I have for you six more grant recipients for TAM 2012. That brings the tally to 12 grants awarded so far. Which should bring the attendance of women at the event up to at least 19% now, right? See how easy it is to raise numbers? You just have to be inclusive, understanding and actively working towards positive change.  Something we have been doing here at Skepchick for years.

For those of you who are ‘confused’ as to why we would send women to an event that is ‘unsafe’ as I have seen written in some unenlightened posts on the internet, please stop for a moment and let me assist you in understanding the actual issue.

We have NEVER once said that TAM is more unsafe than any other event. It has simply been stated that unless sexism and harrassment is dealt with on all levels and at all events then NO space is truly safe for women. We need to work together to fix these problems. The changes required need to come from the top down and the bottom up. Rebecca is working from the top with the leaders of this movement and I am the grassroots backup. Together we, and that also means YOU can make a difference.

For the record; TAM has been a wonderful, educational and life changing event for me in years past. I have met some of my very best friends there and have learned a great deal about science and skepticism. I have had the opportunity to be on stage there numerous times and for that I am grateful. I have been inspired and had great fun at TAM. Some of my fondest memories are from TAMs. I am extremely sad that many of my fellow Skepchicks won’t be there this year. That being said, I completely support and understand Rebecca’s decision not to go and hope that her actions now will be the catalyst for improvements in the future at all events.

Thanks to everyone out there who has been donating and continues to do so in these difficult times. Your help is making this grant program happen. There is simply no way I could do this alone. And I appreciate the feeling of community and positive activism this fundraiser has cultivated. People speak of divisiveness. I don’t think that’s true. I see many more kind and intelligent people coming together and stepping up to do the right thing and the angry misogynists, anti-feminists and negative people fading farther into the background of skepticism on their way to becoming irrelevant. The haters may be loud but they are minuscule in many ways. One other thing I have noticed in all of this is that many women want to go to TAM but simply can not afford the ticket price. I have not yet had a single woman reject a grant based on internet ‘drama’ or discussions regarding sexism. Women want to go AND to be respected in a safe environment. Not too much to ask for I don’t think, and not out of our reach to ensure.

Now, let’s meet these amazing women who will also help to make a difference in the world of organized skepticism, feminism and science outreach. The future awaits…

 

Lindsay Waldrop received her B.S. in Biology with a minor in Physics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Ph.D. in Integrative Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. Her research interests are in the interaction of organisms with their fluid environments, such as sniffing, swimming, and suspension feeding. She studied how crabs sniff for her dissertation research! In her personal time, she enjoys training her dog, SCUBA diving, science communication and outreach, and being a skeptic. This will be her first trip to TAM, and she is excited to meet all her favorite skeptics!

 

 

 

 

 

Jami Williams is a Physical Therapist who lives in Hazard, KY. She graduated from University of Kentucky in 2005 with a Masters degree in Physical Therapy. She is recently engaged and planning an October wedding. She currently works in a local nursing home and her interests are geriatrics and neurological aspects of physical therapy. Nothing makes her happier than to improve the daily functioning of a patient through evidence-based practice. She loves learning and researching science-based medicine and is very much looking forward to this aspect of TAM. Overall, she considers herself a big nerd who loves horror and science fiction literature and cinema. She plays Magic the Gathering, and could play board games all night long. She is completely in love with her 2 pups and consider them her kids.

 

 

 

Lauren Magee prefers to dwell in possibility. She received a BA in Botany from Miami University in 2000. Ten years later, after paying off those student loans, she began working on an MA in English at Northern Kentucky University. Her primary focus is on creative writing, with a veer towards new media. Her thesis project is a podcast starring a fictionalized version of Emily Dickinson, who was quite a skeptic herself. Lauren is an avid fan of tabletop gaming, reading, and crafting nerdy/geeky things. She is incredibly excited to be able to attend her first TAM thanks to this grant.

