I wanted to respond at length to both Michael Nugent, who I’ve spoken with over Twitter, and to many commenters who agree with him in the previous post and on Twitter.

I don’t have a problem with Michael Nugent’s distaste for PZ’s tone.  I don’t agree in general, though like Nugent, I found PZ to be lacking in his posts about Dawkin’s childhood sex abuse and Robin Williams’ suicide.  PZ has always been a pit bull, and it generally gives his posts clarity and humor, both of which I appreciate.  But, I don’t really care if you hate that, that’s fine, to each his own.

I also don’t really have a problem with Atheist Ireland’s dissociation with PZ.  Again, freedom of association, to each their own.  I do think that, while they’ve made an exhaustive list of why they don’t like his tone, they’ve failed entirely to even try to make a case as to why an American blogger’s tone has any relevance to the work they are doing.  I’m not sure what harm PZ has actually caused to Atheist Ireland, beyond making Michael Nugent very unhappy. Why Atheist Ireland’s agenda includes breaking up with bloggers is beyond me.

The problem I have with Michael Nugent fundamentally boils down to his 9/17/14 blog post in which he equivalizes his complaints about PZ’s tone in his posts to PZ agreeing to post a firsthand account of rape in which the victim names her rapist.  This post by Nugent is in response to a lengthy, in-depth article by well-respected journalist Mark Oppenheimer, known for his work at the New York Times, in which Oppenheimer details multiple accusations of misbehavior on the part of Michael Shermer.

PZ’s tone in that blog post is approximately, “I was given this information and it felt unethical not to give this woman the platform she asked for to share her story because I have every reason to believe her, so I am doing so and fully expect it to explode in my face.”  In that post, he describes Shermer as a “putative assailant” and notes that the assault was reported to an organization (the JREF) at the time.  Other women wrote to PZ with their own stories of Shermer’s inappropriate behavior towards them or their witnessing of the event, which PZ also shared. To date, the number of individuals on record with accounts of Shermer behaving inappropriately at conferences is 15 named individuals and 6 unnamed (best collection, additional article forthcoming).

Michael Nugent writes on 9/17/14, in light of the Oppenheimer article.

In the last year or so, he [PZ] has publicly accused Richard Dawkins of seeming to have developed a callous indifference to the sexual abuse of children, Michael Shermer of multiple unreported serious crimes, and Russell Blackford of being a lying fuckhead.

In recent days, he has written that Richard Dawkins has been eaten by brain parasites and is grossly dishonest, that Christina Hoff Sommers promotes lies about feminism and claims them as inalienable truths, that Michael Shermer is a liar and an assailant, and that Sam Harris has scurried off to write a tendentious and inexcusably boring defence of sticking his foot in his mouth.

♫One of these things is not like the other one, not like the other one, not like the other one…♫

The post in which PZ indirectly calls Shermer a liar is here, where he posts Shermer’s changing accounts of the evening he is accused of rape by opening with “It’s always the changing story that gives the liar away.”

In my opinion, “putative assailant” and “It’s always the changing story that gives the liar away” are a bit soft, but I’ll take it.  As for accusing Shermer of crimes, well, no, he allowed others the space to do that.

Here’s what I find offensive about this:

1. He’s misportraying what PZ has actually written about Shermer by dropping the “putative;” by failing to note that it is not PZ who is making the accusations, but actual victims themselves; and by complaining about the use of the word “liar,” which is merely defined as someone who changes their story and then attached to Michael Shermer changing his story
2. That he is mixing up PZ’s examination of Shermer’s behavior with a complaint of PZ’s over-the-top rhetoric, when they are entirely different things. Not of a kind at all. Unless all negative things that involve atheist celebrities are the same, regardless of tone.
3. That he seems to care more about PZ calling Shermer a liar than about the fact that Shermer did, in fact, change his story about the night in which he is accused of rape
4. That he seems to care more about Shermer being accused of rape than whether giving a victim space to speak to Shermer’s behavior is a worthwhile thing to do in light of the fact that the statute of limitations has passed
5. He only complains about PZ’s behavior around Shermer in the aftermath of a professional journalist doing a thorough investigation into Shermer’s behavior in which that investigator found it safe, prudent, and worthwhile to report those same accusations publicly in a major publication
6. He seems to offer no space for anyone to come to the reasonable conclusion that Shermer is guilty of being an assailant and liar and that anyone who does so and dares to speak so aloud will be just as much persona non grata to him as PZ

Again, to me the worst part of this is that Nugent seems to think that calling someone a fuckhead is the same crime against tone as calling them a rapist in light of very credible evidence that they have committed a rape.  Rapist is not an insult.  Neither are assailant, harasser, and liar, for that matter.  These are descriptions of behavior that it seems very clear to me that Shermer has engaged in.

If it’s not clear to you that Shermer has done these things, then fine.  But here’s what we know.

Alison and Shermer’s stories agree on these salient points – they had sex and he was sober and she had too much to drink.  They disagree on these salient points – she says she did not consent and that she was too drunk to have consented at the point they had sex, he says she’d sobered up by that point.  So, we know they had sex, that he was sober when they had sex, even if we cannot know if she said yes in the room and you refuse to take her word, we have eyewitness testimony from others about how drunk she was before and after they had sex.  She was so drunk that at least 30 minutes after their encounter, hotel security gave her friend a wheelchair to help her get around because of how much difficulty she was having walking.  James Randi confirms that he knows Shermer was misbehaving at his conferences, likely in reference to Alison.

