that I don't like hanging out with you guys; I do. it's that I grew up being really, really lonely. I grew up getting teased a lot for being, frankly, smarter than the boys. and not just by the boys, either--the girls thought it ludicrous that I wasn't, well, girly. it was stupid that I'd rather read than spend an hour picking out what to wear, doing my makeup, and doing my hair. (heck, in the mornings, I'd rather sleep, but that's not the point.)

gods know I'm not a poster girl for well-adjusted anyway; I'll admit that some of my problems stemmed from the whole mental illness thing. however, I was told flat out not three years ago that I intimidated a co-worker because I was a woman who was more intelligent than he. (not exactly difficult, but anyway.) he also said he wasn't as intimidated by intelligent men. so if girls can be encouraged to think of themselves as intelligent despite a society that's trying to make them more worried about their hair, I'm all for it.

[Moose]

however, I was told flat out not three years ago that I intimidated a co-worker because I was a woman who was more intelligent than he. (not exactly difficult, but anyway.) he also said he wasn't as intimidated by intelligent men.

I would suggest that if there's a problem with "well-adjusted", it isn't yours. Your posts have always made a great deal of sense.

[Marlayna]

so if girls can be encouraged to think of themselves as intelligent despite a society that's trying to make them more worried about their hair, I'm all for it.Yes, but why do I get the feeling that the skepchics are going the opposite way? They're an organisation of intelligent women, raising money to meet with other intelligent people, and what do they put forth? Their beauty and sexuality. Why? That's a step backwards! Doesn't their intelligence count more in this matter? Why don't they produce something thought-provoking? It would be more appreciated and they would get their point across.

[Monique]

You mean it cost money to be skeptical? Here and I've been doing it for free for so long.
No more free ride!! Pay out!! ;)

[Moose]

I'd tried to answer this earlier with a pithy, clever post, but it got turfed due to a short power failure. We'll just have to make due with this less effective attempt at recreating my reply:

"Chick" is still derogatory. Think of a woman you look up to. Do you find the word "chick" fitting for her?

Sure. There are several women of my acquaintance to whom I look up (including one of my mentors) who think nothing of using similar "derogatory" language in a casually self-referential, non-derogatory way. Others do not , (one of whom is my other mentor), and a few have expressed concerns similar to yours (including one of my ex-gfs).

My point remains: the word only has power to degrade you if you let it.

Personally, considering my experiences in high school where I've heard much, much worse said about me; had I routinely let my sense of self-worth be held hostage by a mere word, even when they are clearly meant maliciously, I'd be in pretty bad shape today if I were alive at all.

Sticks and stones, after all.

Attractive and desirable women are not "half the population", as you say. That aside, maybe these women should try to prove their worth instead of pointlessly showing off their body.

I seem to hear you implying that their overall worth is somehow diminished by having done the calendar. I disagree in the strongest possible way. This does not in any way diminish their worth.

In any case, the calendar a) has obviously raised awareness of the issue if only in this thread, b) has fostered valuable discussion, again if only in this thread, c) judging by the response, will clearly raise money to be used towards correcting the observed gender disparity at TAM, d) and by remarks of the participants I've seen so far, appears to have been a great deal of fun to create.

The fun factor alone is plenty reason enough to make the calendar worthwhile.

[Monique]

it's not that I don't like hanging out with you guys; I do. it's that I grew up being really, really lonely. I grew up getting teased a lot for being, frankly, smarter than the boys. and not just by the boys, either--the girls thought it ludicrous that I wasn't, well, girly. it was stupid that I'd rather read than spend an hour picking out what to wear, doing my makeup, and doing my hair. (heck, in the mornings, I'd rather sleep, but that's not the point.)

gods know I'm not a poster girl for well-adjusted anyway; I'll admit that some of my problems stemmed from the whole mental illness thing. however, I was told flat out not three years ago that I intimidated a co-worker because I was a woman who was more intelligent than he. (not exactly difficult, but anyway.) he also said he wasn't as intimidated by intelligent men. so if girls can be encouraged to think of themselves as intelligent despite a society that's trying to make them more worried about their hair, I'm all for it.
I agree with Gillianren, is not easy for intelligent women. Many men act like I am pretty little empty head french girl, then hate me for to be intelligent. On GLP I called many ugly, filthy names. I get banned to list here!! I improve English because they think lack of skill for English make me stupid. Even in Europe, many men hate intelligent woman. I make many enemies because I am intelligent!! :(