 

 

 

 

Renee Davis-Pelt is a lifelong science buff whose interests include astronomy, theoretical physics, medical sciences, political activism, human rights issues, and the occasional all-night gaming session with her online friends playing MMORPGs like Rift and EverQuest. She’s currently an analyst for a managed care company in the Midwest, and comes from a background in dental hygiene, nursing, and information systems. She also likes cats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christine Shellska is a PhD Candidate (ABD) in the Department of Communication and Culture, Faculty of Arts, at the University of Calgary (Canada). Her research involves studying the rhetorical strategies the Intelligent Design movement uses to advance religious claims as scientific. Christine is active in several local, national, and international secular organizations. Christine sees skepticism as a site of political engagement. She believes that many of the threats to environmental sustainability, global peace, and social justice stem from irrationalism and superstition, and that reason and compassion are the requisite tools to counter ignorance, fear and hatred, and to promote a reality-based understanding of our natural and social realms.

 

 

 

Hayley Dunning is a Brit living in Canada via Iceland and Finland. She is studying for a Masters of Journalism at the University of British Columbia (Vancouver), but previously has two Masters in Earth Science (why the two is another story…). Finding out that some people have doubts about climate change originally attracted her to the world of logic, reason and skepticism, and realizing just how many people denied evolution helped her stay there! She’s focusing her journalism thesis on Canadian media representations of climate change (thesis blog can be found at: www.bwandgreenallover.wordpress.com). She finally got cats in October, therefore making her life complete.

 

_______________

I am SO looking forward to meeting all these women and our other grant winners at the event!

 

I will announce even more grant winners very soon! You can go here to donate to the program or to apply for a grant but hurry, time is running out!

See you soon.

love,

Surly Amy

 

 

 

:)

Amy Roth

Amy Roth

Amy Davis Roth (aka Surly Amy) is a multimedia artist who resides in Los Angeles, California. She makes Surly-Ramics and writes about vegan food. She is the founder and president of the Los Angeles Women's Atheist and Agnostic Group: LAWAAG. Follow her on twitter: @SurlyAmy or on Google+.

Previous post

ICYMI: May 27-June 2 on the Skepchick Network

Next post

Skepchick Quickies 6.5

59 Comments

  1. Profile photo of bug_girl
    June 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm —

    Yay Amy and Yay to the grants!

    • Profile photo of dr. dr. professor
      June 5, 2012 at 12:13 am —

      Getting students grants to conferences is sweet and fun. So enjoy them recipients.

      On another note, I don’t quite understand what TAM or other such conferences are about, can someone summarize in a nutshell what they are?

      On one more note, I don’t really need to know about TAM to know about discrimination at professional conferences. Any conference I’ve ever been to in any industry is pretty rife with 1st world sexism (you know the type that “doesn’t exist anymore”). Be nice to have this type of effort at professional conferences in various industries.

      • Profile photo of Ubi Dubium
        June 5, 2012 at 9:47 am —

        TAM is the biggest annual meeting for Skeptics. Usually, most of the movers and shakers in the movement are there, and it’s the best event to meet, network, bounce ideas around, and generally have fun with the most experienced and knowledgable skeptics there are. Speaking at TAM is a big deal, and speeches at TAM get more continuing attention than most. For instance, Phil Plait’s “Don’t be a Dick” speech was given at TAM.

        I had a blast last year and, more importantly, absorbed a ton of new information. I’d go this year in a heartbeat if finances permitted.

  2. Profile photo of davew
    June 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm —

    “We have NEVER once said that TAM is more unsafe than any other event. It has simply been stated that unless sexism and harrassment is dealt with on all levels and at all events then NO space is truly safe for women.”

    What do you mean by “truly safe”? If the only choice is conferences are “safe” or “not safe” then the only conclusion is all conferences are not safe for women and will never be. We can follow some of the suggestions that have been proposed here and reduce the chances of any woman having a problem at TAM and providing a quicker and better response when there is a problem. The goal should be to make TAM and similar conferences “safer” not “safe”. Using absolutist language like “truly safe” does nothing to promote meaningful dialog or better policies. This also is also part of the “black-and-white tone” ZenMonkey was talking about recently.

    “I completely support and understand Rebecca’s decision not to go and hope that her actions now will be the catalyst for improvements in the future at all events.”

    I really hope so. Some of it depends on where it goes from here. If there is meaningful dialog between the Skepchicks and conference organizers then there can be. What I’m seeing in public doesn’t give me much hope, but maybe there are private discussions going on.

