Quickies

Skepchick Quickies 8.15

Amanda

Amanda is a science grad student in Boston whose favorite pastimes are having friendly debates and running amok.

Related Articles

7 Comments

  1. “Is this the week that organized skepticism imploded? – from A”

    It should perhaps be noted that this article is on a blog that appears to be anti-skeptic and heavily interested in pseudoscience.

    1. Indeed but it doesn’t really mean that anything they’ve said on skeptics is wrong either. While these incidents say nothing for the issues that skeptics care and talk about it is a serious issue to organizing the movement to see some larger societal changes. While I doubt skepticism will implode, staying a small niche group instead of gaining a wider appeal seems very possible.

  2. Good list of things misogynistic assholes say. I mean, that’s the thing. I was fully aware that women were being sexually abused more than men, that entire industries existed to deliver nonconsenting women to men. And I’m against all sexual abuse. Gee whiz, what a concept. (Also, when it comes to ‘male oppression’, I always say “Meanwhile, the Men’s Rights movement was too busy harassing some woman for something stupid to notice.” And lulz were had by all.)

    Would be nice if “it’s a science thing” held more weight. Sadly, the Daily Mail doesn’t qualify as a scientific journal. Speaking of which…

    The problem with organized skepticism is that, well, we need more Rebecca Watsons and fewer Richard Dawkinses. Dawkins is like this because it gets him more face time. Though I don’t get what CFI gains by having creepers in their midst.

  3. I understand and accept what she was driving at with “it’s a science thing” but she overplayed her hand a bit at “the only biological difference.” The Y chromosome is actually kind of important, with far-reaching effects on development, health, and possibly (through the vector of sex hormone levels) on behavior.

    Nonetheless, her point remains sound. Biological sex differences between humans are extremely small, and there is enormous overlap in the range of characteristics.

  4. As Loren pointed out, the first link “oranganized skepticism imploded” is from a known anti-skeptic (and crackpot). And while you might say that everything in the article is true, and links to outside links, it should be noted that everything in the article is slanted (as is everything this BS-lovin’ guy writes), and that the links, while all outside and arguably relevant, are slanted as hell. Where’s the links to all the wins for the skeptical community in the past two years? I’d almost suggest you remove this link, or at least footnote it, as we shouldn’t be giving this guy any press or traffic.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close