Brian will be presenting his talk “Sounds from Beyond!” Monday, March 26th in the New England College Simon Center at 7pm in Henniker, NH

Please go to this or have someone go that can read your letters into record.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
HB 1457 is a bill defining how Scientific Inquiry should be defined and taught, by two representatives Gary Hopper and John Burt.

HB 1457 states:

“Scientific Inquiry. Require science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes.”

and can be seen here:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1457.html

What is the issue with this bill? 

This bill is worded in a very subtle way and may seem benign.  It is true that science does not hold on to one idea, science is always giving a nod to uncertainty and possible change.  However, the most troubling part of this bill comes from   “new evidence” and “Not committing to theories”

By not defining the terms “new evidence”, it becomes unclear as to what kind of evidence will be valid for consideration in the classroom.  Does any kind of evidence get accepted?  What if the evidence brought in by a parent or student, is from a study that has not been peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal?  Will this type of evidence  be required to carry the same weight and consideration as actual scientific evidence provided by a study that has undergone peer-review and has shown up in scientific publications?

How much evidence?

By allowing the term “new evidence” to be so broad, people/students may think a theory will be overturned because one lone scientist discovered it.  Will they make the connection that a scientific theory is same as our day-to-day vernacular suggests?  Instead of what a scientific theory really is actually defined:  A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.  It cannot be overturned because of one new study.  It can be overturned, when a consensus of the scientific community has been reached, thanks to the repeated verification and study of the “new evidence”.

By allowing “new evidence” to be so broad, does it matter the form of evidence?  

Will science teachers have to teach Astrology during the Astronomy units, because of a well known astrologer and blogger posts about the 13 astrological signs and their “influence” on a person in relation to the various planets with those signs?

David Brooks’ “Granite Geek” article of the Nashua Telegraph said it best with

“Mention of astrology, claiming evidence about an instantaneous universal force unknown to science, means physics class should “not commit” to Newton’s ideas about gravity. Homeopathy means classes should “not commit” to basic chemistry. The Hollow Earth Theory means earth science should “not commit” to plate tectonics. Brouwer’s Intituitionism (to dredge up memories from college days) means math class should “not commit” to irrational numbers. And so on.”

“Not committing to just one theory”

Interestingly enough, this does not get limited to just science.  This bill in fact opens up possibilities for other subjects with the “Not committing to theories” statement.  What about our history classes?  Will history teachers have to give equal weight to Sarah Palin’s version of Paul Revere’s midnight ride, if some random person can provide any kind of evidence to it?

An even better example would be Economics!  Economics teachers should consider what they teach as well. For example:  They should not just teach the classic Capitalism theory which is so popular here in America, but Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Neoclassical economics, Keynesian economics, and any other theories deemed relevent by a student or parent.  New evidence may show that any of these economic theories are valid and if a student or a parent should bring these subjects up, then by george the teacher better be ready to do so.

(Wish I could take credit for the economics segment.  It’s brilliant, but it was brought up by a Dartmouth Professor who’s name escapes me right now; I apologize and thank you!)

While my questions/examples may seem far fetched and unreasonable, this is what many people think of when it comes to science.  Many people seem to share the incorrect thinking “Anything goes, after all.. science is just guessing”.  No, I am afraid it is not that simple.  Science is not out there just guessing with no guidelines, review, and oversight.  The scientific process is self correcting and stringent.  This type of thinking and other anti-science thinking from the population is not helpful to our society; it is especially problematic when our legislators follow up on this with bad bills.   The news media keeps mentioning how tough these tough economic times are.   It may be safe to assume that science and technology will be the types of jobs that keep growing in demand. Our state should be doing everything we can to attract these types business.  Showing our commitment not just to education, but an educational system that is strong in science and technology, can only help our situation (both present and future).  How can NH expect to attract these industries (that are so readily found in Massachusetts) when our state legislators are set on scaring them away with anti-science legislation such as HB 1457 and its other anti-science counter part 1148?