[Andromeda321]

I'm not into the calendar idea myself, for a few of the reasons already stated here.
My views also relate quite a bit to my personal experience in studying science. Most male professors and students do not believe at all that they're discriminating against their female students, but there's a recurring mentality that the girl is only there because she got a break due to her femininity. (The most poignant example of this I can tell you is how once, when fretting a little about grades, an elder student told me "don't worry, you're a girl so it's ok if your grades aren't that good.") As a result, you get the mentality in some people that girls might only be there based on things outside their ability, which means you have to prove your competence whereas your other colleagues do not. It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and you shouldn't have to deal with it in the first place.
So as a result, I don't think that using sex appeal is the best way to go about promoting intelligence or skepticism in women, at least if you want to get the same level of respect as the others around you do. Trust me on this one.

[Doodler]

I agree with Gillianren, is not easy for intelligent women. Many men act like I am pretty little empty head french girl, then hate me for to be intelligent. On GLP I called many ugly, filthy names. I get banned to list here!! I improve English because they think lack of skill for English make me stupid. Even in Europe, many men hate intelligent woman. I make many enemies because I am intelligent!! :(

Take a little pride in that. Sometimes its not a bad idea to be judged by the quality of people who are threatened by you. It doesn't diminish you one iota and goes a long way towards helping them make complete idiots of themselves.

Really, apply some logic here. If someone's going to go off half cocked at you because of a language barrier or some other trite issue, do you really believe these individuals are worth knowing? Where is it written you aren't supposed to have enemies in life? I take a LOT of pleasure in knowing I irritate the heck out of idiots like that by being who I am.

Secondly, be very careful about judging all men by what you read on GLP. The idea that you might prejudge me based on what those dregs trawl up out of the depths of their ignorance would really **** me off.

[SciFi Chick]

So as a result, I don't think that using sex appeal is the best way to go about promoting intelligence or skepticism in women, at least if you want to get the same level of respect as the others around you do. Trust me on this one.

I agree Andromeda. I can't tell you how many times people have been threatened by my intelligence.

How come the skeptical men aren't doing calendars to raise awareness about skepticism in general? After all, it's not like skepticism is some kind of norm in our society.

And to pretend that all women are sexy is to change the meaning of the word sexy. We all find different qualities attractive and/or sexy. I think it's a very personal thing. There are those few who seem to be considered attractive by all, but that's a rather rare event. :)

[SciFi Chick]

As to Chick being derogatory, I have to agree with Moose on this one. I call myself SciFi Chick for a number of reasons. One, it rolls off the tongue nicely. Two, I never found it terribly derogatory. I think culture is an issue as well. My significant other is Australian, and they call women Babe, Honey, Sweetie, etc. It's not the least bit derogatory. They call other men Mate just as certain regions of America use the term Dude or Guys. So, I think men can be derogatory or not, but I've certainly been much more offended when I'm condescended to than when I'm called a chick. :)

[Candy]

How come the skeptical men aren't doing calendars to raise awareness about skepticism in general?

Here's two I'd like to see in THAT calendar! http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

http://home.att.net/~candy.stair/BrianPhil.jpg

[Monique]

And to pretend that all women are sexy is to change the meaning of the word sexy. We all find different qualities attractive and/or sexy. I think it's a very personal thing. There are those few who seem to be considered attractive by all, but that's a rather rare event. :)
I send email to my friend Wanderer, he agree to pose for skepdude calendar!! :)

[SciFi Chick]

All right! We've got two that have been volunteered by Candy, and one that has volunteered on his own. Have we got any other takers?

