It’s just starting, so drop a word of encouragement. The blog is We Are SkeptiXX, and the intent is to promote more female representation in the skeptical movement. We’re all in favor of that, I hope!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Yes, we are. It is a small step forward in a long battle.
Yes, the more eye-candy the better.
(that’s a joke, BTW)
Note to Foghorn Leghorn:
If you have to say “that’s a joke” then it probably ain’t funny.
Thanks PZ! You’ll see my contribution (an interview with Marian Call) and many others over the weeks to come. :)
groan
Hm, not per se; what I am in favour of is appropriate gender representation.
(I agree that, under present circumstances (i.e. women are currently under-represented), the two amount to the same thing)
Randall covers it better than I’m going to manage: http://xkcd.com/322/
Sweet.
I’m in favor of this so long as they cover up their lady parts. Oh wait, that’s a requirement in Islam, not skepticism. Nevermind. I’m in favor of this without any restrictions.
Am I the only one ambivalent about this? I mean, yay! More women skeptics having more prominent voices is unquestionably a very good thing, and kudos to PZ for promoting its aims. But damn, I wish we lived in a world where we celebrated skeptics who may happen to be women, and not women who happen to be skeptics.
Maybe it’s true that we cannot get there without taking this critical, transitional step. But I cannot help but think that in addition to amplifying the voices of female freethinkers, gender-segregated blogs also serve to reinforce the idea that women skeptics are in a separate class than “real” skeptics. A skeptics’ pink ghetto?
Or maybe I’m just in a particularly bleak mood. Hey, it happens.
Um, “irisvander?” Ooookay. I have no idea how that happened. Took me a few tries to login here though, so maybe there’s some temporary glitch.
THIS.
[meta]
iris, you need to change your display name on the settings, it’s still using your login name.
Irisvanderpluym:
I think we do need this transitional step (we’ve seen just how much women aren’t accepted in skepticism by many lately), however, like you, I fear the pink ghetto. :sigh:
How about a mention then for the Godless Bitches Podcast?
http://godlessbitches.podbean.com/
Caine, Joyce, Iris, re: “pink ghetto” — leaving aside that it’s a bit of a misnomer, inasmuch as it’s not that to which the term historically refers to (I doubt (heh) skepticism will become seen as “women’s hobbyism”), it’s still gotta be better than the current situation, no?
(Familiarity may breed contempt, but it also breeds acceptance)
—
Bah. The tide is turning, and they’re just being reactionary.
(Fuck’em)
John, I know the historical connotations, I expect the others do too. I don’t know about better and that’s the problem. While it’s good that more women are being out about skepticism, we’re still dealing with separatism, which happens thanks to the still very entrenched day to day sexism we all deal with.
A lot of people handwave such concerns away, but it’s a mistake to do that. We have a long way to go, I think.
Within the first dozen comments over there, there’s a guy whining that it’s “attacking” men simply by existing. Le sigh.
Moggie:
:Wanders over to look: Oh yes, the blog exists solely to attack those cursed with a penis. :eyeroll:
A long over due occurrence imo, looking forward to it non the less.
This name is vastly superior to that of Skepchick.
OMFGOMFFSM! They have a test pilot panelist?! That’s ridiculously awesome.[meta]
John Morales, thanks — but that is not my login name.
Michael Hawkins says:
True dat.
Sweeet!! Bookmarked, and thanks for the heads-up.
Who was whining about it attacking men? There is the eye candy comment, but I do not see anything else that could be construed as such.
Sorry, how could “over there” be interpreted as “this thread”? I was referring to the first comment thread at “We Are SkeptiXX”.
joyce7287:
You might want to work on your reading comprehension. It’s quite clear that Moggie was referring to the comment thread at Skeptixx.
Don’t get me wrong, every skeptic should have a nice looking woman on his arm, but I am pretty sure the female brain has some pretty obvious limitations that prevent them from really contributing to the skeptic movement.
I feel that the best way a woman can contribute to the skeptic movement is to keep skeptical men happy. Cook them good food, have sex with them, clean up after them, etc. This will keep the skeptical men in top shape, ready to address the intellectual challenges they face.
[If you meant that seriously, you’re an idiot; if you were trying to be funny…you weren’t. –pzm]
I’m always a bit worried about segregation based on sex. I can understand the desire to have opportunity for women to express themselves, but echoing others sentiments, I look forward to celebrating skeptics who happen to be women.
Joshfishhead
Fuck right off asshole. Stupid attention seeking troll.
joshuafisher:
*Yawns*
The SkeptiXX blog post has a post about Marian Call. Woo-hoo!
