They didn't answer my question, so I'm going to answer it for them...

[Girl 6]

Hi Everyone,

So, as you probably know, I asked a question to the first set of panelists. They didn't answer my question. In fact, they went all over the map with it and never gave it a good shake. The Bad Astronomer did try his best to address it after the other panelists skimmed over it.

I was disappointed. Furthermore, some people came up to me after that panel discussion and stated that they observed that as well. A few people were similarly disappointed. So, it didn't go unnoticed.

So, what was my question? I basically asked what ideas they had for reaching out to women and minorities. The fact is that in California, minorities are already the majority.

Skepticism is NOT a common trait to be found in the first place. But, among women and minorities, it is even more rare. If there is a so-called movement (I question that), then wouldn't the proponents of the movement want to expose large sections of the population with this concept?

I do believe I understand the forces at work as to why there isn't more skepticism among women and minorities. But, I'm more interested in creative ways to expose them to critical thinking.

Anyway, I've decided that I need to answer the question myself and do something about it. To that end, I would like to start working on a book about Skepchicks. I might as well start with appealing to half of the population now.

I have contacted many of the skepchicks via PM and there is much support for this. Now, I would like to explore which publisher would like this idea enough to publish it. If any of you have ANY contacts to publishers, please let me know. It's all fine to write about this, but I want this to be published. That part has always seemed the hardest for me.

In the meantime, please feel free to use this thread to rant about what I'm doing or offer any perspectives about my question.

thanks!
G6

[Jeff Wagg]

What an interesting idea. I'm very interested in the demographics of the people who attend events like TAM. It was mostly white males, which I expected, but I didn't expect the average age to be so high. I thought there would be a lot more people like Jacob there.

Anyway, I don't know what help I can offer you, but if you need someone to do leg work or compile statistics and that sort of thing, I'd be happy to help. Unfortunately, I'm of the majority demographic at the conference, so my personal experience is irrelevant.

Things you might want to look at:

1) Education
2) Politics
3) Family
4) Locale (rural vs. urban)
5) Employment/Occupation
6) Cultural race. Personally, I don't think genetic race can be taken seriously.

If nothing else, I'd certainly be interested in buying a copy of whatever turns out of this. I'll bet Shermer would publish it at the very least.

[The Bad Astronomer]

As I commented on that panel, the percentage of women at TAMII was far higher than at the CSICOP meeting last year in Albuquerque. So that's good news, at least.

[Chaos]

I think Jeff Wagg offers good criteria, but I´d replace (6) with "Cultural Background" - Cultural Race" is too broad and undefined.
I would also include "Income" in (5).

If I can help, just tell me - even though I am neither a woman nor part of a minority.

[Cleopatra]

Girl 6 Thanks for your PM and thank you for bringing this subject.

I have to admit that I have some reservations :)

First of all I will feel kind of off odd if I will define myself as a skepchick. I am not a chick, I am a woman. I understand the use of the word in the community forum for the sake of brevity but I don't think that it's a nice idea to use it in an official title.

My most serious reservation is that in the context of the society I don't see myself as a woman but as a citizen. I am a citizen that is very much concerned about the public affairs.

I fear that if women make a separate group it will be as if we admit that we are a group with special needs, something that it is not true.

We are all skeptics not because we are men or women but because we are free thinkers--or at least we try to be. It's important to show that free thinking is above genders and above groups in general because that way skepticism can be a unifying factor between groups.


What do you think? :)

[darling]

Finella and I kept passing a note back and forth saying "but they didn't answer Girl 6's queston!!"

A good deal of it is socio-economic (with level of education as a subset of that).

I wonder also if people in minorities who have this type of activist bent don't prefer causes more immediately related to themselves?

[T'ai Chi]

I think the best way to appeal to women and minorities (and anyone) is to appeal to younger people as soon as possible.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think the best way to appeal to women and minorities (and anyone) is to appeal to younger people as soon as possible.

Good point.

I don´t remember who brought that up...if you keep thinking about "how do we reach out to this and that specific group", you´ll never achieve anything, least of all really reach out to them.

Just be yourself. Present your point, but do it in an entertaining way.

If some groups are underrepresented among skeptics, don ask "how can we get them?" but "why didn´t we already get them?" - what have we done in the past and how did it look like for them?

[bignickel]

BigNickel Industries is already on the job!

1. Prayer candles with the likenesses of Sagan, Gould, and Asimov.

2. Books such as "Suzee has Two Scientists"

3. New TV series such as "The Rico Suave/Michael Shermer Variety Hour" (the best science/rap show around) and "Chico and the Man with Two Brains" (I think I can get Steve Martin for this one)


Ok, getting serious about this (or at least trying), I would suggest: free copies of Junior Skeptic, translated into Spanish. This would be good for the Southwestern states, and Florida, I warrent. Why Junior Skeptic? Perhaps my cynical view that it's more productive to introduce skepticism to children rather than adults; adults don't generally want to listen to any notion that contradicts their world views, while children are welcome to any idea they think might piss off their parents. :)

As for getting more women interested in science: I've been reading news stories that suggest that women are getting into scientific fields more and more. One stories main thrust was that women are increasingly out-graduating men in high schools. However, I'd need to see more numbers on this to see if the writer wasn't skewing the statistics.

[Quinn]

G6, you may want to contact Jamy Ian Swiss personally about this. At dinner later that night he had a great deal more to say about the subject than anyone said during the actual panel.

[T'ai Chi]

While the SI and the SKEPTIC do study skeptical topics from all over the world, as far as I know (and I could be wrong here, please correct me), there has never been entire issues devoted to skeptical topics relating to specific geographical locations or groups of people. The issues are usually, and especially with SI, a collection of unrelated (other than related by critical thinking) skeptical issues.

This might be a fun way to cover skeptical topics relating to various minority groups.

For example, having an issue devoted, for the most part, to skeptical issues relating to women, or to the country of Mexico, for example, and have pictures of women or the country of Mexico and related images on the cover. I dunno.

Also, as a related note, I think a possible lack of interest has to do with where SI and the SKEPTIC are shelved in the magazine racks. Since they are bundled with the science magazines, if there is uninterest in science, there is uninterest in SI and SKEPTIC. I'm not quite sure what a better place would be to have these magazines in, but it is just something to think about.

[deBergerac]

Chaos you are wrong you are part of a minority you are a sceptic! ;)

But seriously I also noted how many in the panel blatantly avoided answering the question. I think that someone even said that scepticism was not a minority issue. Of course it is true that anyone can be a sceptic but the question is why people in some groups are more likely to be sceptics than people in other groups. (Though I do not think that women are a minority, they are just a minority among sceptics)

Girl 6:
I am looking forward to reading the book. Unfortunately I do not know any publishers but if I can come up with any other way to be of help I let you know. :)

[kittynh]

well, I also agree that the appeal to the young is a good point. Plus, let's make it fun! when people gather together and have good time, it's bonding. YOu want to "belong" where your views will be respected.

As for women I get a bit of grief as I"m an artist. But I relate to Mr.RAndi as he doesn't have an advanced degree! I like JREF as I believe it promotes the view that everyone can be a critical thinking. My two young daughters love JREF.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Girl 6 Thanks for your PM and thank you for bringing this subject.

I have to admit that I have some reservations :)

First of all I will feel kind of off odd if I will define myself as a skepchick. I am not a chick, I am a woman. I understand the use of the word in the community forum for the sake of brevity but I don't think that it's a nice idea to use it in an official title.

My most serious reservation is that in the context of the society I don't see myself as a woman but as a citizen. I am a citizen that is very much concerned about the public affairs.

I fear that if women make a separate group it will be as if we admit that we are a group with special needs, something that it is not true.

We are all skeptics not because we are men or women but because we are free thinkers--or at least we try to be. It's important to show that free thinking is above genders and above groups in general because that way skepticism can be a unifying factor between groups.


What do you think? :)

Cleopatra, you bring up some interesting points for discussion.

Let me first say that "Skepchick" is just a term of convenience. Just like you cannot deny that you are a woman, I would poist that you can't deny that you are a skepchick if you are a woman AND a skeptic.

Skepticism can ONLY be a unifying factor between groups when ALL of the groups are aware of it. Right now, I can tell you with all honesty that a LOT of the people in my communities (note that I am mixed :)) are not even aware of the concept to begin with. So, we are already working with a disadvantage here.

Just like you, I would love to consider myself as a world citizen, but unlike you, perhaps, I've not been able to escape from the realities of who I am. For example, a friend of mine from the meeting talked to me on Saturday night about the fact that he had overheard a woman refer to me as a "mulatto" followed by disparaging racist remarks designed to discount my question. He was kind enough to do something to correct her attitude.

You cannot even begin to imagine how saddened I was to have encountered this at TAM2. But, that's the reality of my life and I am proposing that I start enlightening people with this book.

thanks!
G6

[Jeff Wagg]

Originally posted by Chaos
I think Jeff Wagg offers good criteria, but I´d replace (6) with "Cultural Background" - Cultural Race" is too broad and undefined.
I would also include "Income" in (5).



I like Chaos's editing.

[TomStockholm]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Girl 6 Thanks for your PM and thank you for bringing this subject.

I have to admit that I have some reservations :)

First of all I will feel kind of off odd if I will define myself as a skepchick. I am not a chick, I am a woman. I understand the use of the word in the community forum for the sake of brevity but I don't think that it's a nice idea to use it in an official title.

My most serious reservation is that in the context of the society I don't see myself as a woman but as a citizen. I am a citizen that is very much concerned about the public affairs.

I fear that if women make a separate group it will be as if we admit that we are a group with special needs, something that it is not true.

We are all skeptics not because we are men or women but because we are free thinkers--or at least we try to be. It's important to show that free thinking is above genders and above groups in general because that way skepticism can be a unifying factor between groups.


What do you think? :)

Do you realise that this is the first time that I have ever agreed wholeheartedly with anything you have ever said. :)

[Wyvern]

Originally posted by Girl 6


You cannot even begin to imagine how saddened I was to have encountered this at TAM2. But, that's the reality of my life and I am proposing that I start enlightening people with this book.

G6

Damn. This surprises and saddens me, too, Girl6. What I loved most about TAM2 was being surrounded by like-minded and open-minded folks - so different from everyday life. But I suppose we all have our bits of ignorance and I can hope that this woman learned something from your friend.

I agree with Cleo about the whole "chick" term but I also think in the long run it's our actions that matter and I would rather put my energy towards helping further the JREF goals than to spend it arguing over that word.

I don't believe we would be separating ourselves (women) from the group just because we choose to identify issues that tend to be specific to women in general, and then go on from there to find ways to attract more women to the world of critical thinking. That's how progress is made.

[Girl 6]

This is not about separating ourselves from the group. This is about acknowledging and exposing more of us IN the group.

:)

G6

[shanek]

Originally posted by Girl 6
This is not about separating ourselves from the group. This is about acknowledging and exposing more of us IN the group.

Hey, I'm all for exposing more skepchicks! :D

[Luciana]

Considering that most skeptics are white males with a higher-than-average educational background... they have never been minorities. Actually, they might consider themselves part of an elite. Don't you think that calling yourself a "critical thinker" is highly empowering? It hardly feels like a weakness, on the contrary.

Therefore, even though skeptics realize they are in a minority when it comes to critical thinking, it's likely that they fit well within their societies. And it takes a lot of effort to leave their comfort zones and reach for people who are different from them in many aspects.

One of the things I hear very often is "wow, it must be lonely to be a skeptic in Brazil". To my understanding, people view Brazilians as backwards, overly religious, uneducated. And my answer is "in the scientific community and universities, skepticism is alive and well". But, like anywhere else, it's complicated for this same crowd to reach those who are less educated or laymen in science. When I hear that question from skeptics, so condescending in itself, I realize that those same critical thinkers are failing in recognizing potential fields for exploration. And somehow I don't doubt that this ignorance of the current situation of skepticism is prevalent even within their own communities.

Just some random thoughts. :)

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Just some random thoughts. :)

I love random thoughts! Bring it on! :D

G6

[Larry Barrieau]

I find Phil Plait's comments on the CSICOP meeting having a smaller percentage of women compared to the JREF meeting interesting.

I wonder if it could be the popularity of the social scene here on this forum that keeps more women (and men) interested in skeptical matters whereas CSICOP doesn't have the same type of forum.

Even the Community postings are liberally peppered with critical thinking matters.

Girl6, I've read in this forum where people say that because of the forum their views have be changed or reinforced toward the skeptical view. I wonder if finding a way to direct women and minorities (and men and majorities) to this forum would be effective.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Larry Barrieau
I find Phil Plait's comments on the CSICOP meeting having a smaller percentage of women compared to the JREF meeting interesting.

I wonder if it could be the popularity of the social scene here on this forum that keeps more women (and men) interested in skeptical matters whereas CSICOP doesn't have the same type of forum.

Even the Community postings are liberally peppered with critical thinking matters.

Girl6, I've read in this forum where people say that because of the forum their views have be changed or reinforced toward the skeptical view. I wonder if finding a way to direct women and minorities (and men and majorities) to this forum would be effective.

Oh! I know it would be quite effective, but it also can be frustrating. :) In order to get them here, we need a way to publicize that to the affected audience. I don't see the JREF actively doing anything like that. So, I think the book would help immensely.