Representatives John Burt and Gary Hopper as far as I am aware, are not educators nor do they not have a background in science. Instead of helping to strengthen our states educational system,  they are setting  our students up for confusion.  In fact, if these two would go take a look, the NH Dept. of Education already has an extensive outline for how scientific inquiry should be taught in the “Scientific Process Skills” section of the document “K-12 Science Literacy New Hampshire Curriculum Framework”   found at this link.  Why try to change what has already been laid out by the qualified people the state hired, by writing inferior laws?  Now I understand some would argue that the state has not provided a perfect guideline for teaching scientific inquiry.  That may be true, but it is a far better guideline then what Representatives John Burt and Gary Hopper has provided us with.  HB 1457 is a good example of why those who do not have a clue of what they are doing when it comes to education or science, should not be writing bills that influence or affect education.

Please go to the Educational Committee hearing and ask that Bill 1457 be killed in committee.  If you cannot go to the hearing, then please write the committee members and also send someone to read your letters to the committee for the record.

Sources:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/945078-196/lawmakers-zero-in-on-science-theory.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1457.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H05

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.education.nh.gov%2Finstruction%2Fcurriculum%2Fscience%2Fdocuments%2Fscience.doc&ei=8ZAUT6CyDOnl0QG-r6TKAw&usg=AFQjCNEZ_YmW_18wmLvuYLH9L3e9oaQm0A&sig2=dHBYUKMC_usI3AxIxB9Q1A

UPDATE: Please see below, and the link to the SkeptiCamp Wiki for new details about this event.

SkeptiCamp New Hampshire is just over a month away! Please join us for the first such event in New England. Based off of the unconference model of BarCamp, SkeptiCamp is a dynamic event with lots of participation and interaction.

We will be holding SkeptiCamp at The Barley House in Concord, NH on Saturday, October 22nd from 11am-4pm. For those coming from Boston please look at Concord Coach Lines for the South Station <-> Concord bus line. It’s a easy alternative for those coming from the Boston area, especially if you don’t have a car.

Please note that due to the limited space, registration is required to attent. Registration can be done at our EventBright page. If you want to cancel your registration please let us know so that we can release the seat to others. Speaking slots are even more limited, so if you have a topic you’re interested in presenting please contact our event coordinator, Dale Roy.

This event is made possible by the co-sponsorship of the James Randi Education Foundation.

This month we welcome our first return speaker. Bart Center, writer of “The Atheist Camel Chronicles” is joining us to talk about his new book “The Atheist Camel Rants Again!”

Bart is also the operator of Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, a website for post-rapture pet care.

So please join us, 7pm at The Shaskeen in Manchester on September 12th. More information can be found at the event facebook page. Please RSVP there or here in the comments.

All our information and no questions or engagement, what is it all for if not to help others make informed decisions. Of course, when you do engage in our community it can get messy.  I know this all too well.  I wrote a blog on a skepchick article, which was my last straw, in the feminist movement.  I felt like I was being told how to think or feel about the topic.  My ability to stay silent was no longer palatable.  It was time for me to consider putting up or shutting up.  So, put up I did.  I am no worse for wear, my backlash could have been worse.  Not, like Stef McGraw, a virtual no one in the skeptical movement spoke out on a YouTube video.  Stef McGraw started a “knife fight” with Rebecca Watson and was greeted with a “bazooka”.  The response was not equitable and what is the outcome?  Do we have someone new in our midst to help, or do we have an alienated girl who will never look back? (Stef, will have to answer that question.)  However, no one takes the messy cake more then Dawkins.  The biggest name in atheism/skepticism movement stepped into the fray with, maybe, what he thought was response of refreshing perspective.  Dawkins, (#75) realizing it or not stepped on the biggest land-mine I have seen setting foot into the movement.   Calls to boycott, letters being sent, oh boy the list goes on for miles.

