Derail: PZ Myers on Decent Humans and Getting Laid

[charlou]

^ ... and women, actually.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, PZ Meyers was in that bar, and Watson said E.G. was in the bar hanging out. She denied having a direct conversation with him, but she implied that E.G. was nearby (in the group?) when she announced her unquestionable intention to go directly to bed, do not pass go, do not collect $200. So, it stands to reason that there is at least a possibility that PZ, if not knowing the exact identity of E.G., knows the small universe of potential attendees who could be E.G.

Think of the scene based on what Watson (my dear Watson?) said. A group of people in the bar for many hours. I'm not sure when her speech ended and how long it took them all to make their way to the bar, but let's say the presentation ended at 10pm (rarely do events go much later than that), and let's assume they didn't meet at the bar until 11pm or 12 midnight. That leaves 4-5 full hours of hanging out at the bar in a group, and we are led to believe by Watson that E.G. was one of the blokes in the mix.

Watson wants to go to bed at 4am. She announces that intention. E.G., who was in the group, winds up in her elevator with her. He could not have waited long to leave, could he? I mean, at 4am, elevators aren't stopping at every floor, so unless E.G. leaves within a few seconds, max a minute, after Watson leaves, then he won't make it to the elevator in time to get on with her.

PZ is there and when the entire brouhaha erupts, he certainly is not a big drinker (he says so himself) and likely has a reasonable memory of the events. It would jump to mind when Watson - a featured member of the group - left, and then it would is at least very possible, if not probable, that he would remember which men were there after Watson left, and which left at about the time she did. That can't be too many men. I think he either knows, or has a good suspicion of who it is.

Fast forward to the blog article above - he writes about the guy who gets shot down by the atheist woman as being angry and then going on blogs and posting about man-haters and "whining" about it. Watson never once said that E.G. did that. So, how does P.Z. know? Two possibilities - one is that he doesn't know, and just assumes that anyone who gets shot down by an atheist woman and mentioned obliquely on youtube is going to not only go online to defend himself, but also take the position that the woman is a man-hating bitch, for lack of a better term. Alternatively, PZ knows who the guy is, or probably is, and knows that person commented on his or another blog about the event and is shooting a shot across the guy's bow to say "dude, you were out of line - and my opinion of you is dropping - if you want to associate with me at these events, you need to cool it."

Do me a favor and re-read the PZ blog in light of the assumption that PZ was there when Watson announced her intention to go to bed, and left, and the necessary inference that E.G. must have also left the group no later than a few seconds to a minute, if not simultaneously with, Watson. Does my theory hold any more water? It may not. Just throwing it out there.

My gut tells me that if E.G. was trying to put the moves (as it were) on Watson, he did not just come up with the idea right in that elevator. He was probably eyeing her up for a while, trying to figure out how to get her attention. So, I think most likely Watson got up, said something like "Well, guys, this has been fun, but it's 4am and I'm tired. I really need to go to bed. Have a great night," and then E.G. saw that as an opportunity to be alone with her, and said something like, "Wow, is it 4am? Yeah, me too, I'm going to get going," and then walked with Watson to the elevator. Even if E.G. waited a few seconds or 10s of seconds to do that, then the temporal proximity would be noticed and remembered by those there.

Note that in her recounting of the story, Watson says EG asked said in the elevator that he would like to "talk MORE." Watsons story implies that EG, while not talking one-on-one with Watson, was among the group of folks hanging out in the bar and chatting generally.

[Ronja]

Now if my connection to RatZ will agree to work long and well enough, maybe I can finally get this answered. Don't hold your breath, though...*

Ronja, do you agree that elevator guy's invitation to coffee, as worded in the way Rebecca Watson claimed it was worded, is an example of misogynistic exploitation and parasitism?

My first reaction to this question was "Objection: argumentative and leading the witness!" I would prefer a more open question, like "What do you think of EG's behavior, based on the information given by Watson thus far?" - so I'll attempt to answer that, instead. I hope that is OK.