:D

[Monique]

Secondly, be very careful about judging all men by what you read on GLP. The idea that you might prejudge me based on what those dregs trawl up out of the depths of their ignorance would really **** me off.
Not to worry, I do not judge all men on small sample. Is individual process. :)

[TriangleMan]

How come the skeptical men aren't doing calendars to raise awareness about skepticism in general? After all, it's not like skepticism is some kind of norm in our society.
There has been some banter about a SkepDudes 2007 calendar. :)

It was easy to see at TAM3 that the majority were male. I took a look at the registrant list for TAM3 when someone asked me about the male/female ratio and it was around 23% women (out of about 550 attendees). Others have told me that the ratios at previous TAMs were worse but I wasn't there so I can't confirm that. Rebecca and a number of the other women, who got to know each other through JREF and other forums and meeting in person at various TAMs, have decided to raise awareness with a calendar and help fund other women to the event (there is a scholarship program as well to help anyone, men and women, to attend TAM). Bear in mind these are ladies who like having fun - they have a "Skepchicks pyjama party" at TAM every year - so I wasn't surprised at all to see them come up with a calendar as a fundraiser.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

All right! We've got two that have been volunteered by Candy, and one that has volunteered on his own. Have we got any other takers?

:D
Ahem ...

I'd Do It, But, I Think My Body, Is a LITTLE, Too Geeky!!!!

:shifty:

[Doodler]

Not to worry, I do not judge all men on small sample. Is individual process. :)
Sounds good, you had me a bit worried. :)

[Moose]

I have to agree with Moose on this one.

*grin* You say that like it's a bad thing. :razz:

[SciFi Chick]

*grin* You say that like it's a bad thing. :razz:

Well you know how disagreeable I can be. ;)

[Candy]

Maksutov has got great biker legs (from photos I've seen on the BABB). We better sign him up. Argos and Staiduk, FOR SURE! tmosher isn't too bad, either. ;) Oh, I think we are going to need more months in the year for a male calendar. :)

[Candy]

Ahem ...

I'd Do It, But, I Think My Body, Is a LITTLE, Too Geeky!!!!

:shifty:

Are these full body shots, or parts of the body similar to skep's webpage?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Are these full body shots, or parts of the body similar to skep's webpage?

You Name It ....

It's GEEKY!!!

:shifty:

[Candy]

You Name It ....

It's GEEKY !!!

:shifty:
I meant my statement to be an over all question for the male calendar. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/froehlich/e020.gif

[edited smilie]

[tmosher]

Maksutov has got great biker legs (from photos I've seen on the BABB). We better sign him up. Argos and Staiduk, FOR SURE! tmosher isn't too bad, either. ;) Oh, I think we are going to need more months in the year for a male calendar. :)

Thank you!

Wait till you see me in a couple of months. Doing a lifestyle change which involves a radical diet change and exercise.

[Candy]

Thank you!

Wait till you see me in a couple of months. Doing a lifestyle change which involves a radical diet change and exercise.
You're perfect just the way you are! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/liebe/a055.gif

[tmosher]

You're perfect just the way you are! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/liebe/a055.gif

Thank you again.

See you in a little less than two months.

Tom

[Superluminal]

Candy, you've already got a shot of Tom's back, so you're halfway there already.

[Ara Pacis]

I'm skeptical of this whole thread.

[MrObvious]

The one thing that bugs me about this calendar concept is that it seems to be the trend for any womans group to get money or advertising. We have sports girls doing calendars here, old ladies doing them, teenagers doing them etc.
What is that teaching people, if you are a woman that needs money and recognition, start by removing your clothing!

It hit me when I realised that in my family there are many intelligent women, my mom, sister, cousins and the better half. One thing I know is I wouldn't want any of them to use their sexuality to bring attention to their intelligence or to the lack of women in any particular feild.

Not enough firefighters, hey, lets do a sexy calendar of the female firefighters...... oops, already been done :(
How about the defence forces, would we approve of women in lingere recruiting for the armed services. I think not.

I just see this whole idea as being self defeating. Trying to get women to get attention to their minds by exposing their bodies? It makes no sense to me at all. As An321 mentioned, it won't get much respect from people either.

Lastly,

http://www.skepchick.mu.nu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3

Not exactly role models I'd want my daughter to look up to. So all up, yes, I'm very sceptical.