Right or wrong, the three of us stepped out, extended our necks and to varying degrees have experienced attempted beheadings.  Many of the people who disagree with you are going to get angry and try to shut you down.  The angry ones are going to do so in a variety of ways: Dismissiveness, Insults, Ganging up, Block you, Un-friend you, Mean Tweets, E-mails of anger, and a 100 other ways I care not to think about.  It’s the internet folks It can’t help itself, it’s going to get messy.  It is shame-almost criminal-to let anyone scare others into being silent.  If you are not ready to take the heat, do not start with the hottest topic out there.  Start with the small controversies-if there is such a thing-to get your feet wet and into the game.  For example: Large: my “feminism” article; many comments, much energy resulted from this on both sides.  Small: I wrote another article on chemicals natural versus synthetic; no comments and no interest.  The Internet is messy and it is fickle, don’t take it personally.  When you decide to write, write what interests you regardless of what you consider of interest to the public.  (I am an amateur.  I am not internet famous. However, this has been my limited experience: messy and fickle)

Now that you have been scared off, there is a good side to the internet.  The positive response.  It is so rewarding to know you are not the only one who thinks the same way.  I am not going to lie, it is a little kick of caffeine-my drug of choice-to my system.  However, when the topic is a controversial one of great magnitude, it will be mostly of the silent hidden kind.  (Silent is defined as private messages, emails, and conversations) Again, almost criminal to not share your opinion because you are letting the loudest and meanest voices of the internet scare you.  By staying silent out of fear, you are allowing only one side to have a voice and dictate the end result.  So, if you are staying silent out of fear, who are you helping and what are you sending to people like Stephanie?

Now, I am not taking any sides.  The side of the Skepchicks, Dawkins, or Stef; even though this article until now does sound like I have taken one.  “Write what you know” is what my classes say.  This is what I have seen and experienced and therefor what I know.  Are there other examples out there? Sure! Do I know enough to write about them? NO!

Happily and Sadly, we are a group of evidence seeking people.  Happily, because how else do you keep people properly informed?  Sadly, because there are just some things, evidence is not in existence for-if even needed.  So, this whole article maybe dismissed due to a lack of “evidence” but if support or any other opinion is silent… then I have none to give do I? (None as in it was given in private. Meaning, they did not want to be ousted, so it is not in existence. The evidence it is not mine to give) It is a viscous circle; “You say there are those who share your opinion, but are afraid to give it.  So you have no proof! So you are free to attack and how can anyone defend themselves?”

Now, I don’t want visible pats on the back, this is not why I write.  Nor do I want people to speak just for the sake of speaking.  When I choose to write, I write to share my ideas regardless of public opinion.  (That is a bold thing to for anyone starting out to do!)  So, what the heck is the point, what do I want out of this article?  I want constructive commentary from both sides of any issue.  I want constructive engagement of ideas that compliment/conflict with one another.  If we all shout the loudest, no one will listen.  If we all agree, we will accomplish little and if we all disagree, we will accomplish little.  I want those who are afraid to speak up, regardless of the “sides” they support or the issue of interest.

What purpose does it serve to call someone a troll, other then to cut down and alienate.  If you are capable of calling someone a troll, then you certainly are capable of saying “I need to disengage with you, it seems we are getting nowhere and frustration is getting the better of me” Is it idealistic? OH HELL YES! I know this, however, why not work towards it?  If we want more diversity in our movement, then maybe we need not only seek out more women and nationalities explicitly, but through demonstration of diversity of voice and ideas.  So, speak up!  Thanks to Dawkins joining in, more people have gotten engaged and have chosen to join in discussion.  Hopefully, this trend of increased engagement continues in a constructive manner.

Back in October, 2010. One of the founders (Andrew Cramb) sent me an email stating psychic John Edward would be performing at The Palace Theatre in June. I thought it would be a good idea to put something together, but till I had a good idea best to put it on the back burner. After all, there was plenty of time to do something.  However, what I did do in the mean time, was come up with a pamphlet called “Rational Guide to Psychics”.

Then, back in November, I was on a Skeptical Activism panel at TAM Australia and ideas were being kicked around about what people can do to become more active. When I brought up the John Edward protest idea, one of the Young Australian Skeptics (sorry, I can’t remember who) threw out the idea of the “Psychic Bingo Cards”. I thought this was a GREAT idea.

After arriving back to the states, I did some research on the bingo cards, and bookmarked a few sites.  I shared the ideas with a few people I could trust to keep my thoughts quiet till I was ready to implement a plan.