Firstly, I think that the possibility that PG knows or suspects who EG is, as presented by Coito recently here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 30#p935335 gives an interesting twist to the interpretation of PZ's blog post http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... _guide.php . We of course don't know, but the way Coito wrote about it, there is a possibility, IMO, that PZ was indeed addressing EG personally. On the other hand, it is equally possible to guess, as I understood that you did here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 15#p935161 (and in the next post) that PG was writing from a broader, more general context. After all, he has been to a number of atheist conferences/events over the years and he has addressed feminism and misogyny before on his blog - he may e.g. have been reacting to the fairly numerous unpleasant (aggressive, even threatening) comments made about Rebecca Watson on YouTube and on Skepchick.

Secondly, regardless if PG or Rebecca knows the name of EG, what can be said about his behavior hinges on a lot of things that we don't know and cannot know. So my analysis is pretty much a pile of ifs and buts.

* Did EG attend the panel discussion that opened with Rebecca Watson's speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik
* If he did attend, did he listen and pay attention to her speech?
* Did EG spend time close enough to RW to hear her comments in the bar (on her not liking to be hit on http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-myth ... and-jokes/ , RW's comment 06.21.2011)? Or did he just generally hang around, talking to other people and paying attention to them, instead?
* If he was close enough long enough, did he listen and pay attention to her comments? (they did not talk to each other - that much we do know from http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-myth ... and-jokes/ , RW's comment 06.21.2011 and http://skepchick.org/2011/07/update-plus-dating-advice/ video, 2:10 -> )
* Did he hear that RW said that she wanted to sleep, when she was leaving? Did he see her leaving, or did he arrive to the elevator via e.g. a restroom?

Based on that RW has described EG's manner in the elevator as "bold, direct, and confident" ( http://skepchick.org/2011/07/update-plus-dating-advice/ , RW's comment 07.23.2011), IMO the more information EG had about RW's likes, dislikes and preferences, the creepier his behavior seems (a shy awkward guy I would interpret differently, but Rebecca says that he wasn't). If EG had not really listened to anything she said that day or evening/night, then he likely is a fairly bog-standard dork, impolite and/or clueless but IMO not creepy. However, if he had heard and understood what she said about how much she dislikes the sexually explicit messages from her fans and how she does not like to be hit on at conferences, his behavior in the elevator starts to look really creepy to me. Why would any decent guy do what a gal has just said that she does not like, and do it so clearly on purpose? To test her? To intimidate her? To scare her, even?

If we assume that EG was aware of RW's preferences, dislikes and wishes, we still do not and cannot know about his motives. If his motive was to check if she means what she says, it was to some extent disrespectful of him, the meta-message being approximately "I choose to not believe what you say about yourself and I choose to ignore your stated wishes, because I consider my needs/interests (whatever they were) more important than your stated preferences." Personally, I would not experience that as creepy, I think, but sort of and . If, however, his motive was to cause fear or discomfort in her face or manner for his own satisfaction (sinister real-life "trolling"), then his behavior would border to sadistic, and that possibility is one I consider really creepy, possibly even misogynist (if he does similar stuff to other women, too).

To use an (imperfect) analogy: Say that someone had invited me to dinner and I had sent them email that I am allergic to certain foods. If I then get served such food, how uncomfortable I would feel would hinge very much on if that email had come through to my host, how dominant the uneatable dish was (the main course or just an easy-to-avoid side dish) and most of all, my host's manner. If they gave me a sly, appraising look, watching me for reaction, when handing me a dish completely filled with a foodstuff that causes me to break out in hives, I would consider their behavior clearly aggressive, whereas if they neutrally said "Please remember to avoid side dish X, it contains foodstuff Y." I would not interpret any negative intention into the situation.

But as I have said before: we don't know what exactly happened and as we cannot ever know for certain what EG's motive(s) was/were (even if he was identified, he could misremember, refuse to discuss or blatantly lie about his motives), so in that way this is all fairly academic.

* tale of woe here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =6&t=29975

[Thinking Aloud]

Guy meets girl in elevator.

INTERNET EXPLODES!!

[charlou]

Guy meets girl in elevator.

INTERNET EXPLODES!!

More like

Girl claims guy meets girl in elevator and invited her for coffee, and she uses it as an example of rampant sexism and misogyny among atheist males.

Are you aware of the full story, TA? If you don't give a shit about the full story, fine, btw. Many don't. I'm just wondering if you are aware of it.

[Hermit]

Girl claims guy meets girl in elevator and invited her for coffee, and she uses it as an example of rampant sexism and misogyny among atheist males.

That's it in a nutshell.