Gotta love a woman who has a whole cd of songs inspired by Firefly and Battlestar Galactica.
In the Black
joshuafisher,
Please collect your decaying porcupine on your way out. It’s for insertion in your rosy-red rectum, tail first.
repost due to borkage
In the Black Marian Call
My post above was a complete Poe. I pretty much typed in the most ridiculous stuff I could imagine some MRA saying. Frankly I probably set the bar quite low. Sorry if I offended anyone. I don’t normally Poe at all, and I am not sure why I felt compelled to do it this time. I guess I was just trying to poke fun at the retarded ideas some sexist people have.
I think its great that there is a blog that wants to promote female representation in the skeptical movement. Its just sad that it needs to be promoted. I think all people should be part of the skeptical movement, maybe someday people will be enlightened enough that it wouldn’t even occur to people that we should promote the representation of women, but that we should just promote the representation of people.
Again, sorry about the Poe. Carry on.
Joshua Fisher
*sigh*
It really is time even the terminally stupid realised that writing a load of sexist crap (or for that matter, religious blithering) as a “Poe” is neither clever nor funny. In the sexist case at least, it does raise genuine doubts about the attitude of the person doing it, even if they later say they don’t believe any of what they wrote. Would joshuafisher have written crap of the same type expressing racist attitudes?
KG:
Going by how terribly clever joshuafisher seems to consider himself? Probably.
joshuafisher:
Duh, you dope. That was more than obvious. What isn’t obvious is just what the fuck is wrong with you that you thought that was funny.
Go away and don’t come back until you’re considerably more intelligent.
@KG
My need for sarcasm at the time was overwhelming, I handled it poorly, I am sorry for that. Your doubts about my attitude are immaterial. Either I am or I am not sexist. I am sure that being male and American means that on some level I am sexist, but if there is any amount of misogyny in my character I would like to eliminate it. As for Poeing racism, I do not feel that racism is any “worse” than sexism (both are abhorrent.) So, If some race related topic caused me to consider Poeing I would not balk because the topic was race.
Yes, but, still… it could be worse. In fact, it has already been worse. Much worse:
Thirded.
Joshua Fisher, are you this tedious at parties, too?
Jesus Christ in Hell
fuck you too
ahs ॐ:
I’m with you.
I’m not sure how having a blog written by women is a segregated pink ghetto blog? I didn’t see anywhere on the blog page that said “men not allowed”.
I’ve made two comments on different threads on the blog. I’ve just looked and they’re both still there.
@ahs ॐ
re·tard
verb (used with object)
1.
to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
Sexist ideas are retarded. Literally. Do not try to load my words with your biases. Also, thank you for your misleading partial quote. If you want to object to what I say please at least have the integrity and courage to represent it accurately.
In my post the full sentence is, “I guess I was just trying to poke fun at the retarded ideas some sexist people have.” in this sentence the word retarded is an adjective modifying the noun “ideas”. The quote you provided dishonestly represents that word as a noun itself, suggesting I am insulting mentally handicapped people. I did not.
So, no. Fuck you.
Joshua Fisher
‘Tis:
On the first post, a man commented on how the blog was an attack on men, oh poor him, cursed with a penis. There’s still a problem, and it isn’t about men being allowed or not.
Ha! What a fucking lying bigot you are.
Get the fuck out of here, shitstain.
Basic English lesson, you liar:
for such an excuse to work, you’d have to have said “I guess I was just trying to poke fun at the retarding ideas some sexist people have.”
What a miserable little pile of ego, that you would try to resort to such trickery.
Unfounded assertion. My use of the term retarded is proper in the context of that sentence. I like how you cleverly avoided my whole post by flailing about with an ad hominem. Very tricky.
So, again, why did you dishonestly misrepresent my statement? Surely if my use of “retarded” were so egregious it shouldn’t require you to modify my words to make it obvious.
Looking forward to your next ad hominem,
Joshua Fisher
I don’t know what to say. You are just wrong, sorry. I did not mean to say that sexist ideas are ideas which have a retarding effect (although they do) but rather that they are ideas which have been held back from development or progress. They are retarded. I am sorry that this word is a hot spot for you, but I will not let your personal bias limit my vocabulary.
Joshua Fisher
joshuafisher:
No, they aren’t. (You could say they are retarding, I suppose.) They may, however, retard progress in certain areas. That is not the context you used:
In this context, the implication is that anyone who is sexist is retarded. You did not say, frinst., “I guess I was just trying to poke fun at the way sexist thinking retards progress.” See the difference? You can argue this all you like, but what you meant was clear. Would you have said: “the slow ideas some sexist people have” or “the delayed ideas some sexist people have” or “the hindering ideas some sexist people have“?