While coming up with a full plan, I tried first to get the show shut down. So I contacted The Palace and their president, Peter Ramsey.  I had no idea what Peter Ramsey thought of John Edward- did he believe in his abilities? Would I receive flack for trying to meddle and waste his time?- but he agreed to meet with me. When we met, Ramsey said due to the nonprofit status of the Palace and how they operate; Denial of use or closing down any show is not an option.  Anybody that pays for the cost of its use is welcome to hold a performance there. However, the real surprise not his support, but how much of his support he offered. Peter Ramsey was coming from the idea of free speech. He was giving me the same opportunity he would give anybody else to protest any performance or event going on at the theater.  Happy with the end result and confident with the knowledge that The Palace Theater, at least, wouldn’t force us away.

As it became closer to the date of John Edward’s show, I made sure to notify the Manchester Police Department of our intentions as well as City Hall.  (This is an important step, in case things should go wrong. Nothing was expected too, but covering your self is always a very good idea) I also had some trouble getting the bingo cards done. I didn’t need 800 completely different cards.  What I did want however, was enough cards that had some kind of random look to them. Thanks to Tim Farley, he pointed me to an online bingo card generating website, I was able to use 27 words and generate enough cards with the effect I wanted.  800 of the same card would not have the same positive affect… if any at all.

My original plan was always to get the stuff done a day or so before the show: stuff the envelopes with cards and pencils, then go protest.  Then as probability taken personally would have it, the Thursday before the event I ended up getting a staph infection in my hand (we think due to a spider bite) and spent the weekend dealing with it.  Monday -the day before the show- I spent half the day in the ER, while my wife was dealing with an important family matter.  I spent Tuesday morning in the ER again, as things were not looking better.  Thankfully, it didn’t take too long so I was able to drop off stuff to be copied for the protest. After everything that happened, I was feeling kind of down due to my hand, and I had no idea how I was going to stuff envelopes, 800 of them, before the show basically one handed.

At this point of the tale, all I can do is express how important it is to have a good V.P.  When the leader of the group is feeling sorry for themselves, the VP needs to motivate your sorry depressed ass.  It also, helps that my VP (Dale Roy) is also my wife. She knows how to motivate me and kick it into gear. I was ready to pack in the idea of putting the bingo cards into envelopes with golf pencils. However, after what we’ll call a “heated discussion” Dale convinced me that we needed to go through envelope stuffing process. Handing out the bingo cards alone would be a failure. So, while we were waiting for the printing to be done, she ran back to the store and got the envelopes and golf pencils. I wasn’t the fastest guy stuffing envelopes with pencils, but we got a lot done.

Next stop was Staples to get the printouts, then to the Manchester Library with our crew of 5 others to stuff envelops. We worked our butts off until 6pm, we had just over 500 stuffed. Short of the 800 we printed, but I really didn’t think we’d get them all handed out. When we arrived to The Palace, we met with the officer on duty, the general manager (Mike) of The Palace, and I had an email from Peter on my phone saying that if we had any issues with anybody to deal with the cops and a “good luck”.

So our original idea was to hand out the cards as people walked in, say they were for the show. If anybody asked questions we would tell them we’re not with the show, but that these were to help you keep track of what was said. After a short time, we were told we couldn’t say “for the show” because that makes people think we were with John Edward. We of course, apologized and changed that to “These are to help you remember what was said during the performance and just so you know, we’re not with the show, “.  With the exception of a couple people who gave them back to us and one forcefully handed it back crumpled up, people seemed to like them. Quite a few people came out and asked if they could have more for the people they were with.  We ended up giving out every single bingo card we had stuffed. People loved them!

During the time handing things out, because of my fun injury, I walked around to make sure things were going smoothly and talked to a reporter from the Nashua Telegraph who was conducting interviews. One of our members works for the Telegraph, but he wasn’t the one interviewing. He knew we were trying to be low key and not identify our selves as Granite State Skeptics till the end of John Edward’s performance and he respected that.

