Skepchick Quickies, 3.26


Jen is a writer and web designer/developer in Columbus, Ohio. She spends too much time on Twitter at @antiheroine.

Related Articles


  1. Can someone explain something to me? The "A few clues" link had a line that got the staff of an event in trouble:  "Women: Need another beer? Let one of our friendly (female) event staff get that for you."
    Someone claimed this was sexist, and pandering to men. But this is a message to women, explaining that other women could bring them beer. What does men have to do with it?
    Or did I misunderstand something? I honestly don't understand.

      1. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh….
        I had the same problem as Narvi, and thought it was an acknowledgement of the sexism in the industry. My first reading of that sentence was "Hey, women. We understand there will be a lot of social rejects trying to buy you drinks. Avoid them by asking one of your fellow females to get you a beer." What it actually said was, "Hey, guys. There will be hot chicks around waiting to serve you."
        Wow. Who thought that was a good idea?

    1. It is implying that women are the only ones who can serve drinks. It is subtle, yes but still a sexist comment if you look a little deeper.
      Personally the Health Canada article frustrated me (I'm Canadian). The article and the comments were just so saddening. People have such naievete when it comes to natural remedies. Just because something was used for a long time or is 'natural' doesn't mean it is good! However I suppose most people don't look at things skeptically. So sad that these kinds of opinions are becoming more and more prevalent in Canada.

      1. It's not subtle at all. They are listing women as a reason why going there is awesome, which assumes only heterosexual males interested in having beer served by women are welcome. 

    2. "Need another beer? Let one of our friendly event staff get that for you."
      See the difference?

    3. Surely Women should be getting the drinks for the men, it's the natural way 
      coat get my now I'll – place these words in the correct order. 

    1. Exactly what I thought… but then I read the article anyway. What a dumb article, they obviously are trying to make an arguement for why these "meds" should be available but waffle in attempting to do so while appeasing the SBM crowd that they come across as bleck.

      1. the whole pb lies in the paragraph :
        "And yet — and it is crucial that there is an "and yet" — homeopathic treatments do have effects. I have very close friends who swear by these treatments; the comfort they take, not only from the drops and tablets, but also from the guidance and counsel of homeopathic "doctors," is undeniable." (emphasis not mine)
        you go from scientific accuracy to a bunch of "friends" who "swear" by a sham… ohlala!!! How can this anecdote be relevant???

  2. reading comments is never a good idea. 
    "Yes I honestly do think this. I think everyone is oversensitive when it comes to verbal racism, sexism, etc." …. 
    I wish I wasn't triggered so easily :( But the thought that some priviliged white heterosexual arsehole thinks it's HIS decision when other people have a "right" to be offended just… And it's the fucking norm. That's what hurts so much. 

  3. Oh man. I had to stop reading the homeopathy article comments, I was alternating between raging and laughing too much. :P

    1. yeah, apparently homeopathic medicine is still "a VERY POWERFUL PLACEBO and can still work as advertised." WTF???

      1. Since we're going to be able to get homeopathy all supported by Health Canada and all soon apparently anyway, WHY NOT? Our Minister of Health is a bloody chiropractor.

  4. This part gave me rage face: Health Canada says some natural-health products do require clinical trials, but most are approved based on less-rigorous evidence, such as small studies with no placebo comparison, or proof simply they have been used traditionally by large numbers of people for centuries.

  5. Traditional medicine is the second most powerful curative known to man, exceded only by non-western medicine.

  6. Can we create a conspiracy theory?  Homeopathy is being pushed by right-wing industrialists, for 2 reasons. 
    1) The profit margins are huge, raw materials are sugar and water, two of the cheapest substances known to man, and there are no expensive clinical trials.  Most of the cost is packaging, distribution and marketing.
    2)  Since it doesn't work, <del>dupes</del> customers will get sick and die quickly, and so will put much less of a drain on Social Security, Medicare, pensions, etc. and, being dead, they won't complain so much when their 401K's tank due to Wall Street shenanigans.
    Oh, wait…

  7. "Here's another interesting take for all the science advocates.

    Has prescribed use of a homeopathic remedy ever injured anyone? The science folks claim that HP has no active ingredients, so it seem likely the answer is "no."

    On the other hand, many people have been injured by prescribed medical treatments"
    I love this comment. Because some people have had ill effects from genuine medicine and homeopathy does nothing, surely we should keep prescribing it. Even if we accept the basic premise, absurd as it is, surely it would be more logical to conclude that we should just not try to do anything at all. That would certainly be a far more cost-effective way of not accomplishing anything.
    It's like arguing that because people have been injured in traffic but you can't get injured by attempting uselessly to teleport to your intended destination, teleportation is a better form of transport than cars or bicycles or even walking.

Leave a Reply to ineedavacationCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button