[Candy]

Flight attendants show skin to publicize plight (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7846034/)

While some United Airlines employees are using placards and pamphlets to protest the loss of their pensions, a group of flight attendants is taking a more risque tack — showing some skin to publicize their plight.

I'm not saying it's wrong or it's right, because I really don't care. If it gets results, then it is successful in my book. I hate the now concept of a union, but I admire these women for having the "balls" to take it all off to prove a point.

Let's just admit that women and men are different. If a woman wants something, she needs to take drastic measures to secure a response. This is not to be a blow to the female or male race, but men see more with sexual connotations. I don't why this is, but it is.

Sure, we can beat the male down to where he has no desire what-so-ever, but that would be wrong. As a female, we work with the male's weakness to get ahead in life. It's worked for me, thus far!

[The Bad Astronomer]

I think one point to be made here is that we can break the stereotype that smart people (especially science-types) are nerds, and unattractive. We can be ugly, or pretty, or short, or tall. But skeptics have one thing in common-- the need to demand proof (or at least evidence) before we accept an idea as being potentially correct.

I have discussed this many times with feiends who were feminists, chauvanists, and many other personality types. I have come to the conclusion that respecting someone for one particular attribute is not necessarily bad, depending on the situation. But it becomes easy to pigeonhole them into that attribute, and forget about the rest of their attributes. A good-looking person is easy to look at, but can they hold up their end of a conversation? That's more my concern when I'm talking to them. If I'm playing ultimate frisbee, I don't care how smart or pretty the women on my team are, I care how well they can play. I don't care if a violinist is attractive or smart or atheltic when I'm listening to her play a solo from "Scheherezade". I only care about her talent.

But if that person wants to be my friend, any one of those attributes isn't enough. They need to have lots more going for them. And smarts is a big one.

Now, that's an idealism. In the real world, sex sells. There is a somewhat strong evolutionary history behind that. :-) If it helps get someone's attention, I think that's fine. Ads use sex all the time; I'm happy to look at the ad when they do, but it won't help them sell their product to me unless they can back up their claims!

It's the same here. The difference is, skepchicks can back up their claims. Even more, to bring us back to what I was saying before, they are more than "just a pretty face". It's more than just that attribute that makes these women appealing. I am pretty sure I know most if not all of the women in that calendar (dagnappit, I won't know until I get my copy!) and I can tell you they're smart, funny, and all the other things I said in my blog. There's more than one facet to them.

The danger to any kind of "ism" (racism, chauvanism, etc) is only seeing one facet of a person. The cure is to see how multi-dimensional they are, and you can't do that until you get to know them. Hopefully, by selling these calendars, it'll pique the interest of people who might otherwise dismiss the idea of skepticism.

[Candy]

And what the BA said. :)

[paulie jay]

And besides that - it's just a bit of fun http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/musik/a040.gif

[Candy]

Sure, we can beat the male down to where he has no desire what-so-ever, but that would be wrong. As a female, we work with the male's weakness to get ahead in life. It's worked for me, thus far!

Can you just imagine, as women, if we actually worked on the male sex drive knowing their weakness, instead of fighting a stereotype, how much further we women could progress? Hmmmmmm...

[Moose]

Well said, Phil.

[HenrikOlsen]

Can you just imagine, as women, if we actually worked on the male sex drive knowing their weakness, instead of fighting a stereotype, how much further we women could progress? Hmmmmmm...
Wasn't that what happened all the time before that equal rights thing came to our rescue? :)

[Candy]

Wasn't that what happened all the time before that equal rights thing came to our rescue? :)
Hey, I don't wear a bra, so I can't burn anything. :)

[Candy]

Wasn't that what happened all the time before that equal rights thing came to our rescue? :)
Sorry, I just reread this, and the answer is Marilyn Monroe.

[Swift]

Well said Phil and Paulie Jay

[farmerjumperdon]

I would suggest that if there's a problem with "well-adjusted", it isn't yours. Your posts have always made a great deal of sense.

A big 10-4 on that. You may be different, but the inability to adjust (adapt and function in a full spectrum of social interactions) is not yours - it's the people who feel threatened by who you are. Their fear paralyzes, or at least impairs, their honesty and integrity. They stray from the path they would take as their self, give over to unhealthy group dynamics - and the result is teasing anybody not like the group.