    • Profile photo of Unnullifier
      June 4, 2012 at 3:11 pm —

      I believe you’re interpreting “truly safe” as “0% chance of harassment”. I believe in the context of Amy’s post, “truly safe” means eliminating the possibility that harassment can occur with no available recourse for the victim.

      I don’t believe that any women speaking out about this issue believe that harassment can be eliminated entirely, rather their goal is to ensure that there is an adequate safety net for when it does happen.

    • Profile photo of mikerattlesnake
      June 4, 2012 at 5:02 pm —

      As a man, I feel “truly safe” going most places. Sexual harrassment and assault is already unlikely for me, but I can also be pretty sure that I won’t be physically assaulted and that if I was there would be a swift official response as well as, most likely, law enforcement involvement. If there were people in the movement with a history of getting drunk after conferences and starting bar fights, I could be reasonably certain they wouldn’t be invited to most conferences.

      I don’t think that women are asking for much when they request a safe space.

    • Profile photo of quietmarc
      June 4, 2012 at 6:11 pm —

      Chill dude. “Safe” is only an absolute to, like, vaccine denialists. I mean, nowhere on earth is “truly safe” but someone ought to be able to use the phrase in a congratulatory post about prize winners without having to worry if they’re being too absolutist.

  3. Profile photo of Beleth
    June 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm —

    This is excellent news! I congratulate the winners and am heartened to see that the original Skepchick mission is still alive and kicking in the form of Surly Women Grants!

  4. Profile photo of john85
    June 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm —

    “For those of you who are ‘confused’ as to why we would send women to an event that is ‘unsafe’… We have NEVER once said that TAM is more unsafe than any other event.”

    That seems like a non sequitur to me. “Unsafe” isn’t the same as “more unsafe than other events”. If “NO space is truly safe”, then that means TAM is not truly safe, i.e. it’s unsafe. (And Rebecca said the freethought community is less safe than outside the community, which means it’s even more unsafe than average in her life.) So I don’t think you’ve really answered the people, whoever they are, who question why women are being sent to a supposedly unsafe event. Maybe there is a good answer to them, but I don’t see it on display here.

    Congratulations to the winners chosen. I hope they have a great time.

    • Profile photo of LeftSidePositive
      June 4, 2012 at 5:06 pm —

      Read Rebecca’s post about not going to TAM. She makes it pretty clear (and has a link!) what a “safe space” means:

      A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person’s self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others. –Advocates for Youth

      And am I the only one who is more than a little bit concerned that there are apparently so many people who, in 2012, have no idea what a “safe space” means?!

  5. Profile photo of Amy Roth
    June 4, 2012 at 3:20 pm —

    Oh look at the menz coming in to tell me what I meant to say and how I am actually talking silly and making things less safe and stirring up trouble. Derpa derpa derpa do. How delightfully predictable.

    If you aren’t here to donate, apply for a grant or to congratulate the winners, feel invited to kindly piss off. I have no patience for slactivism, pedantry or pot-induced-armchair-analysis of my wording or this issue in general.

    AND there are plenty of threads for you to banter and complain on ALL over the internets so don’t cry about being silenced here.

    I am actually trying to do quantifiable WORK here. IN fact, I am one of the VERY FEW people doing that at all in this situation. One thing DJ and Rebecca BOTH agree on is that we need MORE women in skepticism. I have explained that TAM is no less safe than any other event and I am one of the very few people ACTUALLY helping to send more women to this actual event. SO either explain how YOU are helping me help the women in this movement or step the fuck out of my way.

    • Profile photo of Elvismorte
      June 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm —

      Hells yeah, Amy! You rock.

    • Profile photo of davew
      June 4, 2012 at 4:04 pm —

      “If you aren’t here to donate, apply for a grant or to congratulate the winners, feel invited to kindly piss off. I have no patience for slactivism, pedantry or pot-induced-armchair-analysis of my wording or this issue in general.”

      So you bring up a topic in this thread, but forbid people from responding to what you wrote. This is not a reasonable position. It is your forum, however, so you are free to adopt any rules you like.

      I have supported this effort and other Skeptchick activities in the past and had planned to in the future, but instead I will follow your advice and piss off.