Also, Joshua, we are all sexist, every single one of us. The best we can do as individuals is to be very aware of our own privilege and perspectives and to be continually alert as to how those things colour our views every day*.
I think the point here is for you to look to your own biases. Just as gender-based and race-based insults are not welcome here, neither are ableist insults.
*Recently, both Carlie and I (we’re both women) caught ourselves thinking in sexist stereotypes, having to do with shopping for tools. So yes, Joshua, you too are sexist, and are most likely unaware of much of your thinking in that regard.
Yes, you reacted badly and you fucked up. However, you aren’t understanding the reasons you fucked up, and getting defensive is only going to dig that hole deeper. Check your privilege and try to learn something.
Bigot, you don’t know what an ad hominem is.
See my explanation in the post above yours.
No, I modified the word “ideas” with the adjective “retarded”. Peoples ideas of sexually equality are progressing from unequal toward total equality. people who are “sexist” hold ideas which have been held back in that progress. This lack of development can be correctly called retardation. Those ideas are retarded in their development toward total equality. This says nothing about mental handicap.
I do see the difference. But your sentence is not what I was saying. As for your later examples, no. I would not have said those things, but I would say “the ideas some sexist people have that are less developed than they should be”. But, that is a little unwieldy.
I think I covered that above when I said, “I am sure that being male and American means that on some level I am sexist, but if there is any amount of misogyny in my character I would like to eliminate it.” I am aware that I am a product of the society to which I belong and that some of the baggage of that society is a healthy dose of male privilege. I do work to minimize that and keep an open mind when people are telling me the baggage is showing through.
I think the point here is for you to look to your own biases. Just as gender-based and race-based insults are not welcome here, neither are ableist insults.
And I maintain that I did not use and abliest insult. Could I have chosen a safer word than retarded? Yes, obviously, given the response. But, the word is valid as used and was not intended to compare those who hold sexist ideas to people who are mentally handicapped.
I am not sure what reaction you are referring to. If you are referring to my reaction to being accused of abliesm, then I must disagree. I do understand the reasons you think I fucked up. And if I had meant what I said in the way you think I did, I would agree.
As I said above, I am aware that I hold subconscious biases, and I do try to learn from my mistakes. However, I will not apologize for something I did not do.
Joshua Fisher
ad ho·mi·nem
1.
appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
Rather than address my statement you dismissed me as a liar and called me names. This fits definition 2 and the wikipedia description pretty accurately. If you have an issue with either of those explanations of ad hominem let me know.
Joshua Fisher
There’s nothing fallacious about calling you a fucking shitstain, and thus nothing objectionable about doing so at Pharyngula!
Fuck off, bigot.
no, but there is something fallacious about dismissing me as a liar, rather than responding to my statement.
Joshua Fisher
No, there isn’t. You are a liar. It’s not “you are a liar therefore” anything. You simply are a liar. Now get the fuck out of here, bigot.
Who the fuck knew that everyone who ever called anyone a liar was committing a fallacy? What a whiny little shit you are.
You are not entitled to anyone’s attention.
You are not entitled to be taken seriously.
You are not entitled to a presumption of innocence, as you are not facing a court of law.
You are simply a liar and a worthless excuse for a human being, who should get the fuck out of here.
You are implying that my statement doesn’t deserve a response because my negative trait (being a liar) negates the validity of my argument.
Not everyone who calls someone a liar is committing a fallacy. Only those who are doing it to dismiss an argument. Try again.
I never claimed to be entitled to any of those things. You are making an assertion that I am a liar. A thing you can not possibly know. You are using it to dismiss my response to your statement. That is an ad hominem.
Perhaps sometime you can show me how you eliminated all possible worth I may have based on a few posts in a blog. That’s a neat trick.
No, I will not get the fuck out of here.
Joshua Fisher
Goddamn, you are stupid.
It is my conclusion that you are a liar.
It is also my conclusion that you are a bigot.
That’s it. Those are my conclusions from observing your behavior. They are not arguments. They are self-evident truths.
You are lying when you say you didn’t use “retarded” as an insult about mental traits.
You are simply full of shit.
Nobody owed you a fucking reply in the first place.
You do not deserve anything here.
I am not dismissing your argument because you’re a liar. I am dismissing you because I do not give a fuck about you, I do not give a fuck about your lies, and I refuse to give any positive reinforcement to someone who attempts your tactics.
I will not spend my time addressing the reasoning of a liar. You are not worth taking seriously. God put you here for me to verbally abuse.