It also goes a lot further to answer the question as to whether you think "that elevator guy's invitation to coffee, as worded in the way Rebecca Watson claimed it was worded, is an example of misogynistic exploitation and parasitism", and you do it in 27 words rather than 887.

[Seth]

My dad used to tell me of a college chum he had who would walk boldly up to co-eds on campus and ask "Hi, want to fuck?"

Said he got slapped a lot, but he also got fucked a lot.

As long as the guy doesn't bash the girl over the head and drag her into the bushes, a request for sex should always be viewed favorably, as a compliment and acknowledgment of the girl's sexual potency and attractiveness.

After all, how many times do you think someone walked up to Andrea Dworkin and asked "Hi, want to fuck?"

[Coito ergo sum]

Now if my connection to RatZ will agree to work long and well enough, maybe I can finally get this answered. Don't hold your breath, though...*

Ronja, do you agree that elevator guy's invitation to coffee, as worded in the way Rebecca Watson claimed it was worded, is an example of misogynistic exploitation and parasitism?

My first reaction to this question was "Objection: argumentative and leading the witness!" I would prefer a more open question, like "What do you think of EG's behavior, based on the information given by Watson thus far?" - so I'll attempt to answer that, instead. I hope that is OK.

It's only improper to lead the witness if it's a friendly witness. Leading is proper at all other times, especially on cross-examination. In this case, you are not charlou's witness, so objection is overruled and the witness will answer the question.

Firstly, I think that the possibility that PG knows or suspects who EG is, as presented by Coito recently here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 30#p935335 gives an interesting twist to the interpretation of PZ's blog post http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... _guide.php . We of course don't know, but the way Coito wrote about it, there is a possibility, IMO, that PZ was indeed addressing EG personally. On the other hand, it is equally possible to guess, as I understood that you did here http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 15#p935161 (and in the next post) that PG was writing from a broader, more general context. After all, he has been to a number of atheist conferences/events over the years and he has addressed feminism and misogyny before on his blog - he may e.g. have been reacting to the fairly numerous unpleasant (aggressive, even threatening) comments made about Rebecca Watson on YouTube and on Skepchick.

Absolutely. What you say is quite possible. I think, however, his choice of words seem carefully chosen - IMO - and he is a professor, a smart feller, a good writer, and I wouldn't put it out of reach that he was being oblique in his reference to the participants. I have no way of knowing - it's more of a sense I got after reading and thinking about what he wrote. I freely admit that I may be reading more into it than he intended.

Secondly, regardless if PG or Rebecca knows the name of EG, what can be said about his behavior hinges on a lot of things that we don't know and cannot know. So my analysis is pretty much a pile of ifs and buts.

* Did EG attend the panel discussion that opened with Rebecca Watson's speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W014KhaRtik

To me, that doesn't matter since Watson's allegation that watching that panel discussion should put everyone on notice that she couldn't possibly want to be politely asked for coffee is a huge stretch. She talked mostly about sexism in general, and hate email in particular. I've watched it a couple of times. Nothing in there says anything about how hitting on women and/or asking them for coffee at inadvisable times/locations is the sexism she was referring to.

* If he did attend, did he listen and pay attention to her speech?

Good question, but why would that be relevant? Watson hasn't put all men on notice that she isn't to be hit on. In fact, she writes on her blog about how that's a good thing, and her speech at the panel discussion said nothing about being hit on. Complaining of sexism in general, and nasty hate mail, says nothing about whether a woman is placing invites for "coffee" on the "no list."

This idea that she had just given a speech on sexism is designed to bootstrap a "lack of consent" argument into this mix. She is basically injecting a pre-packaged "no" into the mix, saying that EG "should have known" she was not open to an impertinent suggestion for coffee. Nothing she said in her speech, however, says she isn't open to being approached by men, and in fact it would be quite sexist to assume that based on what she said. Feminists themselves say they are not man-haters who don't want men to be attracted to them or come on to them.

* Did EG spend time close enough to RW to hear her comments in the bar (on her not liking to be hit on http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-myth ... and-jokes/ , RW's comment 06.21.2011)?

Her statement in the video was a little different than that she doesn't like to be hit on. She did not say that. She said that she had said it was right after she finished talking about how it creeps her out when men sexualize her in that manner... Did she say she didn't like to be hit on? Or that she didn't like to be "sexualized."