      • Profile photo of ineedavacation
        June 4, 2012 at 4:19 pm —

        The article is about the grant winners, her talking about the Rebecca/TAM thing is simply her making sure everyone understood that Rebecca’s decision in no way influenced how the grant money was given out. The majority of the post was about the women who received the grant money, but when you and other people comment on the something other than that, you take the attention away from the women and on to something you want to talk about, which just isn’t a fair thing to do.

      • Profile photo of utakata
        June 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm —

        That’s right. In others words davew, don’t thread derail. That’s rude and trolling at best.

        PS: Congratulations to the winners!

    • Profile photo of ineedavacation
      June 4, 2012 at 4:21 pm —

      Ha! I love this comment, it’s so… dare I say “surly”

      but you’re right, anyone who’s coming to this article to talk about that Rebecca/TAM debacle should remember that there’s whole other
      post
      for you to do so.

    • Profile photo of Unnullifier
      June 4, 2012 at 5:03 pm —

      I apologize for my comment; I wrote without consideration of detracting from the announcement of the grant winners.

      I’d like to correct that. Here goes:

      First, congrats to the 6 grant winners!

      Second, as words can only go so far on the internet, here’s a small donation.

      • Profile photo of Amy Roth
        June 4, 2012 at 5:10 pm —

        Thank you very much and I don’t think you were out of line at all.

  6. Profile photo of Sarah Moglia
    June 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm —

    Congratulations to the winners! Hayley, your picture is awesome– could you tell me where you took it? (Because I want to go there. :)

    • Profile photo of flakkarin
      June 5, 2012 at 11:43 pm —

      Hi, this is Hayley! Thanks, I am so excited to go. My photo is actually from where I used to work, it’s called the Jurassic Forest, in Alberta, Canada. Giant robotic dinosaurs in a forest = best job ever.

  7. Profile photo of Eskeptrical Engineer
    June 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm —

    Yay for more awesome women coming to TAM! Congratulations!

    I love all the different backgrounds of the recipients. Science, social science, writing, art, activism. What a group!

  8. Profile photo of justinmckean
    June 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm —

    Congrats to the grant winners. That’s cool.

    I read Skepchick for the sciency stuff. ‘Cause it always interesting and good when that’s the topic. Well written, etc. I like it.

    Those are why I referred my teenager daughter to this site and Teen Skepchick. I like it that she can look to this place as a home for role models and inspiration in the world of skepticism.

    It’s that sciency sort of post that keeps Skepchick in my feed despite the passive aggressive “feminism” displayed by some of it’s leadership, which makes me cringe.

    At the risk of being flamed out, while Rebecca’s going to TAM or not is entirely her choice and, therefore, “supporting her decision” is a given, her reasoning is weak and unconstructive at best. I don’t think of her as a feminist leader. At all.

    She could be. But she’s choosing not to be. And that’s unfortunate. The world needs her right now.

    Gloria Steinem, Emma Goldman, Jane Fonda, Elizabeth Warren… these are leaders. I cannot imagine any of them deciding not to attend TAM for the reasons Rebecca mentioned.

    Try to imagine Gloria saying, “That one man is an asshole so I’m not gonna go!” Bah. She’d go and then she’d hand him his hat, is what she’d do. ‘Cause she’s tough and smart and gets shit done.

    Rebecca: you’re also, potentially, this powerful. But not if you don’t show up. If a bully is on the playground you don’t go to another playground. You stand up to him. In person.

    And I’ll point out that statements like…

    “We have NEVER once said that TAM is more unsafe than any other event. It has simply been stated that unless sexism and harrassment is dealt with on all levels and at all events then NO space is truly safe for women.”

    …don’t make sense.

    Are we saying TAM isn’t more unsafe than any other because TAM’s poorly-dealt-with harassment policy makes everyone else’s harassment policy less good and therefore if TAM is unsafe, all conferences are? Or something?

    So if we in Tulsa implement a harassment policy at our convention this summer, and we do a good job of dealing with those kinds of issues, are we included in that “NO space is truly safe” remark?

    Are we suggesting all women do as Rebecca did and just stay home until the boys start behaving themselves? Should the boys be given that much power?