G6

[Chanileslie]

I was thinking of ways to get a message across, and it reminds me of an idea that Nyarlathotep and I had a few years ago when we were at the movie theater. Prior to the movie beginning, they put up still ads on the screen, usually of local businesses and such. While we sat there, a few religious sentiments came up on the screen, and we thought why can't we do the same thing?

I found out that it only costs about $18 or so a month to put up an ad. Why not use that space to put up affirming skeptic messages such as: Think for yourself (or something better; I am not so good at catch phrases).

We could specifically use these messages to target particular areas. It is a thought, and Nyarlathotep and I still throw it around. Of course, we need someone who can write good blurbs that will cause people to think, but not alienate the religious.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Girl 6
So, what was my question? I basically asked what ideas they had for reaching out to women and minorities. The fact is that in California, minorities are already the majority.



This has been on my list of things to do, as well. Let's face it, the skeptic movement is made of white men. It's not exciting. It's full of big words and numbers and feels intimidating to the average person.

I think our public school system in the United States has been a miserable failure and we have got to do something. The average person should be able to keep up with the level of discussion here and use big words. Because they don't know how to think critically, they are at a disadvantage. Religious organizations embrace the idea of not thinking. New age con artists take advantage.

One of the things that struck me about new agers was that they were mostly women or gay men. You will occasionally get an old hippie or two complete with beard, sandals and something tye dyed, but most of the seats are filled with women. Spirituality appeals to our feminine side. It's about feelings and intuition.

There weren't many black people at the new age seminars; I have the feeling that minorities (I hate that word) are more level headed when it comes to believing in the Ashtar Command. My experience has been that they are more into organized religion and superstition. My experience has also been white, too, so I am far from an authority on where minorities are not thinking critically.

It's not just women and minorities; the whole skeptical movement needs a boost. It needs pizazz... it needs to be cool. Penn & Teller got a lot of people to tune in, but we need to have a media blitz. Sylvia and John Edward have had their time. George W. Bush has empowered fundamentalist Christians and held back Science.

Here on this forum we have many people with star quality, sharp wit and excellent writing skills. Imagine if you got together in groups and wrote books and create websites, got yourself on TV and made presentations on the local level and in schools. Media outlets need content. They want people to help them fill space.

Imagine typing new age search words into google and as many or more links would be to skeptic sites.

Girl6, I support you wholeheartedly and I will help in any way I can. :)

[Julia]

Originally posted by Girl 6
This is not about separating ourselves from the group. This is about acknowledging and exposing more of us IN the group.

:)

G6

Lately I have become curious about something, and I gave it a great deal of thought at the meeting as I had the chance to talk to - at least briefly - many of the other women from the forum. I was curious at point in their lives did they start to acknowledge themselves as skeptics. Was it something they just sensed from an early age? Was there a turning point at a certain age? Was there something that happened that just brought on a clarity? An influence from another person?

This is just speculation on my part, but from conversations I've had with male and female skeptics, it does seem men were more comfortable identifying themselves as such, from an earlier age than most women. I think that if there was a way to survey women to discover more about the process of when, how, and what encouraged them to be more comfortable in their skeptics skin, some clues may appear.

[bug_girl]

G6, i might have some connections for you. I have published some in the past on women, minorities and science.
My thoughts, based on observation of minority students in a majority culture at university, are that organized religion is a place where "home" and values are shared. church is such a huge part of my african american and hispanic students' cultures, to leave it would mean isolating themselves terribly.

[Cleopatra]

First of all I forgot to mention that Tami has shared this idea with me a couple of months ago.

Girl 6,I belong to a minority too but my minority has been strongly connected to knowledge and education. So, I totally understand your sensitivity regarding minorities that don't have the same access to knowledge and education.

I am very much sensitive towards the woman thing though.Sensitive and skeptical. In Greece there is a really powerful association of Greek Women Scientists that I refuse to join. The reason why I am so against them is because the late sister of my late grandfather who would be 98 years old if she was alive today was a very active member of this association. Whilst I understand what made Greek female scientists to establish this association at the beginning of the century I cannot really understand why we still have it at the beginning of the next century.

If we start talking about women skeptics it will be as if we aknowledge that we form a sub-category with special needs.

Do we form a special category and in what ways are we different from the male fellow skeptics?

This is an interesting question to answer because it's not rhetorical to me. While discussing with Tami she observed that women are more susceptible to woo-wooism. This is partly true but to my knowledge all the serious conspiracy theories that torture the world have been created and are supported by men.

Maybe the answer to an existent problem is to include in the future discussion panels in various skeptical events more women. Maybe we must start talking more about skepticism, we are obviously women, we can become examples in our social groups without presenting our gender as the factor that distinguish us from the majority but our critical approach to things.

And one last thing. Skepticism needs time and devotion. It is required to spend time in studying , in reading articles , in getting informed. I am afraid that we, women are a bit lazy when it comes to getting informed about serious things.

We can spend time reading which is the best make-up but we don't spend time reading popularized articles ( how many skepchicks read "Skeptic" for example) about various myths.Maybe a bit of self-criticism is a good start.:)

What if we start our self-criticism by looking how much we participate in discussions outside the community forum.:)

Hey Tom. I think that we agree on more things that you actually think!

[Zep]

A mere male's observation, noted also in TamiO's post above: Are many more women than men drawn to NON-skeptical pursuits in life? Is it fair to say that it is part of the general female psyche to "sympathise" in an effort to solve problems, rather than to use a "confrontationist" method like males?

If so, could this explain why there are fewer women involved in skeptical activities, as skepticism tends to need to be confrontationist in dealing with these educational issues?

And does this then lead to potential solutions to overcoming issues of skepticism among women?

I also note that it is likely there is a way higher percentage of teachers who are women - male teachesr aer becoming rarer these days. Therefore it becomes even more important than ever that skepchicks (and I don't see that name as any way derogatory, btw) bcome the "front line" in dealing with educators of our children?

[exarch]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think the best way to appeal to women and minorities (and anyone) is to appeal to younger people as soon as possible.I think someone once quoted "scientific theories don't change overnight, their proponents simply grow old and die". So yes, appealing to kids is the way to change anything. Unfortunately, those who are in charge of teaching the kids are being controlled by the government (public school) or the Church (Catholic school). Not a good starting position.

I would also avoid the minority/sexism angle but instead try to find out what the best way is to reach them without explicitly mentioning that as your purpose.

Also, Girl 6, I suggest starting by compiling your material in a website. The idea of a child-friendly version of the JREF site has been mentioned before, and that might be a good place to start.

Hey, I'd gladly translate it in Dutch if that might help attract more people from my neck of the woods :D DeBergerac and I were discussing skepticism in Europe, and I must say that I haven't heard much about it in Belgium (except for a website or two). Perhaps woowoo-ism isn't as prevalent as in the US and other English speaking collateral victims?

And I think Chani's idea is great :)

(Edited for spelling and clarity)

[Chaos]

Girl 6

I second what exarch said and also offer a German translation. Cleopatra just sent me the URL to the German skeptic society she mentioned, and I´ll see what these guys are up to ;)

[kittynh]

well, if we become a group, it could be because Americans like joining groups (Charles Dickens was just one of many who noted this oddity). I belong to several women artists guilds. I belong to a quilt guild (one man...), we don't talk about how we are oppressed (poor certainly....) we just have FUN. I think we were eating lunch at TAM and the guys were going on and on about G6's boots and Renata and I were like, "oh please...just pretend we aren't here why don't you?"

Someone asked Randi something like what did we replace the companionship and social side of religion and belonging to a church with and he said, "well, we're all here aren't we?"

I don't think we are joinging to because we are oppressed. I'm just thinking we're a group because it's fun. Heck, the skepchick PJ party allowed us to have a little fun (even with BadAs and Electric Monk there)...hey, rate the skepdudes, that was fun! (everyone relax, you did very well...)

AND WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO SEND A GFOUP PIC OF THE PJ PARTY?????

[Clancie]

Girl6,

I think you have a good idea. I've been interested in blogs lately (don't know if you'll see, but I bumped your question from last June in Community to see if there's more info about getting started with them). You might use it as both outreach, info/reference, and for research if you decide to do a book. Just a thought....

Also, you might look into Meetup.com as a way of organizing skeptics into community discussion groups around the country (if there isn't something like that already--I didn't see one, anyway). The Internet offers such great (and still, imo, largely untapped) communication possibilities...

[exarch]

Originally posted by kittynh
Heck, the skepchick PJ party allowed us to have a little fun (even with BadAs and Electric Monk there)...hey, rate the skepdudes, that was fun! (everyone relax, you did very well...)

AND WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO SEND A GFOUP PIC OF THE PJ PARTY?????Now did you really, really expect us to crash that party? Did we miss a great opportunity here? If not just to be able to rough up Mercutio and Electric Monk et al fighting our way in :D

Hey, and the guys didn't even rate the skepchicks (not publicly anyway, just in our head :p) We're all gentlemen.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One observation made about the panel(s) was that almost everyone on them was either a scientist or a magician. So the question isn't (as it relates to the conference) "Why aren't there more minority skeptics", but "Why aren't there more minority scientists and magicians"? I imagine there are numerous reasons, but I'm not sure what to do about it.

Another observation I'm sure we have all made is that probably 80% or higher of the people who believe in psychics are women. Why? I don't know. But one phrase I have never heard a man start a sentence with in my life is "My psychic told me...".

[tamiO]

Originally posted by kittynh
I think we were eating lunch at TAM and the guys were going on and on about G6's boots and Renata and I were like, "oh please...just pretend we aren't here why don't you?" ::snip::

AND WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO SEND A GFOUP PIC OF THE PJ PARTY?????

Kitty, I think everyone in the skepchicks club should have thigh high boots! Or maybe you get a free pair of thigh high boots when you raise 1000 dollars for the group.

Yes! When are we going to see pajama pictures??
Is it just me or does Moe not only look like your daughter, but also looks like Goldie Hawn in her Laugh-In days?

I wish I could have gone, but there will be meet-ups this year and then TAMlll next year! There had better be a pajama party next year, too. I bet it was fun. :)

[tamiO]

kitty. don't forget, you have all this experience in teaching children and you are probably full of ideas about how to teach critical thinking.

Maybe some people weren't interested in your Paper, but ...Where is your book? Represent! :D

[Girl 6]

You know, one of the many things that I love about the forum is seeing how people respond. :)

I do like all of the ideas bouncing around here. :)

I'll check back a bit later in the weekend to see if anyone else has any thoughts.

Thanks for offering all of your perspectives on this!

G6

[exarch]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Another observation I'm sure we have all made is that probably 80% or higher of the people who believe in psychics are women. Why? I don't know. But one phrase I have never heard a man start a sentence with in my life is "My psychic told me...".One thing I've also never heard straight guys say is: Bill, you're such a good friend, I really love you.

Or, Frank, will you come along with me to the bathroom.

Yet that doesn't mean straight guys never go to the bathroom or don't like their friends ...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by exarch
One thing I've also never heard straight guys say is: Bill, you're such a good friend, I really love you.

Or, Frank, will you come along with me to the bathroom.

Yet that doesn't mean straight guys never go to the bathroom or don't like their friends ...

Yeah, maybe guys know that they would be laughed at by other guys? But I do still think psychic believers are overwhelmingly female.

[bignickel]

Yeah, but don't forget Jeff Goldblum in "Annie Hall"

"Hello? I forgot my mantra."

[darling]

Originally posted by Girl 6
For example, a friend of mine from the meeting talked to me on Saturday night about the fact that he had overheard a woman refer to me as a "mulatto" followed by disparaging racist remarks designed to discount my question. He was kind enough to do something to correct her attitude. Wait a minute... this was *inside* the conference?? I might half-expect it out in the big-wide-world of the casinos, but I would have expected the folks at TAM to be a little more... enlightened.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Another observation I'm sure we have all made is that probably 80% or higher of the people who believe in psychics are women. Why? I don't know. But one phrase I have never heard a man start a sentence with in my life is "My psychic told me...".


True but mediumship is only one form of woo-wooism. I assure you that men believe in Astrology as much as women do. Also, I have not heard many woman( in fact personally I haven't heard ANY woman) insisting that "The Jews are rulling the world" or that " Black people are inferior" or supporting UFOlogy :)

This is why I don't believe that women form a group with "special needs".

Those boards show that there are groups of people that don't have access to higher education or to specialized information. How many posters from the Arab countries do they post here. In another thread somebody asked--a couple of months ago-- how many members of our forum are black. I remember one active member that posts from Europe.

In my opinion it's very important to give the fight united addressing PEOPLE and CITIZENS not women, children, Christians or whatever , blacks and whites.

I insist on that because the word "citizen" describes the free person,who has the right to live without denying its roots but it is working on a common cause that is beyond races, colors and genders.

edited to add: I am not willing to deny the identity of the citizen and the free thinker and start defying myself as jewish Greek woman. I am too old for that now but it's needless to say that I will support this project. Girl 6 will need somebody to carry her books anyway :)

[Zep]

Birl6: For example, a friend of mine from the meeting talked to me on Saturday night about the fact that he had overheard a woman refer to me as a "mulatto" followed by disparaging racist remarks designed to discount my question. He was kind enough to do something to correct her attitude.I'm truly unpleasantly surprised that this would happen (a) at a JREF conference, and (b) at all anyway. Have we further evidence of this? It sounds like it was done publicly...