Now let's assume that EG heard her talk about not wanting to be sexualized. Could we not also reasonably surmise that Elevator Guy was not trying to "sexualize" her but was really, in fact, interested in talking "more" and having some coffee with her - i.e. - able to interact with a woman in a non-sexual and respectful way? His actions in taking a no for an immediate answer seems to show that he wasn't pushing hard.

LOL - and it just occurred to me - kinda funny - at around 5:45 into the video, Skepchick refers to EG as the only guy who didn't get it, but the rest of the guys did "get it" and she thanks them for it. Really? What? All the men there "got it" because they didn't hit on her or ask her for flippin' coffee? LOL - this chick thinks that every guy there was aching to ask her for "coffee" that night, but since they were smart enough - unlike elevator guy - to "get it" they are lauded.

In her comment on 6.21.2011 that you refer to says this:

In that situation it would have been merely pathetic as opposed to threatening. And before a bunch of sad sacks start whining that I’m saying it’s always pathetic when a man hits on a woman: no. It’s pathetic when someone hits on a person (who has been talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to at conferences) by saying absolutely nothing to her before inviting her to his hotel room.

That sounds like an exaggeration. She is saying here that she was "talking nonstop" about how much she loathes the sexual advances she's subjected to at conferences. I wonder why she didn't just say that in the video then? Why use the term "sexualizes me in that manner" and not say "I had said a bunch of times that I didn't like to be hit on" and then he hit on me. It went from vague, to when she was called on it, she battened down the hatches and made it more specific.

Also - note her reference to those that might lodge some criticism - "bunch of sad sacks" and they are "whining." Really? Pot - kettle - black? Whining? I call shenanigans there. She's going to piss and moan about Dawkins asking her to stop whining and on 6/21 she has the gall to tell others to stop whining?

Now - interesting comment here too - she knows elevator guy was there listening to her. She was talking nonstop, and he was there listening to her. But, he didn't say a word to her. She knows who he is, and knows he was there in that group in the bar, and he was close enough for conversation, but he did not participate. I think she should name names.

Or did he just generally hang around, talking to other people and paying attention to them, instead?

It seems to me that the only conclusion to be reasonably drawn from what Skepchick herself said about it is that Elevator Guy must have obviously heard her talk about not wanting to be "sexualized." She refers to it as "just after I finished talking about not liking it when men sexualize [her] in that manner..." - if there was reasonable doubt as to whether elevator guy heard that, then why would it be offered as evidence that he knew or should have known that the request for coffee was specifically unwelcome? She must firmly believe that he for sure heard her.

* If he was close enough long enough, did he listen and pay attention to her comments? (they did not talk to each other - that much we do know from http://skepchick.org/2011/06/about-myth ... and-jokes/ , RW's comment 06.21.2011 and http://skepchick.org/2011/07/update-plus-dating-advice/ video, 2:10 -> )

I wonder if he talked among the group, as people do? Maybe he didn't talk to her directly one-on-one, but then again when you have a group of folks together chatting, the conversation goes all over the place. When Skepchick in the video says that EG said he wanted to talk "more," that implies that he said something and wasn't just silently monitoring or lurking in the conversation.

In the dating advice video she does clarify that she had specifically said that she didn't want to be hit on, and that he had never talked to her before. I don't see how he could have said "I'd like to talk MORE" if they hadn't talked before. Maybe she means that they hadn't talked just one on one before, rather than participating in the group conversation. She also allows for "flirting with members of the opposite sex in the normal manner..." That's, of course, whatever "manner" she doesn't view as creepy. And, then she proceeds to, of course, sarcastically refer to men "getting their rocks off" and then recommending blow up dolls.

* Did he hear that RW said that she wanted to sleep, when she was leaving? Did he see her leaving, or did he arrive to the elevator via e.g. a restroom?

How does that impact the question? Are we to really assume that a person is a misogynist merely because they don't take every word a woman says literally and never ever tries to make a suggestion that she ought to change her mind from her vocalized preferences?

Based on that RW has described EG's manner in the elevator as "bold, direct, and confident" ( http://skepchick.org/2011/07/update-plus-dating-advice/ ,

All after the fact embellishments. In her first video, he sounded like a timid fellow - "don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting and would like to talk more....would you like to come back to my room for coffee?" Response - "no" - then, elevator guy goes on his merry way. In the dating advice video that became "cornering" and a bold, direct, confident come-on. She went from having just got through talking about not liking to be "sexualized" and that became more specific - to repeated "constant" statements that she did not wish to be "hit on."