    If a Skepchick decides she’ll avoid one conference specifically because of harassment issues but chooses to participate in others, one must guess that the avoided conference is less safe, in her opinion, than others. And if a “feminist” chooses to avoid the conference because she, let’s be frank, let a man get under her skin…

    If I were her I’d summon up some Gloria and Jane in her soul. Hell, call ‘em up! Emma’s the only one on that list who’s dead, after all. Get some advice from those who’ve gone before. Then head on down to TAM and make sure that her presence there calls attention to actions that will correct the problems. Not being there only makes certain that she won’t be heard.

    Rebecca is brilliant and has a shit-ton of drive. She’s totally capable of showing up and turning that conference around if she’s willing to do it.

    • Profile photo of Anne S
      June 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm —

      If you think that Rebecca’s reasons for not attending TAM this year come down to “That one man is an asshole so I’m not gonna go!” you may want to try re-reading it for comprehension.

    • Profile photo of LeftSidePositive
      June 4, 2012 at 5:34 pm —

      It’s that sciency sort of post that keeps Skepchick in my feed despite the passive aggressive “feminism” displayed by some of it’s leadership, which makes me cringe.

      You know, for someone who doesn’t like passive aggression, you’re amazingly good at it.

      her reasoning is weak and unconstructive at best.

      If you disagree with her, why don’t you go to that thread and take it up with her there?

      I don’t think of her as a feminist leader. At all.

      Dear apparently cissexual, heterosexual, at-least-middle-class white man: maybe what you think of as a feminist leader isn’t exactly relevant.

      She could be. But she’s choosing not to be.

      That’s really interesting, because there are no shortage of people who are applauding her stance.

      Try to imagine Gloria saying, “That one man is an asshole so I’m not gonna go!” Bah.

      Did it ever occur to you that the reason you don’t respect her reasoning is the fact that you have oversimplified it disgracefully?

      She’d go and then she’d hand him his hat, is what she’d do. ‘Cause she’s tough and smart and gets shit done.

      You’ve got a bad case of “Exceptional Woman Syndrome” man…

      You’re also pathologically attached to this idea of a dramatic, easily-glorifiable individual, and not looking at the need for systemic or institutional change.

      You stand up to him. In person.

      Stand up to him HOW? Do you think he’s gonna organize a panel for her or something? Do you think this is just a personal thing? Do you think that an argument is more or less sound depending on whether or not it’s in person?

      And I’ll point out that statements like…

      “We have NEVER once said that TAM is more unsafe than any other event. It has simply been stated that unless sexism and harrassment is dealt with on all levels and at all events then NO space is truly safe for women.”

      …don’t make sense because I have no background knowledge of the concept of a “safe space” and cannot be bothered to learn about it.

      There, FTFY…

      Are we saying TAM isn’t more unsafe than any other because TAM’s poorly-dealt-with harassment policy makes everyone else’s harassment policy less good and therefore if TAM is unsafe, all conferences are? Or something?

      Did you read her post AT ALL?! I mean–seriously?! You’re just fractally wrong here.

      Are we suggesting all women do as Rebecca did and just stay home until the boys start behaving themselves?

      No, we’re respecting the fact that women have THE RIGHT to stay home if conference organizers fail miserably at their jobs, and that our attendance cannot be taken for granted.

      If a Skepchick decides she’ll avoid one conference specifically because of harassment issues but chooses to participate in others, one must guess that the avoided conference is less safe, in her opinion, than others.

      Or one must guess that it is because the organizer of that conference publicly said she was responsible for women’s attendance declines, and blamed her for speaking out about harassment, and said organizer has a minimizing and dismissive attitude about women experiencing harassment which is a huge problem no matter WHAT the level of harassment at that conference is. One must also read the posts about the matter carefully and actually understand the issues being discussed before one guesses.

      And if a “feminist” chooses to avoid the conference because she, let’s be frank, let a man get under her skin…

      Scare quotes, seriously? Snide dismissive trivializing and, frankly, sexist language? I’m pretty shocked, actually. Can Rebecca not make a principled stand about something? Why is it that everyone else understands it as a principled stand (even those who would personally take different strategies) but you must use high-school-crush type language?

      Then head on down to TAM and make sure that her presence there calls attention to actions that will correct the problems.