PS. G6, have a look at some of my younger relatives taken this Christmas at our family gathering...my nephew and my cousin's child, playing together under the table!

[Jeff Wagg]

It's been bothering me so I might as well bring it up now...Hal made several anti-homosexual remarks on the podium concerning how "all the men are in love with Julia Sweeney..and I'm disturbed by how many of the women are too.." or something similar.

I suppose such comments are acceptable in the military, but I was dissapointed by them.

Ideas we should surely be skeptical about:

1) Race dictates ability (or the idea that there is such as thing as race)
2) Homosexuality is a choice
3) Non-skeptics are just dumb

Skeptics seem to be very exclusive (as was mentioned before). I think this attitude needs to change.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
It's been bothering me so I might as well bring it up now...Hal made several anti-homosexual remarks on the podium concerning how "all the men are in love with Julia Sweeney..and I'm disturbed by how many of the women are too.." or something similar.

I suppose such comments are acceptable in the military, but I was dissapointed by them.I think you are just being too sensitive here and finding anti-anything remarks where there aren't any at all. It was a joke, just like countless others good or bad (mostly bad :p), many addressed at Phil Plait, and Phil is a really good friend of Hal.

[Jeff Wagg]

It's possible I'm being too sensitive, but if you replace his homosexual references with another persecuted minority, do you think it would have been tolerated?

I understand he was attempting to make a lame attempt at humor...or an attempt at lame humor, but either way, he set the standard that it's OK to poke fun at homosexuals. To me, it was the same as him saying "Well, the black people here will be happy, they have fried chicken downstairs!!" or some such.

It's not the same as the banter between Phil and Hal.

I'll let the masses decide if I'm being too sensitive or not, and I value anyone's input on the matter.

For the record, I myself am not a homosexual. I'm a boring heterosexual white male (one of the few groups it is OK to poke fun at).

[kittynh]

I agree with Jeff. I did sort of wince at Hal's comments. But, coming from a military background, plus having lived in the Mid West - I remember when those jokes were considered innocent. Since moving to "Liberal New England" (like NH is liberal...ha!) I've met a lot of homosexual people. I work with them and I teach their kids. They live in my neighborhood. And those kinds of remarks hurt them. When you hear their stories about what they have been through... (my one lesbian friend says, "why would anyone choose to be a lesbain? It's been so hard on my family, and I love them so much..."), well, you think twice before that easy joke comes out. Pool boy joked with Hal about driving in Penn's pink volkswagen. Afterward he said he felt really badly about that, and so even the New Englanders slip up!

[bignickel]

I fail to see how Hal's jokes could be construed as anti-homosexual in any way.

The essence of the joke is such that Julia Sweeny's beauty is so great that it has the power to change one's sexual orientation.

This can best be expressed in the following formula:

Beauty (Julia Sweeny) > current sexual orientation = Velocity of unladen European swallow/velocity of unladen African swallow + number of inches height of average 50's pompadour times the cosine...

Well, it can't be expressed all that well mathematically.

It is the intense beauty of the subject that is overcoming the sexual orientation of the viewer. There is nothing inherent about the joke that implies anything negative towards gay people: both gays and straights can possibly 'switch to the other team' if the beauty of the subject is sufficient enough.

Therefore, the joke is designed to complement the lovely Ms. Julia, not denigrate anyone.


There: isn't the joke alot more enhanced with erudite and concise explanation? Why Dave Letterman's team hasn't returned my calls yet, I have no idea.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
It's possible I'm being too sensitive, but if you replace his homosexual references with another persecuted minority, do you think it would have been tolerated?

I understand he was attempting to make a lame attempt at humor...or an attempt at lame humor, but either way, he set the standard that it's OK to poke fun at homosexuals. To me, it was the same as him saying "Well, the black people here will be happy, they have fried chicken downstairs!!" or some such.

It's not the same as the banter between Phil and Hal.

I'll let the masses decide if I'm being too sensitive or not, and I value anyone's input on the matter.

For the record, I myself am not a homosexual. I'm a boring heterosexual white male (one of the few groups it is OK to poke fun at).

I guess I'm just a wee bit thick. I needed a HetroWASP to explain the anti-gay sentiments before I even realised they were there.
I was just the same in Uni. I always needed a spotty 18 yr old male, to explain to me why holding the door open, for a female with both hands full, was 'sexist'.
I mean, If we are SEARCHING for implied xxx-ism, perhaps we should realise that group xxx is perfectly able to complain against any insult. To complain on their behalf is patronising, and suggests that xxx cant fight their own battles. It is, in itself xxx-ist.
Peter
This is not to suggest that we shouldn't support a minority against bias, but let them tell us if they perceive any bias, first.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
I guess I'm just a wee bit thick. I needed a HetroWASP to explain the anti-gay sentiments before I even realised they were there.
I was just the same in Uni. I always needed a spotty 18 yr old male, to explain to me why holding the door open, for a female with both hands full, was 'sexist'.
I mean, If we are SEARCHING for implied xxx-ism, perhaps we should realise that group xxx is perfectly able to complain against any insult. To complain on their behalf is patronising, and suggests that xxx cant fight their own battles. It is, in itself xxx-ist.
Peter
This is not to suggest that we shouldn't support a minority against bias, but let them tell us if they perceive any bias, first.Exactly. I figure I'm old enough to realise when someone is being drug through the dirt, and that remark was not about homosexuals, it was about Julia Sweeney.

Let's put it differently:
Are there any homosexuals on the board who were present at TAM2 and were insulted by his Julia Sweeney remark?

Frankly, I'm more upset about those racist remarks during TAM2 by one of the attendees that Girl 6 talked about. That woman was not even making a joke, so it was meant seriously :(

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
It's been bothering me so I might as well bring it up now...Hal made several anti-homosexual remarks on the podium concerning how "all the men are in love with Julia Sweeney..and I'm disturbed by how many of the women are too.." or something similar.

I suppose such comments are acceptable in the military, but I was dissapointed by them.

Ideas we should surely be skeptical about:

1) Race dictates ability (or the idea that there is such as thing as race)
2) Homosexuality is a choice
3) Non-skeptics are just dumb

Skeptics seem to be very exclusive (as was mentioned before). I think this attitude needs to change.

Dude, you're so kidding, right? What do you have shoved up your *** to think that?
Accusations like that are what's keeping discrimination against gays alive. C'mon, lighten up.
I really hope you're kidding.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have not heard many woman( in fact personally I haven't heard ANY woman) insisting that "The Jews are rulling the world" or that " Black people are inferior" You never met bigfig, did you?

:D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

True but mediumship is only one form of woo-wooism. I assure you that men believe in Astrology as much as women do. Also, I have not heard many woman( in fact personally I haven't heard ANY woman) insisting that "The Jews are rulling the world" or that " Black people are inferior" or supporting UFOlogy :)


True, those last few examples seem to be a largely male phenomenon.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by MoeFaux

What do you have shoved up your *** to think that?


If he was gay I would know the answer!!! :eek:

[Jeff Wagg]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


Dude, you're so kidding, right? What do you have shoved up your *** to think that?
Accusations like that are what's keeping discrimination against gays alive. C'mon, lighten up.
I really hope you're kidding.

I have to admit that I don't understand your post. Kidding about what? What accusations have I made? Why are you so rude?

Hal made a comment that it was "disturbing" how many women were attracted to Julia Sweeney. I've admited that I could be taking it the wrong way..in fact, it 's possible that he intended to mean that the funny part was that there were fewer women available for him.

Anyway, I've honestly stated my concern, and I appreciate those who expressed their opinions on it. If there are any homosexuals who've read this, I'd love to know their opinion as well.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


If he was gay I would know the answer!!! :eek:
An alien hamster? A dildo with 6 D batteries? I dunno.
But I was there and didn't hear Hal say "disturbing number..."
Correct me if I'm wrong.
And I'm sure you will..

[lynne]

This thread has finally forced me out of lurkdom, so apologies for errors in trying this for the first time. I am returning to the original topic - I ended up way out of sync which is what happens when you delay your de-lurk.

G6 wrote:
So, what was my question? I basically asked what ideas they had for reaching out to women and minorities.

You have asked about a topic which has been central to many of my activities in my working and skeptical life. I have been with the Australian Skeptics (so ably represented at TAM2 by the wonderful Skeptobabe) since its inception nearly 30 years ago. I am also the author of ten educational books in physics/maths/technology, so have considered the gender issues a great deal. Now I am moving into attempting to address the very issue you have raised, G6, so hope I can be involved or of use. If nothing else, can I offer support for the book you plan?

I have been concerned about why the skeptical message hasn't reached females or those outside the traditional skeptical demographics, and have come to some conclusions I would be happy to debate. I don't expect full agreement!

Firstly, I felt there was too little emphasis on the emotional aspects. My students, many of them very bright girls, are taken in by the pseudoscientific claims because they have little access to the alternatives which appealed to them as emotional teenagers. I felt I could best address why people believe, for them, through fiction and wrote a skeptical novel which has taken a long time to get published. Mainstream publishers did not take easily to a relentlessly skeptical novel. But I finally found one and 'Avenging Janie' came out a few months ago. Reviews tend to say 'confronting' or 'original' - but it is in the bookshops in Australia. It seems to be going quite well so far.

I also felt there was no entry level, inexpensive skeptical book which could be read on the train or at the beach by those who didn't even really understand the claims in the first place. Please feel free to disagree, but the books and journals are thorough and well researched and all those good things, but don't start at a very easy level for those who haven't really considered our side. And they are expensive. I thought, as a science teacher, I could write such a book and then hopefully lead readers onto the Randis, Shermers and all the other wonderful books and journals available. I am a dreamer and total optimist. I managed to convince our best publisher here (IMHO), Allen & Unwin, and they commissioned the book. I have just returned the page proofs to them for publication in June. It will be called The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal. It has about 25 short chapters covering the major stories familiar to those outside the skeptical movement, written in narrative with personal stories and an acknowledgement of the emotional aspects and role of the desire to believe. I feel that, as a female skeptic with a strong science background, I was in a good position to do this.

So I have been through the publisher mill, and spent a long time talking to those outside the skeptics in the demographics G6 referred to, and those on the 'other side' to judge the content of this book. I think there is a lot in common with both sides - we are both searching for truths and both sides want the deluded and cheats out of the picture.

I don't think those who believe are necessarily dumb at all. They may not yet have the information to make informed decisions. And we may just be wrong on some aspects. We need to conceded that publicly - I know you concede it by the very nature of skepticism and scientific method, but those outside the movement don't realise it.

So that's where I am coming from. I've been following the discussions a great deal, jealouly reading about TAM2 - wishing I could have been there. Maybe next year.

cheers,

Lynne

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg


I have to admit that I don't understand your post. Kidding about what? What accusations have I made? Why are you so rude?

Hal made a comment that it was "disturbing" how many women were attracted to Julia Sweeney. I've admited that I could be taking it the wrong way..in fact, it 's possible that he intended to mean that the funny part was that there were fewer women available for him.

Anyway, I've honestly stated my concern, and I appreciate those who expressed their opinions on it. If there are any homosexuals who've read this, I'd love to know their opinion as well.

Yes, I was rude. I apologize, it was out of line.

I was refering to your comment accusing Hal of anti-homosexual remarks. I find that accusation to be so absurd that I can only interpret that as a joke or as just "not getting it".

Hal's comment was only a joke. And not even a joke poking fun at anyone. How it was viewed as such by you is beyond me, but I just have to let out a gasp of surprise. I'm a woman, and I was hitting on Julia. I'm not being facetious when I say that; I was actually flirting with her with the desire to get anywhere with her. I thought she was hot.

I also had four gay friends that I can think of off the top of my head who were in attendance at TAM, and I KNOW that they would not be offended by that comment. I'm sure they wouldn't even remember it.

Sir, you're very, very straight. Don't go assuming what might offend people who aren't.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I'm a woman, and I was hitting on Julia. I'm not being facetious when I say that; I was actually flirting with her with the desire to get anywhere with her. I thought she was hot.


This is not an argument Moe and I don't understand what you want to suggest by posting such silly things.

Jeff Wagg expressed a thought .Since when a thought constitutes an accusation?

[7th sextile]

lynne:
*WELCOME

*Thanks for de-lurking

*great post! Hope to hear more from you.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


This is not an argument Moe and I don't understand what you want to suggest by posting such silly things.

Jeff Wagg expressed a thought .Since when a thought constitutes an accusation?

You're completely right, Cleopatra. I was irritated and quickly posted something without making an effort to be reasonable.

I will retract my initial statements and would like to instead just say that I disagree with Jeff. It's what I meant to say in the first place, but I was too pissy to just say that and be done with it.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by 7th sextile
lynne:
*WELCOME

*Thanks for de-lurking

*great post! Hope to hear more from you.

Seconded completely and enthusiastically. :clap:

[exarch]

Originally posted by lynne
This thread has finally forced me out of lurkdom, so apologies for errors in trying this for the first time. I am returning to the original topic - I ended up way out of sync which is what happens when you delay your de-lurk.Welcome Lynne, I hope you post more, since you seem to have very interesting things to say.