RW's comment 07.23.2011), IMO the more information EG had about RW's likes, dislikes and preferences, the creepier his behavior seems (a shy awkward guy I would interpret differently, but Rebecca says that he wasn't). If EG had not really listened to anything she said that day or evening/night, then he likely is a fairly bog-standard dork, impolite and/or clueless but IMO not creepy. However, if he had heard and understood what she said about how much she dislikes the sexually explicit messages from her fans and how she does not like to be hit on at conferences, his behavior in the elevator starts to look really creepy to me. Why would any decent guy do what a gal has just said that she does not like, and do it so clearly on purpose? To test her? To intimidate her? To scare her, even?

Or, to ask her for coffee, for real, to demonstrate how enlightened he is to be able to interact with women without sexualizing them?

Or, maybe she didn't really say she didn't like to ever be "hit on," and she spoke in more general terms like "sexualize" (which is the verbiage she originally used in describing the incident). Or, maybe the guy wasn't really paying all that much attention to what she was saying every minute of the several hours they spent in the bar.

If we assume that EG was aware of RW's preferences, dislikes and wishes, we still do not and cannot know about his motives. If his motive was to check if she means what she says, it was to some extent disrespectful of him, the meta-message being approximately "I choose to not believe what you say about yourself and I choose to ignore your stated wishes, because I consider my needs/interests (whatever they were) more important than your stated preferences."

That sounds like a bit of an overstatement. More than likely, if he was indeed hitting on her, then he was probably just giving it a college try. It's not about "ignoring her wishes." Most men figure that a person can be asked a question without the MERE ASKING OF THE QUESTION being deemed some sort of affront or ignoring of a person's wishes. I mean - if I say I'm going to bed because I'm tired, and some other folks start suggesting that I ought to stay up later and party, or a woman says "awww come on, stay out later with me -- I'll make it worth your while..." - is she "ignoring my stated wishes?" Does she consider her needs/interests to be more important? Of course not. That's one of the big problems with skepchick's complaint here - it's just way out of proportion to the "offense" (which is an offense without an injury).

Personally, I would not experience that as creepy, I think, but sort of and .

Which is the almost near-universal response that I've read from women - something to the effect of "well that would be no huge deal for me -- but, I can see how maybe some other woman might be more bothered by it."

If, however, his motive was to cause fear or discomfort in her face or manner for his own satisfaction (sinister real-life "trolling"), then his behavior would border to sadistic, and that possibility is one I consider really creepy, possibly even misogynist (if he does similar stuff to other women, too).

Whatever his motive was, his behavior, words, and mannerisms are the only things Skepchick could have perceived. If I ask you for change of a dollar, but my motive is to frighten you worse than the scariest haunted house, it doesn't change the propriety of my request for change of a dollar.

To use an (imperfect) analogy: Say that someone had invited me to dinner and I had sent them email that I am allergic to certain foods. If I then get served such food, how uncomfortable I would feel would hinge very much on if that email had come through to my host, how dominant the uneatable dish was (the main course or just an easy-to-avoid side dish) and most of all, my host's manner. If they gave me a sly, appraising look, watching me for reaction, when handing me a dish completely filled with a foodstuff that causes me to break out in hives, I would consider their behavior clearly aggressive, whereas if they neutrally said "Please remember to avoid side dish X, it contains foodstuff Y." I would not interpret any negative intention into the situation.

In the end, though, if you were aware of what foods you were being served (and it wasn't a hidden attempt to kill you with a peanut allergy or something), and someone just rudely ignored your email, it would just be rude and impertinent, and something you would deal with directly: I'm sorry, but I don't eat this kind of food due an allergy. So, I won't be having any. Or, maybe - You know, I don't appreciate you serving me this after I told you I was allergic. I doubt you'd alert the media and hoist it up the flagpole as a huge example of some larger overarching principle about how your host, and men in general, hate women because your host ignored your wishes to not be served the meatloaf.

But as I have said before: we don't know what exactly happened and as we cannot ever know for certain what EG's motive(s) was/were (even if he was identified, he could misremember, refuse to discuss or blatantly lie about his motives), so in that way this is all fairly academic.