[Ara Pacis]

Intellect can enhance sexiness, but I'm skeptical of the idea that sexiness can enhance intellect.

[HenrikOlsen]

Increased heartbeat resulting in more blood to the brain.
I'd buy the idea. :)

[Marlayna]

Let's just admit that women and men are different. If a woman wants something, she needs to take drastic measures to secure a response. This is not to be a blow to the female or male race, but men see more with sexual connotations. I don't why this is, but it is.

Sure, we can beat the male down to where he has no desire what-so-ever, but that would be wrong. As a female, we work with the male's weakness to get ahead in life. It's worked for me, thus far!Wasn't the whole point to get more women involved with skepticism? Stop acting like you depend on men to improve your status. Heck, you should've made a calendar with hot men instead!

[gethen]

So the women of Skepchiks are smart, skeptical, and beautiful or sexy, as the case may be? Pity there's no place for the rest of us.

[Gillianren]

the point, as I see it, is thus.

a) raise money. now, since more men attend these things than women, there are more men to hit up for the cash. ergo, attractive women to get money out of men's wallets.

b) raise awareness. obviously done. heck, I'm aware of it now, and starting to wonder how one applies for one of these scholarships (Phil, you'd write me a letter of recommendation, right?).

c) show women they can be sexy and smart, without having to pick one. now, gods know I don't fit the current model of sexy (oh, but you just take me back in time to the Renaissance!), but I know a lot of women who've been afraid to show their intelligence around men. in fact, I've actually been told that you shouldn't. (for one, I think it's in The Rules!) if we show fence-sitters that they can be both, isn't that a good thing?

[Moose]

if we show fence-sitters that they can be both, isn't that a good thing?

Yes, exactly. The only way to break the XOR stereotype is to get people as used to seeing the AND case as they are seeing the OR case.

If folks insist upon treating smart and good-looking as being necessarily mutually exclusive, or in any way implies that being both is somehow amoral, it only reinforces the negative stereotype further.

[Doodler]

I like the Skepchicks premise in theory, but I think the execution is flawed.

1) You're still marketing yourself physically first, intellectually second. Afterall, the calendar is only showing your body, but your boosting quotes from somewhere else. Why not a little blurb from the lady in question that demonstrates her intelligence?

2) Its a pretty exclusionary premise because you're promoting the interests of what the more prurient mind considers "sexy". Contrary to the layman's rules of blind dating, there's something to be said for women with "great personalities". Going for the body risks alienating more modest women who don't buy into baser ideas of "sexy".

3) Despite your desire to be taken seriously in intellectual fields dominated by men, the fact is this calendar is really playing right into the hands of men who objectify women. Not that men like Phil and others here who support your efforts aren't capable of managing both physical and intellectual appreciation at the same time, far from it, obviously. But this promotional effort isn't really doing anything to move your cause forward (aside from the money, but we'll go there in a second). Men who appreciate both will still do so, men who objectify women as trophies, fantasies and other fluff roles will continue to do so as well. Now, the money will certainly help, but I can assure you, in some eyes it will be seen as selling yourselves to cover expenses and all the negative connotations that go along with that.

Its a pain in the butt, a catch 22, and its completely unfair, but the fact remains the calendar may not be the vehicle you believe it to be. I would hate to see this effort falter because its built on a logical phallusy...

[kimera]

Sorry for my ignorance on this subject, but I’ve only recently learned of the existence of these places and events and the link to the “about” was not working. I consider myself a skeptic and would love to join the organization and attend conventions. Where/when are these conventions held and what does one have to do in order to not only be a member, but possibly receive this “scholarship”? I saw the link to one, but is there a webpage that contains more names and details about these meetings/organizations in general?

I already get paid for modeling, so I couldn’t be part of the calendar unless you allowed minor models to be in it too.

I also agree that stats showing how the women pictured is intelligent should be included in the calendar.