I also felt there was no entry level, inexpensive skeptical book which could be read on the train or at the beach by those who didn't even really understand the claims in the first place. Please feel free to disagree, but the books and journals are thorough and well researched and all those good things, but don't start at a very easy level for those who haven't really considered our side. And they are expensive. I thought, as a science teacher, I could write such a book and then hopefully lead readers onto the Randis, Shermers and all the other wonderful books and journals available. I am a dreamer and total optimist. I managed to convince our best publisher here (IMHO), Allen & Unwin, and they commissioned the book. I have just returned the page proofs to them for publication in June. It will be called The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal. It has about 25 short chapters covering the major stories familiar to those outside the skeptical movement, written in narrative with personal stories and an acknowledgement of the emotional aspects and role of the desire to believe. I feel that, as a female skeptic with a strong science background, I was in a good position to do this.Well, I'm just reminded of something, so for what it's worth:
One of the first things I read on my way to finding the JREF site was "the skeptics dictionary", which I ended up on after visiting a site about conversational and logical fallacies. Very interesting stuff, and very good at finding the more blatant errors in the logic used for the default christian rhetoric (supposedly addressing the "difficult questions" I kept asking).

something like that should be included in any "beginners guide to skepticism", since it's a lot of fun to read, and very useful in discussions.

[Frankie]

Girl6.

I would much love to read your book on this. I puzzle to as why nobody answered your question also.

Is the answer perhaps that scepticism is considered to be mainly of a male environment? Which I find at odds as us women are renowned as the better communicators.

Then perhaps this scepticism is not about communicating but of thinking. Women tend to think deeper so perhaps that is not it either.

I was shocked to find so few women in the sceptic environment. on another board that once ran. Women sceptics were almost as ridiculed as some of the cons that had been de-bunked by authoritative figured sceptics. There was only 5 females to 1000 males sceptics. The vast majority of males considered the females not sceptics. I found this displeasing to be labelled a pretend-skeptic in their eyes, even though I believed in the same values as them. I still see such behaviours going on, on another sceptic boards.

Has anybody the figures that show the ratio of male to female sceptics on this forum?


Good luck with such a project.

Frankie.

[scarlet_35]

Originally posted by Cleopatra





This is why I don't believe that women form a group with "special needs".


In my opinion it's very important to give the fight united addressing PEOPLE and CITIZENS not women, children, Christians or whatever , blacks and whites.

I insist on that because the word "citizen" describes the free person,who has the right to live without denying its roots but it is working on a common cause that is beyond races, colors and genders.

edited to add: I am not willing to deny the identity of the citizen and the free thinker and start defying myself as jewish Greek woman. I am too old for that now but it's needless to say that I will support this project. Girl 6 will need somebody to carry her books anyway :)

maybe I'm misunderstanding you Cleo but are you trying to say that it is your opinion that this book G6 wants to write should not be entitled with the word women, chick, female etc...that it should be "People, citizens...." instead because you don't feel we should be placed in one class?

I have no problem word chic being used, there are a few books out there where they use chic, I thought it was a way to attract women to a particular book.

I also thought the whole purpose that G6 was looking to achieve was to attract more women into skeptism and freethinking and to share what she finds out from women who are already free thinkers and why some women are not (not sure if you had thought about putting that in your book but it would be interesting to also know why some women remain with their religious beliefs even if they feel that much of what they have been taught is wrong or they question "God") and someone else brought up at what age or from what experience caused some of the women to change their beliefs. I was raised to believe in God but I changed my views as I got older and I wonder if thats true with most women.

anyhow, I think its a great idea. I'm not a well educated women, I never had the opportunity to go to college, I'm not able to use big words, sometimes I don't understand when someone uses big words but...I'm not a total idiot, I believe I think very logically and I'm able to be realistic. If there is anything I can add to your book, I'd be happy to.

As for that comment someone made at Tam2 about you, I am shocked...I never would have thought someone at Tam2 of all places would be making comments like that.

[Jeff Wagg]

I think this thread's original purpose is too important for my disagreement with MoeFaux, so I'll desist. If it continues to bother me, I'll start my own thread.

Thanks to everyone for their input!

[Blondin]

I believe it's a question of role models. All the big guns in the field of promotion of skeptical thinking tend to be white males. Sagan, Gould, Asimov, Shermer, Randi, etc.

Even in cases where there are women involved it's usually in an "underling" role like an assistant, co-presenter or such. I'm thinking of stuff like Bill Nye the Science Guy or @Discovery. There is no Dr. Sadie the Science Lady (or whatever). Natasha Stillwell is a very able presenter on the Discovery channel but she is outnumbered by male hosts and presenters like Jay Ingram, Ivan Semeniuk, the Mythbusters (Jamie and Adam) and so on.

There are plenty of women involved in science but it seems that most of the spokespeople are men.

[SkepticScott]

That is why I am so happy that Julie Sweeney is a role model for women and girls. When Girl 6 publishes her book she'll be another role model.

As an educated white male, I'm not a minority in skeptic and atheist organizations. I am (we all are) a minority in society as a whole. I think the best way to reach out to women and minorities is to show them it's OK to be smart (which requires role models), and accept them when they show up. The idiot that made those comments about Girl 6 hopefully was told flat out what an idiot she was.

Did anyone else take the time to talk to any of the hotel staff that stopped to watch the meeting or look at Jerry Andrus' illusions? They didn't fit the "college educated white male" stereotype, but they were curious. I'll bet lots of people did, because the people at TAM1 and TAM2 were the most accepting bunch of people I have ever met.

I too was disappointed when the panelists didn't answer Girl 6's question. Perhaps we need a panel discussion just on this topic at TAM3. :)

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



True but mediumship is only one form of woo-wooism. I assure you that men believe in Astrology as much as women do. Also, I have not heard many woman( in fact personally I haven't heard ANY woman) insisting that "The Jews are rulling the world" or that " Black people are inferior" or supporting UFOlogy :)


I guess you weren't here when a certain poster named bigfig used to post here. And, also, I hate to bring your world down even further by stating I have, indeed, run into this sentiment from other women. Sure, it may be a smaller proportion, but they are out there. One last thing, MANY women who are partners of men that are racists, anti-semitic, honmophobic, etc... tend not to voice their opinions about this as loudly since the men in their family tell them essentially what to do. Have you ever talked to the wives or partners of white supremacist groups? Let's just say, that there's a lot of suppression of free thought happening there. That is to be expected since racism and sexism seem to go hand-in-hand in those families.

This is why I don't believe that women form a group with "special needs".


I'm not advocating "special needs". I'm advocating that we start to recognize and put forward in front of everyone who reads the book who these women are. We essentially have NO strong female role models like Michael Shermer and James Randi. Why is that? Why can't there be a woman at the forefront of skepticism?

I do know this. A lack of role models is usually one of the barriers for anyone looking for people to relate to. This becomes even more important in communities with a lack of representation.

Those boards show that there are groups of people that don't have access to higher education or to specialized information. How many posters from the Arab countries do they post here. In another thread somebody asked--a couple of months ago-- how many members of our forum are black. I remember one active member that posts from Europe.

In my opinion it's very important to give the fight united addressing PEOPLE and CITIZENS not women, children, Christians or whatever , blacks and whites.


From an ideal point of view, I agee with this. But, from a practical point of view this IS NOT HAPPENING. Representation is important for ALL communities. When there are no role models for the communities that are under-represented, there is no feeling that it is a path that can be considered.

We have not reached the stage where all humans on this planet are considered first-call citizens. Even the language of recognition is not there. How do you explain why we continue to call certain nations, "third world countries?" What makes them third world countries? That is already a separatist sentiment. Even you must agree with that analysis.

Also, let's take Africa. Africa is a continent rich with minerals in some areas. And, a desert in other areas. Because the culture in Africa has not "kept" up, it continues to be plundered for it's natural resources (don't even get me started about the horrible diamond trade). The people and the continent of Africa are really not citizens with equal rights and representation in the so-called world economy.

Why doesn't the world react with more urgency regarding the AIDS epidemic there in Africa? This is because in the grand scheme of things, the citizens there REALLY don't have the same consideration as the citizens in the upper tier of countries. You can feel free to flame me for that opinion, but I doubt that you can deny the core of truth there.

I insist on that because the word "citizen" describes the free person,who has the right to live without denying its roots but it is working on a common cause that is beyond races, colors and genders.

You can insist on maintaining your ideal point of view, but, the reality is far different. I do support your world view, but until we can ALL be considered equally in the eyes of everyone, there is really no meaning to that word. We are far from the point where race, creed, color, sex, and sexual orientation don't matter. It DOES matter. And, I am sorry to say that I still confront it.

So, my response to all of this is to start elevating the people that haven't had the representation in critical thinking. We ALL need role models that we can relate to.

edited to add: I am not willing to deny the identity of the citizen and the free thinker and start defying myself as jewish Greek woman. I am too old for that now but it's needless to say that I will support this project. Girl 6 will need somebody to carry her books anyway :) [/B]

I do appreciate your support. :) But, what I appreciate more from you and everyone in this thread is the discussion that this is producing. These are the kind of responses that continue to provoke me and keep me coming back to this forum.

I hope that I have clarified some of my thoughts here.

I would like to add that over the weekend I did think some more about what happened at TAM2. I suppose what is so strange about it is that I would have thought that if a person is able to apply skepticism with respect to paranormal claims and other belief systems, that it's not such a huge leap to apply it to a flawed perspective regarding race, intelligence, and ability. Apparently not.

It's only made me more determined to do something to bring forth and support more role models in the community of critical thinkers.

G6

[Jeff Wagg]

I would like to add that over the weekend I did think some more about what happened at TAM2. I suppose what is so strange about it is that I would have thought that if a person is able to apply skepticism with respect to paranormal claims and other belief systems, that it's not such a huge leap to apply it to a flawed perspective regarding race, intelligence, and ability. Apparently not.

I've noticed that unfortunately, skepticism and arrogance are often associated. Arrogance is blinding. The thing that's important about skepticism is not being right but admitting that it can be wrong.

Many people who consider themselves skeptics do so only to revel in pointing out the flaws in other peoples' arguments. A true skeptic is someone who questions his most cherished beliefs on a regular basis.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by lynne
This thread has finally forced me out of lurkdom, so apologies for errors in trying this for the first time. I am returning to the original topic - I ended up way out of sync which is what happens when you delay your de-lurk.

Lynne... I'm quite happy to see you de-lurk to comment on this! :)

G6 wrote:


You have asked about a topic which has been central to many of my activities in my working and skeptical life. I have been with the Australian Skeptics (so ably represented at TAM2 by the wonderful Skeptobabe) since its inception nearly 30 years ago. I am also the author of ten educational books in physics/maths/technology, so have considered the gender issues a great deal. Now I am moving into attempting to address the very issue you have raised, G6, so hope I can be involved or of use. If nothing else, can I offer support for the book you plan?

Thanks, Lynne, for your support and more importantly, for a perspective from someone who has published a LOT more than I have. :) It's always great to hear a fresh new voice in the mix here!

I have been concerned about why the skeptical message hasn't reached females or those outside the traditional skeptical demographics, and have come to some conclusions I would be happy to debate. I don't expect full agreement!

As have I, as you can tell. :)

Firstly, I felt there was too little emphasis on the emotional aspects. My students, many of them very bright girls, are taken in by the pseudoscientific claims because they have little access to the alternatives which appealed to them as emotional teenagers. I felt I could best address why people believe, for them, through fiction and wrote a skeptical novel which has taken a long time to get published. Mainstream publishers did not take easily to a relentlessly skeptical novel. But I finally found one and 'Avenging Janie' came out a few months ago. Reviews tend to say 'confronting' or 'original' - but it is in the bookshops in Australia. It seems to be going quite well so far.

Well, you hit on something that I've noticed as well with young girls. I actively tutor young girls in math purely because I know how disinterested they become when they aren't given some basic attention before entering high school. When girls don't understand math, everything else in the world of science just goes down the shoot as a consequence. Their opportunities then become limited.

I also felt there was no entry level, inexpensive skeptical book which could be read on the train or at the beach by those who didn't even really understand the claims in the first place. Please feel free to disagree, but the books and journals are thorough and well researched and all those good things, but don't start at a very easy level for those who haven't really considered our side. And they are expensive. I thought, as a science teacher, I could write such a book and then hopefully lead readers onto the Randis, Shermers and all the other wonderful books and journals available. I am a dreamer and total optimist. I managed to convince our best publisher here (IMHO), Allen & Unwin, and they commissioned the book. I have just returned the page proofs to them for publication in June. It will be called The Skeptic's Guide to the Paranormal. It has about 25 short chapters covering the major stories familiar to those outside the skeptical movement, written in narrative with personal stories and an acknowledgement of the emotional aspects and role of the desire to believe. I feel that, as a female skeptic with a strong science background, I was in a good position to do this.


I find this to be an EXCELLENT observation. And, I applaud your recognition and effort in addressing this.

So I have been through the publisher mill, and spent a long time talking to those outside the skeptics in the demographics G6 referred to, and those on the 'other side' to judge the content of this book. I think there is a lot in common with both sides - we are both searching for truths and both sides want the deluded and cheats out of the picture.

Again, I must agree with this. There IS a common ground here. People DO want to get at the core of their existence here. They DO want answers to tough questions. And, they WILL seek them out wherever they get a good reception for them.

I don't think those who believe are necessarily dumb at all. They may not yet have the information to make informed decisions. And we may just be wrong on some aspects. We need to conceded that publicly - I know you concede it by the very nature of skepticism and scientific method, but those outside the movement don't realise it.