After we handed out all our cards we went to get dinner at the fabulous Penuche’s, where the waitress asked what we were doing and asked for a copy of the bingo card and the pamphlets. That was a surprise, but we all had a good chuckle about psychics and the show going on next door.

I will admit, we were worried about part two of the plan.. I don’t know what happened during the show, but with around 500 people, in a 800 seat theater having these bingo cards, Edward had to have noticed. If he addressed it or not, or just ignored it, or if anybody even asked about them, I have no idea. However, when people leave the show and see the same people handing out pamphlets that state “RATIONAL GUIDE TO PSYCHICS” and that it’s presented by the Granite State Skeptics on the cover, there was no hiding it anymore.  To ensure there were absolutely no problems, we were even more passive. We stood in the same places as before, but this time we were not actively passing out the pamphlets.  Rather we had them in our hands ready for people to take them if they wanted.  If they had any questions we would tell them to please read the pamphlet and they could email us if they wanted.

Surprisingly, very few people came out actively seeking us out due to anger. Instead, most just ignored us. A few people took the pamphlets and there were a few people actually came out looking for us wanting these things. Well, they didn’t know we had them, so I’m assuming they wanted to talk to us but they were excited to see the pamphlets and took them happily. Of course, those that were taken, a majority of them ended up in the trashcans along the street. I hope some people read them before trashing them.  However, even those few that took them because they actually wanted them, is considered by us as a win.

The only real issue that happened was when Dale got a “talking to” by a patron of the show.  A woman came up to her and said “Why are you protesting this? Go protest something that matters, like the abuse of animals…. You should go to a circus and protest them, they really abuse animals.  This is just a harmless show, YOU ARE SO STUPID!”

So all and all it was a great event and we had fun doing it. The response so far has been more amazing than I could have imagined. We were even added under the criticism section of the John Edward Wikipedia page, but due to a bit of a Wikipedia battle, we are no longer there.

I’d like to thank all those that helped, Andrew Cramb, the Young Australian Skeptics, http://skeptico.blogs.com/ (for the Bingo idea), of course the people at The Palace Theater and Peter Ramses, the Manchester Police, the people that handed stuff out, Darrik Fauvel, Lindsey Miller, Charles Windheim, and Anna Naglebush, Penuche’s for providing a great place to crash while we waited, The Nashua Telegraph, Mark Edward, Susan Gerbic, Rational Alchemy who interviewed us the night of the protest, and of course Dale, because of her motivation, this event was a huge success, the pencils and envelopes did make all the difference.

Image from Flickr - Matthew Beckler

Ah nature, its beauty astounds me and I gladly walk through its many wonders. To think, all it took was time, pressure, and a few chemical reactions to make some impressive features. I am even more impressed by how our means of better living was achieved through nature. Achieved through our ancestors curiosity and survival instincts. As a result many of the proven natural aides are used today, albeit in different form. However, today, we have a population of people who think the world is in trouble. That our world is better served by abandoning our advancements and return to the primitive past. While it is true many of our products used today are nature based; that does not mean abandoning our advances will provide a safer or better environment.

Many things that make life easier came from plants. Aspirin, for example originated from the bark of a willow tree in the form of salicylic acid. Thanks to Bayer and other makers of aspirin, most people no longer have to worry about their stomach becoming upset. Retinal is another plant-based product that has been manipulated to suit our purpose. Cosmetic companies figured out retinal are good for smooth skin. A third chemical, and the focus of this article, is oxalic acid. This is a chemical found in many plants and it is made readily in the lab for industrial and commercial use. Oxalic acid is used in many disinfectants, bleaching agents, and insecticides for household, commercial, and industrial use. As for plants, it can be found in Spinach, Swiss chard, and most notably –if you are a New Englander-Rhubarb.

However, what should be considered safe? Should a chemical extracted from boiled leaves be considered or is the lab created chemical safer? In a very recent Facebook post, I had this exact discussion. The implied argument was making an oxalic acid pesticide from rhubarb leaves is safer and better than buying the same product off the shelf.