Fuck the fuck off.
I never said that anyone owed me a response. However, you chose to respond. You responded to my arguement by calling me a liar. Probably the most apt example from the article you linked is this one:
So, there is a small possibility that its not ad hominem, but unlikely. I will concede the possibility that “liar” is just your favorite insult and you would have called me that even if my statement were undeniably true. But you have to admit it seems unlikely that you weren’t implying that I was a liar in reference to the argument I made.
You are expending quite a bit of effort screaming at someone “do not give a fuck about” Maybe your energy would be better spent reading and understanding the article you linked.
Joshua Fisher
social conditioning (not of you in case you’re condused)
Also, your reading comprehension is terrible, possibly because you are self-absorbed fuckstain.
Read carefully: “Even now, we can’t conclude that B’s reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A’s argument.”
It does not mean “it could well be and probably is the case that B’s reply is ad hominem.”
It means exactly the opposite.
Jackass! I am asserting that you are a liar because you told a lie! To wit: that you were not insulting mentally handicapped people! That was your lie. I am concluding that such a statement is, prima facie, a fucking lie.
Stupid, stupid, stupid liar.
Thou map of woe!
Thine breath stinks with eating toasted cheese.
Ok, I was wrong about the ad hominem. I did read that wrong. I retract all of my claims that you were committing an ad hominem fallacy. Instead you are just an insulting asshole.
By the way, you are asserting that I am a liar because you are asserting that I told a lie. Of course you have the right to assert any damn thing you want. That doesn’t make it true.
I assert that you are a liar. I assert that you, in fact, refuse to address my argument, not because you find me unworthy of response, but because you know you are wrong and are afraid to engage my rebuttal.
Assertion is fun… and useless.
Joshua Fisher
btw Jadehawk you may be interested in this.
joshuafisher,
When you were called a liar, the remark was not in refutation of your arguments, the remark was made in reference to you. Your arguments were left uncommented upon. You were called a liar and examples of your lies were given.
joshuafisher: stop digging.
ahs: stop repeating yourself. Point made.
‘Tis Himself, OM
See above, I retracted my claim of ad hominem. I fully admit that it was not an ad hominem. ahs ॐ ignored my statement and presented a new argument that I am a liar. One that I will not pursue.
There is no way that he can prove that I meant what he claims I meant, there is no way that I can prove I didn’t. People can either accept my statement of intent or not. Only I will ever know the truth and I won’t have any trouble sleeping tonight.
Joshua Fisher
joshuafisher, if you think yourself a decent and honest person, then think about this very carefully.
What if some piece of shit liar was allowed to get away with a piece of shit lie by using your argument?
And what if that piece of shit liar was granted leeway to insist that no one can really with 100% certainty know he’s a piece of shit liar, since no one can read his piece of shit mind?
Wouldn’t that make you haz a sad?
Now hie the fuck thence, thou currish beetle-headed scut!
I don’t see how my argument addresses “getting away with lies.” Liars get away with lying all the time. I did not lie. I explained, very patiently, how my use of the word retarded was intended. An the idea that women are not as good as men is not as developed as the idea that they are equal. If a person holds to this idea, it is retarded, i.e. not as developed as it ought to be. Does every possible interpretation of my syntax necessarily lead to sexist people = mental handicapped people? You either will or will not believe me but that is not how I meant it.
I see PZ’s post, I will not discuss this further
Joshua Fisher
thanks, ahs
Dear Joshua Fisher,
Surprising as this may be, Joshua Fisher is a name common enough that people can readily recognize it in “joshuafisher.” It is therefore unnecessary for you to append your name to your posts.
SC
Does this mean we get to be openly skeptical of fluffy, new-age, positive affirmation, make-your-own-quantum-reality bullshite as well as the dead-prophet-onna-stick cult?
‘Cause then I’m all for it. I’m sick of my choices of social interaction with the XX half of the population being limited by “pretend Jesus is my buddy” or “smile and nod while they talk about the sun rising in Taurus.”
johnpoteet, we did not need another sexist comment in here. Kindly go fuck yourself.
johnpoteet:
I’d be willing to bet your social interaction is limited by your being an asshole.
Syggyx, is that you?
Caine, it does indeed sound as if intelligent women are quite sensibly giving johnpoteen a wide berth.
A general remark to Joshua, if several people or more are interpreting your words in a way you did not mean, then it usually means you have not been clear in your meaning. Grumbling that they are all reading it wrong is rarely productive.
And if I slip up and say something stupid or -ist of whatever form, I both hope and expect the denizens of pharyngula to bring it to my attention.