No. I have never thought that believers are dumb. I was once a believer. (no cracks from the peanut gallery! :D) And, yes, the difference between me and a believer now is MY access to information and my ability to have made an informed choice about my belief system.

Again... I come to the point of ACCESS. As most of you know, my main arguments about racism, sexism, and all of the other -isms concern access. It is only through access to information and experience can people understand the roots of their belief systems. They can then, either, choose to alter them, or continue to believe in them. But, I have found that MOST people do learn something once someone takes the time to converse with them on their opinions.

It's not easy to tear down and rebuild an old foundation.

So that's where I am coming from. I've been following the discussions a great deal, jealouly reading about TAM2 - wishing I could have been there. Maybe next year.


Yes, I do hope you can make it next year! :D Thanks again, for your illuminating comments.

G6

[Blondin]

This sounds a little bit like the dilemma Dean Kamen is attempting to confront with his FIRST (http://www.techtv.com/news/culture/story/0,24195,3392805,00.html) program.

The hope is to get kids to look up to engineers and scientists, instead of celebrities and sports stars.

How do you get the message out that clear thinking has more to do with attitude than intelligence or knowledge?

[bignickel]

As for role models for female skeptics, lets not forget Alison Krempel from the late lamented "Science Court"! She continually defeated Doug Savage while upholding scientific principles in the courtroom. Plus, she did great songs about condensation and energy.

The series has been released in interactive CD/ROM format for classrooms, by the way.

http://www.teachtsp.com/products/product.asp?SKU=SCISCI&Subject=Science

[kittynh]

Hmm, the education part is interesting.

I know that when my daughter went to an all girls high school, the thinking was that women can learn science as well as men, but they might need more input and time. Women like to ask more questions, they like to have step one clear before step two. Just because women have a different learning style doesnt mean they can't "get it". Kitten said it took her 4 hours of studying to get the same grade a male friend of hers got on a test with just one hour of study. BUt, she learned at her high school that it didn't matter how long it took you to "get it", because once you "got it" you knew it as well as any man.

Anyway, G6, if you want to talk to anyone at the school about the learning differences they've found, I'll give you the number and kittens name. Might be an interesting side thing.

[Clancie]

Posted by Jeff Wagg

It's possible I'm being too sensitive, but if you replace his homosexual references with another persecuted minority, do you think it would have been tolerated?
Hi Jeff,

Well, I didn't hear what Hal said and wasn't at TAM2, so I don't know if his remarks were mocking gays or not. But I just wanted to commend you for bringing it up. Like you say, a lot of people seem to feel its okay to make jokes about gays (and also the mentally retarded) when they wouldn't do it about other minorities. I think it's great when people make it known that they don't find it funny.
Posted by Jeff Wagg

I've noticed that unfortunately, skepticism and arrogance are often associated. Arrogance is blinding. The thing that's important about skepticism is not being right but admitting that it can be wrong.

Many people who consider themselves skeptics do so only to revel in pointing out the flaws in other peoples' arguments. A true skeptic is someone who questions his most cherished beliefs on a regular basis.
A great point. And...welcome! :)

[Brown]

Originally posted by kittynh
I know that when my daughter went to an all girls high school, the thinking was that women can learn science as well as men, but they might need more input and time. Women like to ask more questions, they like to have step one clear before step two. Just because women have a different learning style doesnt mean they can't "get it". Kitten said it took her 4 hours of studying to get the same grade a male friend of hers got on a test with just one hour of study. I know of no reason why women cannot learn science as well as men. In my view, math and science are the "great equalizers," with neither gender having any intrinsic advantage.

And yet... when I was studying Electrical Engineering, I found that some of my classes included only men. This was rather odd, because ever since kindergarten all of my classes (except for segregated classes like shop and physical education) were half men, half women. Suddenly, I was sitting in classes that were all men. Why?

I asked some female friends about this. Their answers were basically consistent. Women generally prefer disciplines other than Electrical Engineering. They prefer Mechanical Engineeering or Biomedical Engineering or Chemical Engineering or Industrial Engineering. But why? Apparently because other women prefer those fields.

[3sons]

Just registered to post my thoughts on this thread. Fairly new to JREF and first time post.

I don't know if I am considered a minority being an asian male in America in the 21st century but I sure felt like one at the meeting. Not that it bothered me. Nor anyone at the meeting made me feel out of place either. I was just a little puzzled that I appear to be the only asian male there.

I am sure there are many more us out there. Could it be because many are recent immigrants and cannot speak English well? Unless you came as a child, it takes a long time to learn to speak English and some never do. Asian Americans who are fluent in English tend to be young who are either born here or came when they were little. And as it is discussed here, young people, in general, are not interested.

Also most of my asian friends go to church. Some truely believe but many go to socialize with "their own kind". I suppose the need to belong to a group in the comfort of familiar surroundings is more important than reason and critical thinking. I am a minority even among asian americans and proud of it.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Brown
I asked some female friends about this. Their answers were basically consistent. Women generally prefer disciplines other than Electrical Engineering. They prefer Mechanical Engineeering or Biomedical Engineering or Chemical Engineering or Industrial Engineering. But why? Apparently because other women prefer those fields.

Well, there you go... They prefer these other fields probably because there were role models for them in those fields. It takes a woman of singular purpose to enter a field that is dominated by men.

When I went to the university, it was all too often that I was one of two or three women in any math, or engineering class.

Also, I'd like to note that ever since the dot-com crash, I continue to be one of two or three women doing software engineering in ANY capacity at any company that I've worked at. At one point when the dot-com boom was in full swing, I saw more women entering the field. Now, it seems that the numbers have been erased.

Of course, these are my personal observations and have not been borne by any real scientific testing or statistical polling on my part (at least, not yet :)).

G6

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by 3sons
Just registered to post my thoughts on this thread. Fairly new to JREF and first time post.

I don't know if I am considered a minority being an asian male in America in the 21st century but I sure felt like one at the meeting. Not that it bothered me. Nor anyone at the meeting made me feel out of place either. I was just a little puzzled that I appear to be the only asian male there.

I am sure there are many more us out there. Could it be because many are recent immigrants and cannot speak English well? Unless you came as a child, it takes a long time to learn to speak English and some never do. Asian Americans who are fluent in English tend to be young who are either born here or came when they were little. And as it is discussed here, young people, in general, are not interested.

Also most of my asian friends go to church. Some truely believe but many go to socialize with "their own kind". I suppose the need to belong to a group in the comfort of familiar surroundings is more important than reason and critical thinking. I am a minority even among asian americans and proud of it.

Welcome to the forum, 3sons!

Did I get a chance to meet you at all at TAM2? I'm sorry, if I did not!

It's true that it takes a while to become fluent in English. In fact, English is my second language, so I can bear testimony to your observation.

Belief and religion are very important in immigrant communities. Many times, they serve as a backbone to the community and they also serve other socializing and political functions.

Do you think that a book aimed at the women of various communities would help to bring critical thinking into the community?

G6

[Brown]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Well, there you go... They prefer these other fields probably because there were role models for them in those fields. It takes a woman of singular purpose to enter a field that is dominated by men.Yes, I think that is part of it. I have also noticed that (where I went to school) many women preferred to form all-female study groups, and a woman entering the Electrical discipline would find it difficult to form or join an all-women study group.

I can say without reservation that there was no overt bias at my university in favor of male students in the Electrical Engineering program (and had there been, the university would have heard about it from me!). Women were certainly welcome in the Electrical Engineering program. Even so, there were few role models in that field, and if memory serves, the university had only one woman who taught Electrical courses. This was due, in part, to the fact that other female members of the faculty had been hired away by other universities! There was a shortage of female faculty, which might be related to the shortage of female students.

[Jeff Wagg]

Sorry for butting in once more...

I've chatted with Hal about the comments, and he's assured me that he meant absolutely nothing derogatory towards homosexuals. He says that BigNickel in fact got the joke as Hal intended.

I would like to apologize for bringing it up on the forum without first talking to Hal. I do not, and have never thought Hal to be a homophobe.

I admire the man a great deal, and that's why it bothered me so much to hear his comments which I and a few others misinterpreted.

Let's not clutter the thread anymore with this..I'd be happy to talk with anyone about it via PM, e-mail (jeff@wagg.com) or whatever.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by kittynh
Hmm, the education part is interesting.

I know that when my daughter went to an all girls high school, the thinking was that women can learn science as well as men, but they might need more input and time. Women like to ask more questions, they like to have step one clear before step two. Just because women have a different learning style doesnt mean they can't "get it". Kitten said it took her 4 hours of studying to get the same grade a male friend of hers got on a test with just one hour of study. BUt, she learned at her high school that it didn't matter how long it took you to "get it", because once you "got it" you knew it as well as any man.


From my experience being a Biochemistry major in college, that women are quite capable of getting science, and I didn't notice an increase in the number of hours we women studied as compared to men, and my study groups were often mixed with men and women.

One of the problems when I was tutoring Math and Science at the college level that I ran into all the time were the number of women who would actually say to me, "I can't get this; I'm a woman." All the while I, a woman mind you, was tutoring them. At one point, I got so fed up with all my female tutees complaints that they couldn't get it because they were women, I pointed them to the board that contained all the tutors' pictures and areas of specialty and asked them to note how many of the math and science tutors were female and how many were male (BTW, I was the only tutor for Chemistry and we had one tutor (male) for Physics), as we had 12 math tutors of which 9 of them were women. I think the problem lies with the attitude of "I'm a woman, so I'm not going to get this." An attitude that just ticks me off.

BTW, my daughter (also female in case you didn't realize :p ) is an ace in Science - has the highest grade in her class and was reading my Chemistry, Physics and Biology textbooks from the time she could read.

On the high note, Biochemistry when I was in college was a field equally populated by females and males. Chemistry as well.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
Sorry for butting in once more...

I've chatted with Hal about the comments, and he's assured me that he meant absolutely nothing derogatory towards homosexuals. He says that BigNickel in fact got the joke as Hal intended.

I would like to apologize for bringing it up on the forum without first talking to Hal. I do not, and have never thought Hal to be a homophobe.

I admire the man a great deal, and that's why it bothered me so much to hear his comments which I and a few others misinterpreted.

Let's not clutter the thread anymore with this..I'd be happy to talk with anyone about it via PM, e-mail (jeff@wagg.com) or whatever.

Hi Jeff,

Well, I wasn't bothered that you brought it up in the thread. And, I'm glad that you had a chance to talk to Hal about it.

I also appreciate your effort to keep the thread on track! :)

And, if I haven't said this before, welcome to the forum!

G6

[Electric Monk]

Originally posted by Blondin
I believe it's a question of role models. All the big guns in the field of promotion of skeptical thinking tend to be white males. Sagan, Gould, Asimov, Shermer, Randi, etc.I'd counter these with the examples of women I consider to be pretty "big guns" inside skeptical circles: Ann Druyan, Eugenie Scott, Elizabeth Loftus, and Susan Blackmore, just off the top of my head.

The difference seems to be that these women don't get the same TV exposure and recognition outside of skeptical groups as do the men, and I'm not sure why. Maybe they aren't out seeking the exposure and recognition.

--James (still working on the TAM2 report...)

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Electric Monk
I'd counter these with the examples of women I consider to be pretty "big guns" inside skeptical circles: Ann Druyan, Eugenie Scott, Elizabeth Loftus, and Susan Blackmore, just off the top of my head.

The difference seems to be that these women don't get the same TV exposure and recognition outside of skeptical groups as do the men, and I'm not sure why. Maybe they aren't out seeking the exposure and recognition.

--James (still working on the TAM2 report...)

Yes, well, I was only familiar with 3 of those names. But, as far as I'm concerned, they are rather obscure.

I'm planning to talk to Eugenie Scott who heads up NCSE. That organization's offices are rather close to where I live. So, I'm rather keen on seeing her now.

G6

[Blondin]

Originally posted by Electric Monk
I'd counter these with the examples of women I consider to be pretty "big guns" inside skeptical circles: Ann Druyan, Eugenie Scott, Elizabeth Loftus, and Susan Blackmore, just off the top of my head.

The difference seems to be that these women don't get the same TV exposure and recognition outside of skeptical groups as do the men, and I'm not sure why. Maybe they aren't out seeking the exposure and recognition.

--James (still working on the TAM2 report...)

Exactly! It's funny you mention Ann Druyan because I was thinking of her, too. She was half of the Carl Sagan show (not to take anything away from Carl) and she carries on his work today but she sure doesn't get the press he did.

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah, Ann Druyan rocks! :)

[NoZed Avenger]

I am glad that the Hal thing was put to rest. I do not know what comment is being discussed, but was there for the presentations and never heard anything from Hal that even suggested something inappropriate.

On topic for the thread, he also tired to draw the speakers back to girl6's original question when the first 3 people seemed to circle around the topic without ever landing near it.

There is a point regarding whether the people coming to the conference are representative of the skeptical movement as a whole, but I am at a loss for good sources of age/race demographics.

N/A

[Zep]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


From my experience being a Biochemistry major in college, that women are quite capable of getting science, and I didn't notice an increase in the number of hours we women studied as compared to men, and my study groups were often mixed with men and women.