This fabulous little article: How to Make Rhubarb Leaf Natural Pesticide Was used to imply and promote a “natural” way of killing insects by the person posting it. The arguments are always the same; start off with the fallacy that things from nature are better. Followed up by sins of science’s past. Nature-philes seem to think sins of the past somehow prove the nature is better argument. Science has numerous sins in it’s past; not many disagree that several mistakes were made. Sadly, those that see science’s ability to change/evolve and create new products that do less harm as a weakness. Those who believe we need to go back to nature feel consistency despite proof is the better way to go. Natural remedies and treatments have been around for thousands of years with little to know change, therefor better. Accordingly, it is better to have the stomach lining irritated by drinking salicylic acid tea from a willow tree, rather than take aspirin. Fortunately, science does not follow this logic. Poisons from the past are either no longer being used or are used in a safer manner then before. Thanks to advancements in science and a better working knowledge, we are better off then our grandparents.

Back to oxalic acid, whether it is created in a lab or extracted from plants it has the same chemical structure and properties. Both plant based and lab based oxalic acid are considered strong acids, both can be used as an insecticide, and both takes about twenty-four hours to biodegrade through aerobic and anaerobic processes.

According to the EPA, if any oxalic acid is found outdoors, it is usually due to the surrounding natural environment and not the result of household use. However, for use as a pesticide, the EPA did a further study and found “A structural activity report indicates that the chemical is practically nontoxic to all aquatic organisms with effect concentrations exceeding 1000 ppm across all taxa. Based on the endangered species level of concern, applications would need to be > 100 pounds per acre to result in the potential for risks. Based on the maximum application rate of 2 pounds per acre, no effects are likely” [EPA 2005]

The above information is for general environmental exposure. The risk of acute exposure to animals and people, should rhubarb leaves be eaten is more significant. The toxicology information seems to vary; according to the Lethal Dose (LD50) 375mg/kg is the limit when tested on rats. When translated to people: an adult at about 145 pound (65.7kg) it would take about 24.6 grams of pure oxalic acid to cause death. However, if you look at Material Safety Data Sheets, they report that a lethal amount can be as little as 5 grams. It has been reported that it takes much less to cause someone to fall seriously ill from the chemical and dogs will die with only 1g/kg. It seems, even with proper measures it is difficult to pin down an exact amount that would cause harm or death. Safety can be very complex and difficult when you are talking about rhubarb leaves themselves. A rhubarb leaf can contain anywhere from .3g – 1.3g of oxalic acid per 100 g of leaves. The amount of oxalic acid varies depending on location, soil conditions, size of leaves, and other variables.

For those who do not know what they are doing, this should be an indicator of the severe problems for their pets and children. The troubling part of all of this is the above recipe for the natural pesticide does not call for exact measurements. It calls for 20 leaves and water. How much water? Do you fill the pot? What if I only want one bottle of it, do I still use 20 leaves? Will I end up making something far more potent than you intended? These are important questions that should have answers to them that are not provided in the above simple recipe. An oxalic acid based pesticide that is packaged will be able to provide you with proper instructions specific to use and area. It offers a greater possibility for control and with proper use –safety. When it comes to things like pesticides, those who do not know what they are doing or have a general disregard for chemistry really should not be dabbling with the unknown. Significant amounts of proper research, especially if you have children should be done before attempting a home brew. Care and proper precautions should be taken to ensure safety will ALL chemicals.

One thing that needs to be made clear is regardless of where the pesticide comes from-nature or lab-it needs to be used with caution and sparingly. All chemicals have adverse affects on living organisms when used improperly. The chance of improper use increases with the uninformed. If someone who knows what they are doing, chooses to use a pesticide from boiled leaves, to save money that is fine. Try a recipe that has more specific instructions then 20 leaves and water. By relying on the claim “all we need to do is go back to nature”, you have set up a potential for greater risk and harm. As shown earlier in this article, obtaining reliable information on this ingredient has proven to be difficult. Why settle for uncertainty and risk, when more accurate possibly reliable versions are available. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking that a chemical is somehow safer because it came from nature. A more valid discussion would be on cost vs. benefit, but safety simply because its natural, is not.