[TriangleMan]

Sorry for my ignorance on this subject, but I’ve only recently learned of the existence of these places and events and the link to the “about” was not working. I consider myself a skeptic and would love to join the organization and attend conventions. Where/when are these conventions held and what does one have to do in order to not only be a member, but possibly receive this “scholarship”? I saw the link to one, but is there a webpage that contains more names and details about these meetings/organizations in general?

Welcome to the Board kimera. The convention in question, The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM), has a website www.tam4.com There is information on scholarships there. You can also go to the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) at www.randi.org, click on the link to their Forums then go to the 'Amazing Meeting' forum. There is a thread there about the scholarships. (NOTE: the JREF forums are down for an upgrade and will be back up on Saturday).

TAM is being held in Las Vegas on January 26-29. In the 'Amazing Meeting' Forum at JREF people also post about other skeptical meetings and conferences, I think there was one recently somewhere in New England.

www.skeptic.com is another website that also lists various events and conferences.

[Candy]

Wasn't the whole point to get more women involved with skepticism? Stop acting like you depend on men to improve your status. Heck, you should've made a calendar with hot men instead!
That's the way I was raised by my mother and grandmother. They call it getting married to someone with good insurance.

I didn't listen to them, because I prefer to be successful on my own terms. I now make more than 98% of the men I date, and I have better insurance than 99% of the men I date. I own my condo (mortgage) and my car. I paid for my Bachelor's (student loan). This concept confuses my mother, but my grandmother is delighted at my independence.

In the past, I've used my sexuality to get a promotion. I won't lie.

I now work for an airline, and my department is predominantly gay (men and women). I work 10 times harder to show my worth, while I see others breeze through life less qualified than I (because they use their "sexuality" in a totally different way than I am used to - roles are changing).

I liked the good old days better. ;)

[Ara Pacis]

I recall studies of facial symmetry and hip to weight ratios as indicators of beauty. These two studies were both attempts to quantify beauty with mathematical precision on a scientific basis. Here is a wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty#Beauty_and_human_appearance) with quick references to both ideas.

How are the women on the Skepchicks calendar chosen?

[Candy]

I recall studies of facial symmetry and hip to weight ratios as indicators of beauty. These two studies were both attempts to quantify beauty with mathematical precision on a scientific basis. Here is a wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty#Beauty_and_human_appearance) with quick references to both ideas.

How are the women on the Skepchicks calendar chosen?
I was told at work to wear clothes more form fitting (by a female manager). I was told it was more professional looking. After reading your link... Hmmmmm!

[Ara Pacis]

I was told at work to wear clothes more form fitting (by a female manager). I was told it was more professional looking. After reading your link... Hmmmmm!
I suppose it depends on the form and the profession.

[breeze]

the point, as I see it, is thus.

a) raise money. now, since more men attend these things than women, there are more men to hit up for the cash. ergo, attractive women to get money out of men's wallets.



So, what's wrong with being a little more self-supporting? Why do we need to take money from men's wallets? This is only appealing to half the number of people who could help. There's nothing wrong with sex, but the idea of appealing for help on that basis seems, well, a little manipulative; just like the ads that use sex as well.

I like the idea of a calendar and I've seen the pics on the website. I like them, but you are emphasizing only two aspects of women. Smart and sexy. What about adventurous, funny, loving, good company? We have so much more to offer than our brains and our bodies..... We have our talents and skills that do not necessarily require rational thought.

Just my $0.02.

Breeze

[Moose]

I like the idea of a calendar and I've seen the pics on the website. I like them, but you are emphasizing only two aspects of women. Smart and sexy. What about adventurous, funny, loving, good company? We have so much more to offer than our brains and our bodies..... We have our talents and skills that do not necessarily require rational thought.

True enough, but you can only render so much in a 2D medium. What you're talking about can only be experienced by getting to know the person... in person.

Ergo, raising money to get more women to TAM is a step in the right direction. Now if we can just get me to TAM. ;) ($1500 US minimum in my case. :( )

[genebujold]

Phil, I value you as a friend for you mind, and your ability to play ultimate frisbee.

But you can't really be my friend until I know how well you cook spaghetti bolognesa!

We'll talk about the next step in our friendship after dinner!

Aw, shucks - I'll waive the dinner and just credit it to you for all the hard work you've done on this board!