One of the problems when I was tutoring Math and Science at the college level that I ran into all the time were the number of women who would actually say to me, "I can't get this; I'm a woman." All the while I, a woman mind you, was tutoring them. At one point, I got so fed up with all my female tutees complaints that they couldn't get it because they were women, I pointed them to the board that contained all the tutors' pictures and areas of specialty and asked them to note how many of the math and science tutors were female and how many were male (BTW, I was the only tutor for Chemistry and we had one tutor (male) for Physics), as we had 12 math tutors of which 9 of them were women. I think the problem lies with the attitude of "I'm a woman, so I'm not going to get this." An attitude that just ticks me off.

BTW, my daughter (also female in case you didn't realize :p ) is an ace in Science - has the highest grade in her class and was reading my Chemistry, Physics and Biology textbooks from the time she could read.

On the high note, Biochemistry when I was in college was a field equally populated by females and males. Chemistry as well. This is EXACTLY the same attitude we have been using in raising the Zeplette (another female). She knows that no subject, no option, no opportunity is taboo for her. And she's going for it too!

One thing I have noted mentioned besides the "Female = can't do it" thing* is also the tendency for (many) women to gravitate towards "group" subjects - disciplines that involve working in or with a group, eg. social work, teaching. Perhaps skepticism as part of a profession is less attractive because it is a more "lonely" non-group pursuit, something that would not necessarily appeal to all women.

Any comments?


*^{Which I think is NOT intrinsic to being female but is quite possibly a learned technique for dealing with hard issues.}

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by SkepticScott
I too was disappointed when the panelists didn't answer Girl 6's question. Perhaps we need a panel discussion just on this topic at TAM3. :)

I think we need a panel discussion on panel discussions.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Zep
One thing I have noted mentioned besides the "Female = can't do it" thing* is also the tendency for (many) women to gravitate towards "group" subjects - disciplines that involve working in or with a group, eg. social work, teaching. Perhaps skepticism as part of a profession is less attractive because it is a more "lonely" non-group pursuit, something that would not necessarily appeal to all women.Well, the first observation could indeed be a learned response, sort of "we're women, we're not supposed to know stuff like that, so it's OK if we don't understand it".

As far as the study groups and more socially oriented courses go, could this be a right brain / left brain thing?

After all, just like are still less women in scientific studies, there's apparently also a higher number of "shy, nerdy guys" (women aren't considered nerdy quite as easily, and most seem to have at least some social skills :D).

(BTW, male swim/underwearmodels also don't have as many well known role models as females)

[deBergerac]

Originally posted by exarch
After all, just like are still less women in scientific studies, there's apparently also a higher number of "shy, nerdy guys" (women aren't considered nerdy quite as easily, and most seem to have at least some social skills :D).


Exarch might very well have a point; the question may not be how do we get “minorities” like women and non-white people into the sceptical movement but how do we get women, non-white, and non-nerds into the sceptical movement. Perhaps it can be interesting to ask ourselves what jref are doing right because I saw more women and less nerds at TAM then I ever seen at a gathering of sceptics before. The problem is still there of course, there are still to many nerds but if jref do a better job than sceptical movements in general what is the difference?
I think that there are three things, the lack of respect for academic titles, the entertaining people, and the open discussion. Most sceptical movements are full of Ph.D.s and laureates of all possible prices, Randi repeatedly state that all you become from getting an education is educated. At TAM many of the speakers made their points in a highly entertaining manner few decided to do as Kant and give their points as dryly as possible. Even if you are serious it is a good idea to give your message in an entertaining way. The discussion, mostly here in the forum, is so that we all can participate; that is what makes it exiting to be a part of the sceptical movement. Everyone must feel that their opinions are considered solely on merit and not on who they are.
Maybe these three points are important or maybe not, I have not given it much thought.

[Jeff Wagg]

Doesn't that all boil down to: "We need to make it 'cool' to be a Skeptic?" That's what I take from your "too many nerds," comment. (I assume you mean too many by proportion, not that nerds should be discouraged from skepticism.)

I wonder how many people are drawn to the 'movement' simply because it's NOT cool. I know that has appeal for me, nerd though I may be.

My analogy to this is alternative music. In the early 80's, it thought it was great because only a few people listened to it (U2 for example). As it became mainstream, I liked it less(u2 for example). This was an emotional response, certainly not rational, but it has affected my interests nonetheless.

The analysis of why people gravitate towards skepticism is going to have roots in emotion.

[exarch]

Originally posted by deBergerac
I think that there are three things, the lack of respect for academic titles, the entertaining people, and the open discussion.I think this is indeed one of the key points that makes JREF interesting:
The community feeling of the messageboard members, where you are accepted for your presence in the community, not on your achievements. So even if you're a really smart, well known physicist, you're not going to get much respect from the members here if you act like a complete stuck-up jerk. It's likely you won't even make it as a speaker at TAM for that same reason, since people will probably be badgering Randi about "not having that annoying jerk speak at TAM".

Most of the speakers we had this TAM were people who are used to performing, who bring their material in an entertaining manner, and who capture the interest of the audience, even if the audience knows very little about the field of study that's being presented.

I think the same rules apply when trying to speak to the minorities mentioned before, or kids for that matter. Unless you make it entertaining, they're going to lose interest and your message is wasted. Part of that includes not too much speaking and writing, more illustrations and interaction.

It's not only about how well you know what you're talking about, but how well you can explain it.

[lynne]

Originally posted by Blondin
I believe it's a question of role models. All the big guns in the field of promotion of skeptical thinking tend to be white males. Sagan, Gould, Asimov, Shermer, Randi, etc.



One notable exception is Susan Blackmore. I find her books wonderfully readable. She has spoken at many skeptical conferences, I gather, although I have not been lucky enough to hear her.

Have others in this group heard her speak? How would she work as a role model?

Lynne

[jj]

Hmm.

I haven't said much because I don't know a constructive answer. I'd love to see more skeptics of all sorts. I know (personally) three female skeptics, married the first and we grew the other two, but that's not too much of a start.

I think appealing to self-interest would be a good start. Especially, given the horrid treatment that most religions give women, I'm surprised that there aren't a lot more atheist, skeptical women.

[lynne]

Originally posted by Zep


One thing I have noted mentioned besides the "Female = can't do it" thing* is also the tendency for (many) women to gravitate towards "group" subjects - disciplines that involve working in or with a group, eg. social work, teaching. Perhaps skepticism as part of a profession is less attractive because it is a more "lonely" non-group pursuit, something that would not necessarily appeal to all women.

Any comments?


Many years ago, doing first year science at uni, I was told electrical engineering was too hard for women, so I changed faculties and completed an electrical engineering degree. It wasn't until I went out into the workplace as an engineer that I found I was more attracted to teaching and then went into teaching physics and technology. Looking back, it was probably for the very reasons Zep is talking about.

The public image of skeptics is magician / scientist based. In the Oz skeptics, we are very well represented by IT professionals as well. Is that true elsewhere? That is another very male field.

The sciences which attract women (psychology, biology) are those with a more emotional basis. So I am back to my hobby horse that we need to consider the beliefs from an emotional perspective - there are lots of women in psychology. Should the area we focus on more be the areas which touch on psychology? That's where Susan Blackmore is so strong.

When I am speaking, mostly at science conventions or privately, I find men are much more interested in the physics of UFO sightings while women are more interested in psychic readings. I do psychic readings, using my own divination system, at science shows and other places. Of the people who sit down for a reading, females greatly outnumber males. Women are more likely to get into an in-depth discussion about how it feels to have a close talk to someone about feelings, and I have had some wonderful discussions with woman after the readings and the debrief on cold reading. I even publicaly read a tarot reader in front of a group who knew her well, and by the end of the debrief we had agreed that we were both doing essentially the same thing. She was giving credit to the tarot cards while I was taking the credit myself. It was really warm and fuzzy stuff. But some of the skeptics saw my perfomance as a send-up. It isn't. It is deadly serious. I really want to create the same atmosphere and emotional response as in a tarot/astrology/numerology/... reading. It has been through that response that I think I get the best chance to discuss what is going on to those who may be taken in by cold reading.

Not sure where I am rambling to here, but I think the sort of book G6 is talking about (if I understand correctly) with stories about the skepchicks as females who have come to a skeptical worldview, could be very, very effective. It would attract a female readership who might not ever read a skeptical/science type book, because it will have an emotional aspect. Chic-lit is big at the moment!

'Human interest' is what they say people are looking for in magazines, newspapers and books.

Lynne

[Cleopatra]

Hi Scarlet! Sorry for the delayed reply but this is a discussion that needs time in order to participate.

Originally posted by scarlet_35

maybe I'm misunderstanding you Cleo but are you trying to say that it is your opinion that this book G6 wants to write should not be entitled with the word women, chick, female etc...that it should be "People, citizens...." instead because you don't feel we should be placed in one class?

Yes my main idea is that women do not form a special category in the society and that they are not a underprivileged minority.

I have no problem word chic being used, there are a few books out there where they use chic, I thought it was a way to attract women to a particular book.

After the explanations that have been given to me I realized that in the English language the use of this word doesn't cause any problem.

I also thought the whole purpose that G6 was looking to achieve was to attract more women into skeptism and freethinking and to share what she finds out from women who are already free thinkers and why some women are not

Yes this is what I understood too. My only reservation is or was the target group. I think that a photo of Girl 6 as the author of such a book would say more than a thousands of words.

anyhow, I think its a great idea. I'm not a well educated women, I never had the opportunity to go to college, I'm not able to use big words, sometimes I don't understand when someone uses big words but...I'm not a total idiot, I believe I think very logically and I'm able to be realistic. If there is anything I can add to your book, I'd be happy to.

I have a comment to make here. There are fields that even if you have graduated college you cannot access. For example, I am not in the position to debunk Homeopathy by myself. I have to parrot what specialized scientists have said and you don't need to have graduated college in order to be in the position to evaluate arguments that are presented to you. God designed us in a way that we are in the position to criticize! ( I am teasing you about the God thing!)

originally posted by Girl 6

I'm not advocating "special needs". I'm advocating that we start to recognize and put forward in front of everyone who reads the book who these women are. We essentially have NO strong female role models like Michael Shermer and James Randi. Why is that? Why can't there be a woman at the forefront of skepticism?

Ha! You know, first we must answer this crucial question before proceding to anything else!

Why don't we have a female Michael Shermer. I have an explanation to that but I am afraid that you will fry me alive if I post it. :D


I do know this. A lack of role models is usually one of the barriers for anyone looking for people to relate to. This becomes even more important in communities with a lack of representation.

For a reason I can't explain, while reading this thread the Nobel laureated novelist Tony Morrison came to my mind. Morrison became known for talking about black women. Once she had a success this is the only thing that she has been writing about. If I were a black woman I would be thrilled by her success but I would like her to go beyond my race and gender limits and talk on behalf of the white women as well and have an equal success. What did she gain? I don't think that it's enough for black people to be represented in the Nobel Awards Pantheon. Can she talk to the hearts of the suppressed women or of the people of the world. That is a bet to win.

I am afraid that as long as we talk in terms of representation we will always be separated. Once somebody becomes a representative of group it's difficult to put his costume off. It gives him power. He can even wish that things won't ameliorate so as he has the opportunity to whin for the rest of his life therefore to be a representative meaning be part of the establishment.

Although I am a conservative I hate the Establishment because I hate everything that reproduces social models that have failed and they have leaded people to misery and humiliation. Our society is not very sucessful so far so why encourage it to reproduce its models? Is it enough for a model to change gender and color so as it becomes acceptable? In my opinion it's not.

Just my thoughts.



P.S. Since I really liked Clancie's idea about blogging maybe we could start a group blog where we can post our experiences and about the way we turned to skepticism. This can be a solid base for your book and a good advertisment. I can help you in that if you wish :)

[Zep]

Perhaps female role models in sketicism may not be as far away as first thought...

Girl6...?

Cleopatra...?

Renata...?

KittyNH...?

Other ladies hereabouts as well...


Instead of a blog, what about the idea of putting your skeptical thoughts and lives together as chapters in a book? A genuine book, I mean, with pages. A collection of autobiographies, if you will, with an emphasis on skepticism and critical thought seen through womens' eyes. This could be exactly the sort of thing that can be given to up-and-coming women in many fields of life, hopefully influencing them to NOT accept the woo-woo paradigms they will be barraged with (women DO seem to be the prime targets of woo-woo con-men, btw).

Girl6 seems to be a dab hand at writing :), but there's plenty of those skills to be found amongst the rest of the ladies here if help is required.

And I believe you will have the cheering backing of the skepdudes in your endeavours too!

[exarch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
originally posted by Girl 6
I'm not advocating "special needs". I'm advocating that we start to recognize and put forward in front of everyone who reads the book who these women are. We essentially have NO strong female role models like Michael Shermer and James Randi. Why is that? Why can't there be a woman at the forefront of skepticism?Ha! You know, first we must answer this crucial question before proceding to anything else!

Why don't we have a female Michael Shermer. I have an explanation to that but I am afraid that you will fry me alive if I post it. :DYou know, I have been wondering about this for a while, but it seems that on the other side of the fence (the woowoo-ism, and in particular the big famous TV-psychics), are also mostly male. There's Sylvia Brown, and then there's a whole bunch of guys (John Edward(s)?, James Van Praag, Uri Geller, etc...)

What are the odds though that the psychic at the corner of the street is a woman dressed like a gypsie, peering in a crystal ball ... ?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Zep
Perhaps female role models in sketicism may not be as far away as first thought...