* tale of woe here: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =6&t=29975

Well, Skepchick is the one who lodge the complaint and filed charges. Her story is the one we can go by in evaluating her complaint. If she left out details that would make it worse, then we have no reason to believe those details formed part of the events. People, when telling a story of an outrage or an affront, don't generally leave out "the good stuff" or the stuff that is most relevant to the story. That's what was so curious about Skepchick originally not saying she was "cornered" but only saying the guy "got on" the elevator and asked her a question. If one was actually cornered by someone - even if it was out on the street or in the bar -- that would make the story quite different.

Put the players in the bar -- everyone left except Skepchick and Elevator Guy -- Elevator Guy asks Skepchick to come to his room for coffee. She says no, and he says goodnight and see you tomorrow. No problem, right? Rewind. Elevator Guy and Skepchick, alone in the bar, he "corners" her, blocking her movement, and asks her the same question. Different? I submit that in most people's minds, that one fact changes the assessment of the incident. So, if on first telling the story, she tells it as the guy coming into the bar and coming up to her and asking her for coffee in his room, she gets people going "so fucking what? Stop whining!" And, then later she adds the fact of being "cornered" - it is very reasonable to ask her why that key fact was left out of the story to begin with.

[Coito ergo sum]

So - let's assume that the guy listened to Skepchick's panel discussion intently, and has a photographic memory, so he can recite every word of it. And, let's assume the guy was in the bar the whole time, and only went to the restroom when Skepchick wasn't talking, and he stayed sober so he could understand all of her statements, and that she outright used the exact words, "I hate being hit on by men at these conferences," and he heard that along with how much she hates being "sexualized" in that manner, and that she droned on about her preferences or lack thereof in that regard for hours, and he heard it all - he didn't say word, though, because he was simply marveling at her beauty and radiance, and there was a stirring in his pants and a fire in his loins....he felt deep inside a need to have her...his mind was bent toward bedding her that night, and visions of Skepchick's legs akimbo danced in his head....he cared nothing for her "preferences" and when he heard her say she was tired and wanted to go to bed, his only thought was that it would be his bed, and that her head would not only hit the pillow but also the headboard, repeatedly, as he pounded her like a single-piston engine until he exploded all over her in orgasmic bliss....and add to that that he didn't even have the least concern whether she enjoyed it....he just cared about "getting his rocks off" as Skepchick phrases it...

So - that's his mindset.

He goes to the elevator at the same time she does, and they both get in the elevator. He says "I find you interesting and I would like to talk more... would you like to come up to my room for coffee?" She, not knowing of the fire in his loins or his sincere desire to give her a headboard headache and fire a few shots across her bow, etc., says "no, I'd rather not." And, he says, "o.k." - then he leaves and goes back to his room, rents a porno, and jerks off until his hand is sore - the last time he thinks about Skepchick, sexualizing her in his mind like nobody has ever been sexualized before.

Is that an example of misogynistic exploitation and parasitism?

[Seth]

Hey, here's an idea: All chicks who don't want to get hit on and asked for a fuck should wear something highly visible to indicate that they are not interested in sexual advances.

How about a big black bag that covers them from head to toe?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or your picture on their t-shirt?

[charlou]

you are not charlou's witness

Ayep.

[Coito ergo sum]

Check this out -- http://skepchick.org/2011/07/a-weird-ti ... gingheads/ PZ Myers chimes in at the top of the comments thread and asks what the interviewer Ms. Althouse "has to do with science?" Why doesn't he ask the same question about Skepchick herself? Skepchick has nothing to do with science. I bet she hasn't taken any significant science course at the college level - if she had, she'd make her resume public, which she hasn't. I think Skepchick is just a communications major, who saw an opportunity to be the "chick" voice of the "skeptic community."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Check this out -- http://skepchick.org/2011/07/a-weird-ti ... gingheads/ PZ Myers chimes in at the top of the comments thread and asks what the interviewer Ms. Althouse "has to do with science?" Why doesn't he ask the same question about Skepchick herself? Skepchick has nothing to do with science. I bet she hasn't taken any significant science course at the college level - if she had, she'd make her resume public, which she hasn't. I think Skepchick is just a communications major, who saw an opportunity to be the "chick" voice of the "skeptic community."

So she's Miss Communication?

[charlou]

heh.