      Explain to me exactly how you think her presence at a conference is going to magically solve the issues of systemic sexism and reflexive unthinking victim-blaming on the part of the organizer?

      Not being there only makes certain that she won’t be heard.

      She has a blog, you know…and how many people who are affected by this will actually be physically present at TAM?

      She’s totally capable of showing up and turning that conference around if she’s willing to do it.

      How exactly is this scenario playing out in your head? I’m curious…

    • Profile photo of Amy Roth
      June 4, 2012 at 6:19 pm —

      And it’s basically been said already Justin, but why are you directly addressing Rebecca on my thread? Are you confused as to how blog posts work? If she had even commented here it would maybe make sense to reply to her but I wrote this. So uh, hello. My name is Surly Amy, and I’m running a grant program to send women to TAM.

      • Profile photo of davew
        June 4, 2012 at 6:53 pm —

        Both Justin and myself and a couple of others are responding to what you wrote about in four of your first five paragraphs. You can ask people to stop talking about it if you like, but to call someone confused because they expanded on what you said is unsupportable.

        • Profile photo of Amy Roth
          June 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm —

          No, actually Justin is directly talking to Rebecca about why she is not going to TAM while accusing her of being a poor role model while also making comments like:
          “Are we suggesting all women do as Rebecca did and just stay home until the boys start behaving themselves? Should the boys be given that much power?”

          On a thread where I AM SHOWING HOW WE ARE SENDING WOMEN TO EVENTS that I will ALSO be at. So either I am invisible and this post and grant program never happened or he is out of line and off topic.

          And Dave, I thought you were going to piss off like you promised? Or is this your idea of helping me send women to TAM and encouraging women to participate in this movement? You are annoying me and are derailing a blog post meant to congratulate and welcome grant recipients. I have asked you to stop.

    • Profile photo of James Fox
      June 4, 2012 at 8:57 pm —

      Well that’s not a steaming pile of patronizing off topic twaddle or anything like that.

  9. Profile photo of Nicole
    June 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm —

    Can Hayley please bring the T-Rex with her? Because that would be awesome.

    • Profile photo of Amy Roth
      June 4, 2012 at 5:12 pm —

      I support this idea.

    • Profile photo of Seelix
      June 4, 2012 at 10:04 pm —

      I third this idea. How many do we need for a quorum?

    • Profile photo of amm1
      June 5, 2012 at 7:38 am —

      Can Hayley please bring the T-Rex with her? Because that would be awesome.

      Hey, maybe that would be a way to make TAM a safe(r) space.

      At least for Hayley :-)

  10. Profile photo of Anne S
    June 4, 2012 at 4:03 pm —

    Amy, you continue to rock. I’m only sorry I don’t get to meet these awesome women myself. Hopefully TAM is only the first of many skeptic conferences they’ll attend!

  11. Profile photo of martialartiste
    June 4, 2012 at 4:52 pm —

    Yay, more new people! I’m very excited to meet all the other grant recipients at TAM!

  12. Profile photo of krelnik
    June 4, 2012 at 5:06 pm —

    Oh there was a minor typographical error in your article, here:

    > Rebecca is working from the top with the leaders
    > of this movement and I am the grassroots backup.

    That should have read:

    > I am working at the forefront of this issue, and
    > Rebecca is backing me up on other fronts.

    No disrespect to Rebecca, but you are awesome, Amy, and never let anyone forget that.

  13. Profile photo of Praedico
    June 4, 2012 at 7:37 pm —

    Man, some dudes just can not put the privilege down for five minutes, can they?

    Congrats to the winners! More ladies doing skepticism = more awesome skepticism!

    Also, I choose to believe that is Hayley’s pet T-Rex and goes everywhere with her.

  14. Profile photo of Will
    June 4, 2012 at 8:00 pm —

    Yay, congrats all! =)

  15. Profile photo of Grand Lunar
    June 4, 2012 at 8:21 pm —

    “I completely support and understand Rebecca’s decision not to go and hope that her actions now will be the catalyst for improvements in the future at all events.”

    I have this hope as well.

    This should be a wake-up call that sexism is something that needs to be delt with, NOT ignored and definately not something to pretend that it doesn’t happen.

  16. Profile photo of edithkeeler
    June 4, 2012 at 8:47 pm —

    Brilliant job Amy. Such interesting bunch of people.