I am genuinely flattered to find myself included in the list but I don't think that I can be a model I'd say the contrary about myself.

Until I was 25 I was practicing Astrology, an activity that I took up rather old, when I was 21. Note that when I was 25 years old I was a lawyer already and I was finishing my studies in History. My dad noticed that I was really deep into what he thought at the beginning that I would abandon so he posed me one question and he volunteered to help me answer it. One question that I needed almost two years to realize that I couldn't answer and therefore admit that Astrology doesn't work.

This experience has left me with a bitter aftertaste though. I do not feel happy about it and I do not feel a "new born skeptic". I feel sorry that I have devoted hours in reading seriously and exploring something that it turned out to be an inadequate system of interpreting the world. I cannot feel proud for the fact that I couldn't pose to myself the simple question that my father posed to me. I should have done this by myself, I should have known better. Maybe my father is a model of a skeptic--instead of ridiculing my beliefs he helped me to examine them-- but I swear that he doesn't look like a chick. :)

[LuxFerum]

And this questions was......:confused:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I am genuinely flattered to find myself included in the list but I don't think that I can be a model I'd say the contrary about myself.

Until I was 25 I was practicing Astrology, an activity that I took up rather old, when I was 21. Note that when I was 25 years old I was a lawyer already and I was finishing my studies in History. My dad noticed that I was really deep into what he thought at the beginning that I would abandon so he posed me one question and he volunteered to help me answer it. One question that I needed almost two years to realize that I couldn't answer and therefore admit that Astrology doesn't work.

This experience has left me with a bitter aftertaste though. I do not feel happy about it and I do not feel a "new born skeptic". I feel sorry that I have devoted hours in reading seriously and exploring something that it turned out to be an inadequate system of interpreting the world. I cannot feel proud for the fact that I couldn't pose to myself the simple question that my father posed to me. I should have done this by myself, I should have known better. Maybe my father is a model of a skeptic--instead of ridiculing my beliefs he helped me to examine them-- but I swear that he doesn't look like a chick. :)
Frankly, it is exactly this type of experience that I believe would be a fantastic chapter in such a book as some have suggested here.

One of the compelling aspects of Susan Blackmore's writing is that she, too, started off as a believer. Her writing details a journey from belief to skepticism. So does your story, in a different situation, a different time-frame, and a different host of characters. I personally would love to read your story in more detail.

Role models need not be skeptics who came in the world fully armoured, Athena from the head of Zeuss, ready to bash the Gellers of the world. Arguably, the best role models will be those who acquired their skepticism through experience. These role models will not just be able to say "come over here to where I am", but instead, "follow me to this new place." If I am traversing a mine-field, I'd rather take a proven path.

[Cleopatra]

The question was really simple Lux.

Between the March and August of 1943 50.000 Greek Jews were deported to the camps. My father asked me whether was anything in their horoscope that indicated their tragic death and if those who survived had anything in common in their horoscopes. Astrology claims that it can predict a violent death, imprisonment or tortures.

The rest is History. Of course I could have avoided all these if I took the time to wonder why my sister and I although we are born with 20 min difference and we have identical charts are such different people.


I guess that some of us are born natural skeptics and others have this tendancy to believe that we hold the secret keys that unlock the Mysteries of the World. Some of us enjoy to believe in the existence of Mysteries. There are women that have never been to College but they have never been persuaded by the claims of Astrology.

Mercutio I wasn't happy to discovered that Astrology didn't work; to be exact I am sorry that it doesn't work.It seemed so right and I could "predict" many things but yet the truth is different! I was reading recently the case of a scientist, a mathematician, a man not a woman,( in astrology there are many men BTW) who felt into serious depression when he discovered that Astrology doesn't work. Of course have nothing in common with that man.For the moment I can feel only sympathy for the believers something that's obvious from my posts anyway.Truth sucks. :p

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Mercutio I wasn't happy to discovered that Astrology didn't work; to be exact I am sorry that it doesn't work.It seemed so right and I could "predict" many things but yet the truth is different! I was reading recently the case of a scientist, a mathematician, a man not a woman,( in astrology there are many men BTW) who felt into serious depression when he discovered that Astrology doesn't work. Of course have nothing in common with that man.For the moment I can feel only sympathy for the believers something that's obvious from my posts anyway.Truth sucks. :p I am sorry you feel that way...for myself, it seems that while you discovered that something that seemed right was not so, you also discovered something beautiful about the way our belief systems work. That it took such an effort to undermine your belief shows just how important it is to us to see patterns, to perceive connections, to gain control over our lives and our environments.

I agree with you in feeling sympathy (that sounds too condescending, perhaps "sympathizing with") the believers. I would argue (and have) that there is nothing "abnormal" about belief in a system like astronomy; indeed, the same ability to look at a complex system and see patterns related to the events in our lives (which is essentially what astrology claims to do) is what makes science. You have simply discovered this aspect of our experience the hard way; it is so helpful to us to see these patterns, that we will sometimes see them where the patterns are in fact illusory.

But to me, these belief systems and understanding (rather, exploring) how we think is as beautiful as the I think the system of astrology was (is?) to you. I guess that's why I chose my line of work.

[bug_girl]

i'm stuck at home today, so i can't pull out my citations. i might be able to get at them this afternoon. also, i have a 15 lb cat who is overjoyed that i'm home during the day, so please excuse typos as he tries to "help"
anyway--
as a woman, and a scientist, i definately see a bias. some of this is structural (academia and tenure), some is social (women are taught early that smart isn't cool, or that being smart is "acting white"), and some of it is a tiny number of @$sholes that always exist to cause trouble for anyone.
for most of my undergrad and grad career, i've been the only girl. it's a really, really lonely place to be, and it makes you wonder what is wrong with you, that you like this science/bug stuff. Science is also a very competitive field, and i don't like competition. i like to work with people.
you need a fair ego to succeed, and the ability to praise and sell yourself. this is something women in the US are discouraged from doing. Look at how many of our female posters from the US disparage themselves.
also, if you don't see anyone like you succeeding, it's hard to imagine yourself in that career in the future. there was one other, older woman in the bug field who really encouraged me, and i had a great (male) advisor. without them, i would have dropped out many times. Currently in my field, the composition for minority women is 0.03% of our professional society membership. i can pretty much name them. if you never see anyone like you in positions of power....that has a subtle effect.

Has it gotten better in the last 20 years? heck yes!!! and the actions that are taken to involve women and minority students have benefits to all groups. not all men, or women, or ethnic groups are monolithic. changes in teachign and structure have broad benefits. mixtures are always better than monocultures :)

i think that G6's question is extremely relevant. we know how to involve one group of people in this area. but what can we to do broaden that group?
i think i'm rambling. is there sufficient interest for me to post some citations? most of them are not readable online. or, i can pm them.
a partial list of some nice refs:
http://www.umass.edu/twist/BAR.html

[Chaos]

Cleopatra

It always hurts when your belief system falls apart. This is natural. And it is no reason not to consider yourself a role model. To the contrary - if it did not hurt you, if you could change belief systems like other people change their clothes...do you think anybody would take your word on belief systems seriously? I know that I would not.

I think that role models are even more convincing, and helpful, if they went through a change of their belief system, than if they were skeptics all along. It is like the secular version of the conversion from Saul to Paul. (which, by the way, resembles one of the so-called "archetypal myths", stories that tend to have a special effect on people)

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Zep
This is EXACTLY the same attitude we have been using in raising the Zeplette (another female). She knows that no subject, no option, no opportunity is taboo for her. And she's going for it too!

One thing I have noted mentioned besides the "Female = can't do it" thing* is also the tendency for (many) women to gravitate towards "group" subjects - disciplines that involve working in or with a group, eg. social work, teaching. Perhaps skepticism as part of a profession is less attractive because it is a more "lonely" non-group pursuit, something that would not necessarily appeal to all women.

Any comments?


*^{Which I think is NOT intrinsic to being female but is quite possibly a learned technique for dealing with hard issues.}

I am not sure about that - I think women tend to gravitate toward more social subjects, and maybe that is a result of believing they can't do hard science and math. Also, women tend to be more group oriented - heck many women go to the bathroom in packs, but I was never drawn to groups myself, so it is hard for me to say. Maybe it harkens back to our hunter/gather days - women gathered in groups while men tended to be more solitary in their hunting. [shrug] I don't really know.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


This experience has left me with a bitter aftertaste though. I do not feel happy about it and I do not feel a "new born skeptic". I feel sorry that I have devoted hours in reading seriously and exploring something that it turned out to be an inadequate system of interpreting the world. I cannot feel proud for the fact that I couldn't pose to myself the simple question that my father posed to me. I should have done this by myself, I should have known better. Maybe my father is a model of a skeptic--instead of ridiculing my beliefs he helped me to examine them-- but I swear that he doesn't look like a chick. :)

I think we all spend time at one point or another in a 'useless' pursuit, but I think that is all about learning and growing. You did examine your beliefs and you learned to look at them critically and that is what matters. Now, no more beating yourself up over this, you, you, you SKEPCHICK, you. :D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


I think we need a panel discussion on panel discussions.

Good idea. First we need to form a commitee to get the ball rolling on this...

[exarch]

I have noticed that most of the people on this board (and in fact, most of the people at TAM2) are at least 20, the majority are in fact closer to 30, married or in a long relationship and most of them even have kids.
It seems that being a skeptic is another one of life's luxuries that younger people might not be interested in, due to more pressing matters like homework, finding a job, paying bills, going out to look for a GF/BF, etc.

They may in fact already be skeptics but just not have the time to - or be interested in - posting on this board, going to meetings, reading the magazines, arguing with woowoo's, etc. Just keeping up with the board is proving to be quite an undertaking, so I can imagine many younger people just not finding the time for it.

I can also imagine that the "finding a job / paying the bills" aspect might be a reason there aren't more minority people here, since many of them still suffer from a social disadvantage when it comes to finding high paying jobs. (There is also a bit of an elitist attitude among some skeptics, and many of them do have jobs that require high qualifications, diplomas, etc...).
Somehow I think having something to eat and a roof over your head is more important than dissing Sylvia Brown for appearing on Larry King for the umpteenth time.

Is there a relation here or am I just seeing a pattern where there isn't one to be found? Or am I assuming things about "most people here" that simply aren't true? I'd like to know.

[Jeff Wagg]

Originally posted by exarch

I can also imagine that the "finding a job / paying the bills" aspect might be a reason there aren't more minority people here, since many of them still suffer from a social disadvantage when it comes to finding high paying jobs.

I'm certainly in that demographic, although closer to 40. Anyway, it takes work to be skeptical. Belief takes no effort at all.

The curious tend to become believers, I think. Cleopatra's story is an example of this.

Now how the hell do you instill curiosity? I was going to say magicians can do this, but if you watch the David Blaine DVD you'll see people shy away from explaining the trick and rather accepting the fact that David Blaine has supernatural powers...the easy answer.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by exarch
I have noticed that most of the people on this board (and in fact, most of the people at TAM2) are at least 20, the majority are in fact closer to 30, married or in a long relationship and most of them even have kids.
It seems that being a skeptic is another one of life's luxuries that younger people might not be interested in, due to more pressing matters like homework, finding a job, paying bills, going out to look for a GF/BF, etc.

They may in fact already be skeptics but just not have the time to - or be interested in - posting on this board, going to meetings, reading the magazines, arguing with woowoo's, etc. Just keeping up with the board is proving to be quite an undertaking, so I can imagine many younger people just not finding the time for it.

I can also imagine that the "finding a job / paying the bills" aspect might be a reason there aren't more minority people here, since many of them still suffer from a social disadvantage when it comes to finding high paying jobs. (There is also a bit of an elitist attitude among some skeptics, and many of them do have jobs that require high qualifications, diplomas, etc...).
Somehow I think having something to eat and a roof over your head is more important than dissing Sylvia Brown for appearing on Larry King for the umpteenth time.

Is there a relation here or am I just seeing a pattern where there isn't one to be found? Or am I assuming things about "most people here" that simply aren't true? I'd like to know.

All of these are factors which do affect the participation of women and minorities. I know that until I got everything lined up: school, job, place to stay, etc, etc... that I didn't have time to devote to thinking about the larger and more philosophical issues in life.

It IS easy to be a believer. Religious institutions are like crack dealers and they are there in EVERY neighborhood. You can't avoid them and they are there to encourage participation. They deal in belief systems and it's hard not to respond to that.

G6

[3sons]

Originally posted by exarch
I can also imagine that the "finding a job / paying the bills" aspect might be a reason there aren't more minority people here, since many of them still suffer from a social disadvantage when it comes to finding high paying jobs. (There is also a bit of an elitist attitude among some skeptics, and many of them do have jobs that require high qualifications, diplomas, etc...).
Somehow I think having something to eat and a roof over your head is more important than dissing Sylvia Brown for appearing on Larry King for the umpteenth time.

I think you are absolutely right on this point. Many asian americans are 1st generation immigrants, tend to be small business owners working 12 to 14 hours a day 7 days a week, focusing on making enough money to send their kids (2nd generation Americans) to Harvard or Stanford. They don't have time for James Randi or Michael Shermer. Besides when you come home dead tired after 14 hours of hard work, Sylvia Brown and John Edward is much more fun. At least you don''t have to think to be entertained.