References:

Oxalic Acid Content of Selected Vegetables

Rhubarb and Oxalic Acid

OXALIC ACID – Material Safety Data Sheet

The Rhubarb Compendium – Poison Information

EPA – Oxalic Acid

EPA – Inert Reassessment – Oxalic Acid

Documentation for Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health Concentrations – Oxalic acid

Chemicalland21 – Oxalic Acid

I have been pushed! Pushed to write my thoughts on feminism. For the past year I have heard about feminism and skepticism. Which normally, does not bother me. Feminism, serves a very important purpose when pointed in the correct direction. Today, I wonder if feminism is still going in the correct direction. Apparently, members of our own community are putting us women in a submissive and inferior role. There are several women in our community that are leading the charge vocally and thank goodness they are there to tell me how to feel about it! At least this is the impression I have been left with. I have been wrangling with and hashing out my own thoughts over the past several months. I keep biting my tongue, holding myself back. I hold myself back because; I have only been a member for the skeptical community actively for a short time. I keep waiting for someone more established in the community to speak up for those of us that do not feel the same as the popular opinion. No one has spoken up, which possibly means I stand alone… That is a very scary position to be in.

I have seen and experienced many instances of sexism, but not within the skeptical community; at least not enough to make me start ranting about it. In high school and college, I worked a job where there were no female cooks, and no female managers. That is till my last two years there, they had one. I just left a job where it was ruled by men but run by mostly women. As an added twist, I am a woman with a man’s name. I have run into instances of “disappointment” that I am a female. My favorite is the Marines. Makes me laugh every time I think about it. Back then I wasn’t laughing, but now I can. The male recruiter was very chipper and couldn’t wait to talk to the Dale, who took the ASVABS. Till he finds out I’m Dale. The sound of disappointment was unmistakable! It then became an awkward conversation of what I plan to do and intense encouragement to continue with my plans to go to college. In fact that was how it was for almost every recruiter. The poor Marine just didn’t know how to hide it.

Being married is an interesting variation on sexism. I am married; therefor, I must share the same opinion as my husband. If he is asked to do something, people assume it is the same as asking me if I want to be a part of it. Sorry, I don’t agree. If you ask my husband to participate, then you have only asked him. You want me to be a part of something; going through him doesn’t do you any good. We are two independent people who happen to be married. We do mostly our own thing, with many instances of shared interests. These are just a few examples of my experiences.

When I went to TAM7, I was so nervous. I was afraid that angry militant skeptics ready to kick ass would surround me. I was not concerned about angry men or creepers. I made other plans as insurance against a ruined vacation. During, TAM7, I never felt so relieved to find militant skeptics a rarity. I found the community inclusive and welcoming into the fold. When my ideas were challenged during conversations I did not feel it was because I was a woman, but because I was not able to fully substantiate them. I had a good time and left excited. It was after the TAM7 conference I decided, I wanted to be more involved. Slowly, in a turtle like manner, I have been trying.

In my efforts to become more involved, I have come across a few things that have annoyed me. One of those things, is the possibility of feminism in skepticism is losing its way a bit by nitpicking members of our community needlessly. What I mean is, when women themselves do things that do not necessarily promote equality, and then criticize others for doing the same thing.

Starting with the most recent example: Brian Dunning’s cover art. From Brian’s own mouth “It’s a Fleetwood Mac Parody”. Many people saw it as a parody and many people did not. While, I personally do not like the cover art from an artistic standpoint, I did not think of the “submissive position” of the woman. At least, I didn’t until it was pointed out to me that the cover suggested I had my “place” at the feet of a man. The same article talks about how the Skepchick calendar being different. Really? How so? Is it different because there is another calendar full of skeptical men? So, we equally objectify each sex and that makes it okay? In the same article, porn was mentioned as being okay. Quote from the author: “I don’t even think there is anything wrong with much of pornography when placed in the correct context.”  I am curious, what the right context is as I have not found porn to be “female friendly”. Again, I didn’t think about it till it was brought up. Before this point, it was just PORN! I was not checking it out for its commentary on the state of our society and how it affects or objectifies women! *