Did the comments on this blog just go from zero to “if-you-say-something-unflattering-about-any-woman-you’re-not-getting-laid?”
Because I bet I can find lots of, probably well deserved, unflattery directed at groups of men here.
Does anybody dispute that among the minority of the female U.S. population that doesn’t make some token claim to Christianity there is a deep and virulent strain of new-age mumbo jumbo? Actually I think there is a lot of overlap there.
Or are we disputing that women are more likely to have a religious affiliation in general to such an extent that true atheists or agnostic women are fairly rare creatures. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life would disagree. Could somebody refer me to more accurate numbers?
A greeting better than “you’re an asshole” to a new voice might not leave you with an echo chamber.
btw. That is my real name. It’s a very rare surname.
“new voice”, same old shit.
Consider the finding that “men are more likely to believe in UFOs and that aliens have visited the earth.”
If some man announced his new blog, it would be pretty much worthless to show up and say “is this the place where I can vent about how my last boyfriend believed that aliens built the pyramids?”
It’s just a completely fucking useless comment, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
What we don’t like around here are worthless people who think they’re contributing something clever. That would be you, johnpoteet.
So what I’m disputing is your claim to deserve oxygen.
Ok brilliant and exclusive people with amazing tact. Please direct me to actual information sources that will correct my horrible misapprehensions concerning the gender balance of non-mainstream religions in U.S. culture.
Or……
Failing that….Direct me to the research papers that indicate that astrology and/or make-your-own-quantum-reality have a recordable and repeatable basis in fact.
Better yet, direct your stupid ass out of here. You are irrelevant and unwelcome.
“Consider the finding that “men are more likely to believe in UFOs and that aliens have visited the earth.”
Actually, men are more likely to be schizophrenic and if I recall correctly more likely to suffer mental illness in general and tend to be damaged more by the mental illness they do suffer. Denial does nothing to help men deal with these problems.
In specific reference to UFO sightings and abduction there is speculation that surges in endogenous DMT could produce the experiences reported. People who’ve ingested DMT or Salvia Divinorum(sp) report experiences very similar or identical to UFO abduction stories.
It would be a valid discussion if we were discussing UFO abductions instead of female inclusion in the skeptical community.
Ok, echo chamber it is.
Not including PZ in this since he appears to write fair commentary but the community in here appears to be hypersensitive assholes.
In the “real world” men and women do things in different numbers. At least in this culture. Since I don’t have the “change the whole culture” magic wand you might refrain from pissing off the 99.9% of people who would disagree with you on some point or another.
That’s true.
I don’t know.
That would be extremely difficult to quantify.
I always feel sorry for non sequiturs; they’re like little children abandoned in shopping malls.
Uh. So you’re one of them. I see.
Except for all the ones who don’t.
We are discussing UFOs now, dumbass. See how that works?
Anyway, I didn’t specify anything about abductions, and I don’t have data on whether men or women report more alien abductions. What I do know is this:
Consider the finding that “men are more likely to believe in UFOs and that aliens have visited the earth.”
If some man announced his new blog, it would be pretty much worthless to show up and say “is this the place where I can vent about how my last boyfriend believed that aliens built the pyramids?”
It’s just a completely fucking useless comment, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
What we don’t like around here are worthless people who think they’re contributing something clever. That would be you, johnpoteet.
So what I’m disputing is your claim to deserve oxygen.
Indeed; one suspects that men leave more irrelevant sexist comments on blogs.
johnpoteet, you’re being irrelevant.
This post is about a new blog, and (to quote the OP) “the intent is to promote more female representation in the skeptical movement”.
Therefore, if women show up as more religious, the need (and, therefore the relevance) for female skeptical voices is that much greater.
(Also (hint, hint) have you researched the ratio of the powerful vs. the powerless in regards to religious belief? The poor vs. the rich?)
[meta]
johnpoteet:
OK, thick you are.
(Bah)
There’s a thought.
johnpoteet
You could go to the blog linked in the OP and discuss women in scepticism with them.
Also johnpoteen, the assumption you are making that only the USA is relevant? Um, no, while PZ may be US based a lot of us who post here are not.
Also, you are the one who brought up the getting laid bit. Is that really the only thing you think about in relation to women? We are people. We like talking about a lot of things, like science, and skepticism, and cookery, and rats and books and you know nearly anything men talk about. If your only interest in talking to women is to get laid then you can just go fuck yourself. If it isn’t then listen and learn!
Ok, I’ll play.
What’s your point?
Which is to say, what bearing does your cited information have to do with the new blog announcement?