  17. Profile photo of Grimalkin
    June 4, 2012 at 9:01 pm —

    HOLY SHIT HAYLEY LOOK THE FUCK OUT, THERE IS A GODDAMNED T-REX BEHIND YOU.

    …anyways yes, congrats to all of the winners!

  18. Profile photo of James Fox
    June 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm —

    Great stuff Amy! I appreciate your efforts and I will miss seeing you at TAM this year!

    • Profile photo of Anne S
      June 4, 2012 at 9:33 pm —

      Jacob, luckily for you Amy will actually be at TAM!

      • Profile photo of James Fox
        June 5, 2012 at 12:18 pm —

        The problem is I wont be attending which was not clear from what I wrote.

  19. Profile photo of bibliotequetress
    June 4, 2012 at 10:34 pm —

    Congratulations, everyone! All of you, please give Randi a big hug for the rest of us not there. And, Amy, you are the best, and if you ever need to come to Boston (Current temp on June 4 is 50 degrees farhenheit. Don’t you want to leave CA now?) I have a sofa for you to sleep on. And a cat to sleep on top of you.

  20. Profile photo of bibliotequetress
    June 4, 2012 at 10:48 pm —

    BTW, out in the rest of the universe, I was one of the delegates in Springfield, Mass who elected Elizabeth Warren to be the Democratic candidate for the Senate on Saturday. She is, as Justin pointed out pointed out, a real leader. I have campaigned and caucused and voted for her in part because she does not dismiss the concerns of women that Scott Brown and his campaign have considered “passive aggressive,” “minor,” and “whiney.” She understands from her own experience that for every one voiced raised there have been one hundred silenced. I hope your daughter is, someday, lucky enough to have someone like her on her side. And I hope the young women going to TAM on the SurlyRamics Scholarship are in the first steps of being like Elizabeth.

    • Profile photo of Buzz Parsec
      June 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm —

      My sister was there too! Yippee!

      • Profile photo of Buzz Parsec
        June 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm —

        Oops, I didn’t include a well-deserved “Congratulations to all the winners and well done, Amy and all the contributers” because I thought I did that yesterday. It must have got derailed :-(.

        Anyway. congratulations winners, and well done Amy and all the contributers! (If this is redundant, it’s worth saying twice.)

      • Profile photo of bibliotequetress
        June 5, 2012 at 6:25 pm —

        Cool! It was a lot of fun (&also a clusterf*ck, as she may have told you) Where is she from?

  21. Profile photo of scribe999
    June 4, 2012 at 11:36 pm —

    Congratulations to the grant recipients! Hope they have a wonderful time!

  22. Profile photo of halincoh
    June 5, 2012 at 12:31 am —

    Amy, you are absolutely one of my favorite people at TAM. Reading this, what you are trying to accomplish, and with the strength and intelligence in which you express yourself as you accomplish your goals, you have reminded me, once again, that I am HAPPY to be going to TAM again.

    I look forward to the lectures, the comradery, the laughter, the friendships rekindled, the new ones yet to be formed, the points of contention that will be discussed, and the further attempts at the advancement of rational thought in an irrational, emotional, and at times, contemptuous species.

    Thank you.

  23. Profile photo of maureenbrian
    June 5, 2012 at 7:10 am —

    Amy,

    Well done.

    JustinMckean,

    “Women need not always keep their mouths shut and their wombs open.”

    – Emma Goldman

    So take care whom you wave at us in disapproval. She may turn around and bite you!

  24. Profile photo of sallystrange
    June 5, 2012 at 10:34 pm —

    These are awesome ladies whose accomplishments are inspiring to me. I won’t be at TAM. Maybe someday. In the meantime, enjoy yourselves!

    And privileged dudebros? Fuck off already.

  25. Profile photo of flakkarin
    June 5, 2012 at 11:51 pm —

    Thanks for all the T-Rex love! In case it gets lost above, this guy was my friend when I worked at the Jurassic Forest in Alberta. He was wicked for scaring kids and keeping them in line. I made one girl burst into tears at the mere mention of him…
    (This is Hayley, but I guess that’s obvious from the pic)

Add Comment Register



Leave a reply