On a more serious note, I think cultural difference plays a larger role here. IMHO, American culture accepts, even encourages, independent thinking and being different. Not so in many Asian cultures. Coming to a strange land, it is even more important for the 1st generation immigrants to stay together. So they go to church because everyone else does, believer and non-believers alike. Everyone I know goes to church. In fact 5 of us (me + wife + 3 sons) are the only heathens among our family and friends.

Recently I tried to talk to some of them about my experience as a skeptic. They gave me all kinds of religious books to read. I thanked them politely and never mentioned it again.

Hopefully we will see a surge of Asian American skeptics when these 2nd generation kids graduate from colleges and become more independent, say in 5 to 10 years. I am hoping my sons will be part of that.

[kittynh]

well, and in my family I have a brother who is a skeptic, and introduced me to the writings of Mr.Randi (hey, he's a great Xmas gift), while his wife doesn't seem to be. A lot of the wives are the "soft" ones in the relationship.

My neighbor is an ardent atheist. His wife takes the kids to religious school (they are being raised Jewish). He says he sees it as a cultural thing more than a religious thing. The deal when they were married was that he was going to be in charge of exposing the kids to HIS culture (the Xmas tree and all that, if not the religious aspects). Instead, she's the one dragging in the tree every year (mainly for the in laws I think). He's a great dad, but seems to like his wife not being a "hard atheist". I think he should meet Julia Sweeney!

[kevinsbikes]

Girl6,
I don't know if you are even interested in this website, but it lists notable Athiests/Free Thinkers. I noticed a link that I am including which listed "notable black Athiest/Freethinkers." Honestly, I must say that I don't recognize many of the names and I also must admit that I do not even know if they are contemporaries. I will be going back to the site to study for myself. I don't know if this will help you in your quest to find out why there aren't more women/minorities in the world of Skepticism, but I hope so. Good luck to you.

Kevin Weitzel

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Black_Freethinkers

[lynne]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Frankly, it is exactly this type of experience that I believe would be a fantastic chapter in such a book as some have suggested here.

One of the compelling aspects of Susan Blackmore's writing is that she, too, started off as a believer. Her writing details a journey from belief to skepticism. So does your story, in a different situation, a different time-frame, and a different host of characters. I personally would love to read your story in more detail.

Role models need not be skeptics who came in the world fully armoured, Athena from the head of Zeuss, ready to bash the Gellers of the world. Arguably, the best role models will be those who acquired their skepticism through experience. These role models will not just be able to say "come over here to where I am", but instead, "follow me to this new place." If I am traversing a mine-field, I'd rather take a proven path.

I couldn't agree more. Those of us who came to skepticism from a skeptical background and through science based studies, as I did, are too typical to be of interest in such a book. It is those who had to struggle to come to a skeptical worldview who would be far more interesting and relevant to the audience which is not yet feeling part of the skeptical movement.


Lynne

[exarch]

Originally posted by Jeff Wagg
I'm certainly in that demographic, although closer to 40. Anyway, it takes work to be skeptical. Belief takes no effort at all.

The curious tend to become believers, I think. Cleopatra's story is an example of this.Well, I'm not so sure about that. I'm a very curious person, and I had lots of questions about apparent discrepancies in the bible. If I'd lived in the Us where those questions would have been hammered out of me, I would probably be a believer now, but since right here in Belgium my curiosity (probably) turned up more books about skepticism, I ended up drifting away from christianity until one day I realised I had become a non-believer.

I think religion is the hardest belief to be skeptical of, because it's the most prevalent, and also the one with the biggest risk involved (the well known fundie threat: "You better hope for your sake that you're right"). I sometimes wonder how many christians are actually wagering? I personally decided that wagering is not believing anyway, and as such just as bad, so I might as well take the plunge.

Once you've changed your belief in that, everything else is easy in comparison. I too used to believe in the possibility of ghosts, aliens, psychic powers, etc...
At least there's satisfactory evidence (for me) that none of those are real, which is the difference with religion.

[Cleopatra]

Hi Girl 6. How does your project go? :)

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Hi Girl 6. How does your project go? :)

Hi Cleo! Thanks for checking in! Here's the progress report:

- To kick off the research aspect of the book, I have set up a lunch meeting with one prominent female skeptic in April.

- I've been sent a video from Skeptic Magazine of a woman who discussed some strategies on how to start up a syundicated column. Apparently, it's a REALLY difficult task to break into the world of magazines as a skepchick.

- I have sent off letters of inquiry to various publishers.

- I have been asked to speak at a skeptics event in the summer. I think I will start to lay the groundwork for the book with that speech.

- I have started to cultivate friendships in the scientific community in order to find more female skeptics.

I still have work to do on the outline, though. :( That's probably one of the hardest aspects of this. That is the biggest goal to complete in the next 2 months. Once that is all set up, I can definitely begin the writing process. {sigh} I've come to the conclusion that the only way that I will get this done is to start waking up really early in the morning and working on it.

So, that's it for now. I'm so glad that you are all still interested in this! I truly hope to have some part of the book written and to have an acceptance of a publisher to publish it later on this year.

thanks!
G6

[kittynh]

But remember, include people like Julia Sweeney (well she's an obvious choice!). We need some nonscientist skepchicks too!

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by kittynh
But remember, include people like Julia Sweeney (well she's an obvious choice!). We need some nonscientist skepchicks too!

Oh, well, that goes without saying! :) However, it's a bit hard to get her attention, if you know what I mean.

G6

[Cleopatra]

Girl 6

Welcome to the world of the early birds. :)

It seems that you have done a lot in a short period of time. I think that you will change many times your mind about the outline of your book. Discussing about it with everybody is a good idea also the outline will be dictated by the material you will manage to collect.

I asked only to remind you that we are interested in your project and you are in our thoughts. I was looking for women skeptics in antiquity last night--just out of curiosity-- and this is how I remembered of your book.

Maybe Hal and Linda can help you with Ms Sweeney.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Girl 6

Welcome to the world of the early birds. :)

It seems that you have done a lot in a short period of time. I think that you will change many times your mind about the outline of your book. Discussing about it with everybody is a good idea also the outline will be dictated by the material you will manage to collect.

I asked only to remind you that we are interested in your project and you are in our thoughts. I was looking for women skeptics in antiquity last night--just out of curiosity-- and this is how I remembered of your book.

Maybe Hal and Linda can help you with Ms Sweeney.

That's a great suggestion, Cleo! I hope that I can get Ms. Sweeney's interest in this. I will send off a PM right after this reply! :)

As for discussing the outline of the book. One of the great things about this forum is that we actually have a writer's group. I'm planning to share the outline and solicit ideas through them. Also, are you ladies interested in this process as well? You won't feel that I'm bothering you or spamming you, will you? Let me know!

G6

[Cleopatra]

Of course we are!!!! I mean this is what we are supposed to do here. :D

[kittynh]

hey, we are here to support each other!

Bother away!

[Electric Monk]

Originally posted by Girl 6
That's a great suggestion, Cleo! I hope that I can get Ms. Sweeney's interest in this. I will send off a PM right after this reply! :)I'm not sure how often Julia is checking in on the forum. She's been working madly on the outline for her book, lately.

I sent her an email mentioning your project and PM. I'd suggest that if you don't get a response to the PM you should send her an email at the address on her site, julia-at-juliasweeney-dot-com.

--James

[Zep]

Girl6: I've been sent a video from Skeptic Magazine of a woman who discussed some strategies on how to start up a syundicated column. Apparently, it's a REALLY difficult task to break into the world of magazines as a skepchick.Any idea why this may be so?

And I do note that many womens magazines I read (Cosmo, etc) are strongly pushing astrology and the like: makeup by the stars, hair by the stars, pick your boyfriend by the stars, great sex by the...well, you get the picture. :) Point is, these trivial and demeaning articles on astrology and numerology and such like seem to get a run each and every issue, not to mention the pages of ads for the phone readings in the back. So why is it so hard to get an article or two about skepticism?? (Conflict of interest, Ms Editor? I don't think so!)

[tamiO]

bump :)

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Hi Everyone,

So, what was my question? I basically asked what ideas they had for reaching out to women and minorities. The fact is that in California, minorities are already the majority.

Skepticism is NOT a common trait to be found in the first place. But, among women and minorities, it is even more rare.
G6

Why do you think it is rare among women?

I have an opinion on that. I was raised in the outback, with old rules from the old school. It wasn't so bad for me but as I look back, my sisters were taught

1. their goal was to be a good housewife and mother
2. their husbands were suppose to rule the household
3. their husbands made the final decisions
4. their critical thinking skills were used only in deciding what to fix for the next meal. They were taught to rely on a spouse.

One of them made it in the real world.

I've found that many of the women in my area and surrounding areas were not taught to think for themselves. Education is the first step for these women and minorities.

I can't preach that enough. If you want to instill critical thinking skills into someone, you cannot do it by insulting their beliefs or their way of life. This only causes them to avoid you, or get angry.

To reach these people you have to educate yourself as well,
Understand where they are coming from, where their ideas originated. They will trust you more if they think you understand and respect their beliefs.

My two cents worth

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Leroy



1. their goal was to be a good housewife and mother
2. their husbands were suppose to rule the household
3. their husbands made the final decisions
4. their critical thinking skills were used only in deciding what to fix for the next meal. They were taught to rely on a spouse.



Ugh!!! I'm so glad I was a tomboy when I was a kid! Mind you, I was probably a tomboy because I was a skeptic, and preferred to find fossils compared to playing with barbies (only ever had on in my life). Science class was my favorite from grade 3. We had a remarkable teacher, she dissected things in class while we looked on...chicken, fish, etc. She had her "mad scientist" man come in and do fun demonstrations for us.

This was in the early eighties. If all kids got that kind of exposure to science early on, then we might see more kids learning critical thinking skills. Question were answered on "How does this work, why?".

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Science class was my favorite from grade 3. We had a remarkable teacher, she dissected things in class while we looked on...chicken, fish, etc. She had her "mad scientist" man come in and do fun demonstrations for us.

This was in the early eighties. If all kids got that kind of exposure to science early on, then we might see more kids learning critical thinking skills. Question were answered on "How does this work, why?".

It's sad that most people only get one or two good teachers in their life at school. Think about how many teachers you get exposed to and how many made the impression, "That was a good teacher."

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Ugh!!! I'm so glad I was a tomboy when I was a kid! Mind you, I was probably a tomboy because I was a skeptic, and preferred to find fossils compared to playing with barbies (only ever had on in my life). Science class was my favorite from grade 3. We had a remarkable teacher, she dissected things in class while we looked on...chicken, fish, etc. She had her "mad scientist" man come in and do fun demonstrations for us.

This was in the early eighties. If all kids got that kind of exposure to science early on, then we might see more kids learning critical thinking skills. Question were answered on "How does this work, why?".

Teachers can make a big difference!

I think learning critical thinking skills starts at home. If parents make all the decisions for their children, how can the children learn to think for themselves? Many parents are guilty of not allowing their children, even as teens, to make their own decisions and reap the consequenses of those decisions. They believe they are protecting the child.

It is my opinion that some of these children grow up and spend their life following a path that another has set for them.

In other words, they have no leadership skills, they do what others tell them, or expect of them. These are the same ones who seem to lack critical thinking skills. They go to the United Methodist church because their parents go there. They believe in what their parents believe in. They don't question, they simply follow. Women more so than men. Men tend to rebel :D

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm thinking here. I was exposed to critical thinking at school. I was not allowed to have my own thoughts at home (got kicked out at 13 for trying to tell my mom that the neighbors were not plotting to kill us). Even so though, I really questioned what most people told me before school even, and stubbornly did not conform if it didn't make sense to me. My examples may be too graphic for a public forum. I just kept one thought in my mind that made sense, and rejected the rest, and refused to follow along. Something like "you all think it is fun, but it's still gross and so I don't know why you all think it is fun, and I don't care what you think of me". I have always revelled in being "different" - a rebel I guess. Not always rewarding as kids can be quite mean to somebody "different", which made me hate them all the more and not want to be anything like them.

I'm thinking there is some genetic component that allows a person to question rather than just follow along in believing in fundamentalism and such. I've heard others coming from fundy families that preferred to be the black sheep rather than pretend to believe in something that just didn't make sense to them.

Then there are those that cling to fundamentalism rather than see the "big picture". They have all the evidence in front of them, and they still think fantasy makes more sense. These are the people that scammers love. It's better to be part of the group.

I'm supposing there are benefits for both ways. Being a part of the group gets you support. But, we can see what happens to extreme groups-mass suicides, or being killed off by another group. Then the 'loner' would survive. It does make sense that the majority would be the conformists-bigger families breeding more conformists. The odd oddball would have a more difficult time getting a mate and supporting their offspring. Then a group of oddballs get together and suddenly they are a group on their own and get that community support.

It's kind of like evolution. A black moth stands out among the white moths and has less of a chance of survival. Then something changes to make being a white moth risky. The black moths increase in number and become the majority. Having the odd white moth appear insures successful survival of the species when the circumstances change again. The only constant is change afterall.

Thus, I hope it is the science/skeptical types that become the majority one day. Not too long ago they were the witches that were hunted down and killed. We'll still need those who prefer fantasy around in case that becomes the sole reason people survive again. I can't imagine what case that would be though, but it has obviously been the case since they are the majority at present.

Hmm. Well. I've let my brain run again. Hope it makes some sense.