One other thing that has bothered me is the whole Angry Vagina Workshop. I just don’t understand how an angry vagina is a positive and relevant activity towards feminism. How and in what way were making vaginas relevant to feminism? To think people paid money to hear a talk on feminism and for about an hour, possibly more they did … then got to make vulgar crafts! ** Now, from what I gather from the attendees and a blogger, some did enjoy it and thought it was humorous. Others did not and left disgusted. I am not anti-vulgar humor and I am all for tension relievers when the topic gets too heavy. However, when people have paid money to hear a talk, I would have like a little more discretion in the choice of tension reliever. There are far more professional ways to go about it and stay relevant to the talk.

The Skepchick’s have been keeping an eye on feminism and have been doing good work. Their efforts to promote skepticism, vaccination, and suppress the Age of Autism ads have been fantastic! However, when going after others for their miss steps, maybe a once over in your own mirror would be a good thing. It would be a good thing for all of us in the community to take a step back and say, “Am I living in a glass house? Should I throw this stone?”  I am guilty of it myself, I am sure of it. Are we losing our way and hindering our own goals every time we attack one another for sexism? My gut feeling is yes. However, we all know what anecdotes and guts mean… fat load of nothing.

Ever since TAM7 I have felt the community to be one of equality. I have only mentioned two events that have irked me the most. I have not seen or felt discriminated against till I was told that I was. I do not like feeling like I am being told how to feel.

While I end this article hear to keep it from being unbearably long; absolutely nothing personal is meant in this article. I have just decided to hash out my thoughts and feelings publicly. I love the good work people such as the Skepchicks have been doing and can wear my skepticism with pride because of their work. As I have mentioned in the opening line, I am going to keep working through my thoughts, good, bad, and ugly. This will be a series of articles to see where this woman ends up on the other side of the journey.

* Disclosure: I agree with Amy.  I don’t have a problem with most porn. It just struck me as odd in the context of her article.

** Disclosure: The name of the workshop was Feminist Skepticism, it was not Angry Vagina Workshop.  I did not attend workshop.

“Tom Lynch is an internationally known and well respected freelance Paranormal Investigator based in New England and travels across the country to help his clients uncover the truth about what they believe to be paranormal activity”

His promo video can be seen here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pztn8Cz5cmw

This of course generated tons of buzz around the world. It’s caused enough of an issue that the US Power Balance website posted this statement.

Power Balance products work. The existing reports out there are fundamentally incorrect. Power Balance did not make any claims that our product does not perform.

We are committed to bringing our performance technologies to every athlete in the world from professional to amateur to recreational. Our community of believers continues to grow each week. While our previous claims in marketing ads are not up to Australia’s ACCC standards – we stand behind our products. The belief of thousands of consumers and athletes who wear our products are not wrong.

A preliminary study recently conducted on the product’s performance variables was commissioned and the findings have determined that the product does in fact provide a “statistically significant” result on the wearer’s performance. We are committed to further evaluating the product’s performance parameters so that we can continue to provide products that enhance the wearer’s lifestyle.

Numerous actual consumer testimonies supporting the wristbands’ performance were provided to the ACCC by Power Balance. Despite that, they requested Power Balance remove marketing claims until it could provide them with their narrow criteria of randomized, double-blind scientific studies that supports the use of those marketing phrases.

Power Balance voluntarily agreed to stop using those phrases. Power Balance believes and wants users to believe that we will do whatever it takes to appropriately, and with honor and integrity make our products available to every consumer in every market in the world.

Hrm, a study? I ended up emailing the company asking them for more information about this study. The reply was filled with lots of marking talk and skating the law about what they can actually claim, but here’s the important bit in the email I got from Power Balance.

Currently the only scientific studies that have been done were measuring lead content and also measuring radiation to insure there are no harmful effects. One done by a Professor at Yale Testing for radiation and the other by a Texas based 3^rd party organization called Intertek. Both studies came back with no harmful effects.

So, the official website says they’ve done studies on the effectiveness, but when you email them about the studies, none exist. Only studies on safety have been done.