If you accept that it is rape for someone who is sober to have sex with someone who is drunk, Shermer raped Alison.

However, neither you, dear reader, nor Michael Nugent has to conclude that Shermer is a rapist, though I don’t know how someone can be intellectually honest and look at his pattern of behavior, his shifting story, and what happened that night and come to any other conclusion, but I think it is unsupportable to claim that someone is in the wrong for coming to the conclusion that his is a rapist and a liar.  Doing so undermines any other claim you make.  And it drives away many reasonable people who’ve come to that conclusion in light of the evidence around Shermer.

Finally, complaining about someone calling Shermer an assailant and a liar – particularly in the way PZ actually did so and in light of this evidence — is why the statement “defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists” is not unreasonable.  “Defending and providing a haven for” doesn’t require the presence of the people being defended and being provided a safe space. Particularly when a reading of this could legitimately apply “defend” and “haven” unequally to the list, as one of “and”’s meanings is “and/or,” making a legitimate reading of the sentence: “Defending and/or providing haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists.”  It’s not a charitable view of Nugent’s blog, but he didn’t give PZ’s a terribly charitable one either.

I don’t think that it is Nugent’s intent to create a safe space for Michael Shermer, nor do I think it is his intent to make people who find Michael Shermer’s behavior intensely disgusting feel unwelcome.  But I do think that is what happened on 9/17/14 and has been in snowball effect ever since.  Nugent has been, to his mind, fighting PZ’s tone, but people who are horrified at Shermer’s behavior have seen it primarily as a defense of Shermer.  I hope that Nugent can understand why that might be and why, for whatever PZ’s tone is, a place where Shermer is clearly unwelcome is preferable to some of us than a place where the word “fuckhead” won’t be used.

The post More on Shermer, PZ, and Michael Nugent appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

Edits from earlier versions: Two major edits from information sent to me via Twitter by people who were, I think, trying to be hostile, but who I appreciate sending me the information. Ron Lindsay did not ask Rebecca Watson to take down her post, he asked her to reword it and the link to his post has been reworded to reflect that; this was a misremembrance on my part. The second is that I added screencaps and reworded the description of the Slymepit to be more accurate. The inaccuracy previously was the suggestion that they stalked people’s hospitals, which seems to be a game of telephone garbled interpretation I heard of an event that is linked to, in which they took PZ’s hospitalization as an opportunity to make up STD rumors about him. While I did have 2 editors fact check the post, they missed these, as did I.

So in recent days, there’s been a bit of drama in the atheist movement over Atheist Ireland and PZ Myers that I’ve spent a bit of time trying to fully understand the background of.  Since I spent all the time getting a big picture overview, I thought other people might like to have access to it as well.  I don’t regularly follow any of the main players’ blogs, and I’ve been ill for the last 8 months, so I haven’t regularly followed anything during that time.  That said, the tl;dr version of the story is that it’s about Michael Shermer, and the longer version follows.  It’s not convoluted, it’s just happened over a long period of time.

The key players:

PZ Myers – Jolly, potty-mouthed FreethoughtBlog founder and blogger

Michael Nugent – Extremely prolific blogger and founder/chair of Atheist Ireland

Atheist Ireland’s Executive Committee – Many joke it is Michael Nugent writing in the royal we but this appears to be the people listed on the contact page of their website.

Michael Shermer – Famous skeptic who has been accused by multiple women of rape or sexual harassment

Hemant Mehta – Major blogger at Patheos well known for keeping out of the infighting; Friendly Atheist

Slymepit – A forum/opposite of a fan club dedicated to hateful obsession with Skepchicks and FreethoughtBlogs. Think 4chan but obsessed with a very small number of people. They make photoshops, videos, write stories, tell rape/PTSD jokes, come up with crude nicknames, stalk our home addresses, work places, and use hospitalizations to start STD rumors — that sort of thing.

A couple years ago, Alison Smith came to PZ Myers with a rape allegation towards Michael Shermer.  PZ had heard many stories about Shermer behind the scenes as there had been a lot of discussion about harassment in the atheist movement, but Alison came to him asking that he publish the account anonymously as a warning to other women to not allow Shermer to get them drunk and isolate them from groups.  PZ felt morally obligated to publish the story because he knew so many women he trusted who had either witnessed or been victim to harassment from Shermer — full disclosure, myself included, though I was in no way a part of that decision process.

This caused a lot of people to be unhappy with PZ.  It got worse when Mark Oppenheimer, a reporter known for his writing at the New York Times, wrote a story that named, with permission, not only Alison, but me and several other women as victims of Shermer’s behavior.  Oppenheimer also gave a lot of corroborating accounts and stories, from named and unnamed sources, as well as discussing the state of the movement in general.

I would like to reiterate at this point that the person people were unhappy with was not Michael Shermer, accused serial harasser and rapist, but PZ Myers, blogger who was asked to publish an account of rape by a victim who was concerned about preventing more women from being victimized.

Enter Michael Nugent. After/around the Oppenheimer piece, Nugent became very angry with PZ, basically because he thinks the media is misrepresenting the atheist movement as hostile to women because PZ posted a rape accusation.  He was also frustrated because the American media is more interested in the American atheist movement than the international movement.  And he didn’t care for PZ’s tone when calling out famous people for doing bad things — not just Shermer, but other famous people as well, there was a list of complaints.  Nugent wanted the movement to be more compassionate, but to people like Shermer more than to people like Alison Smith.  It’s worth noting here that people from the Slymepit have been a major part of the commenters at Nugent’s blog for a couple years now, and a huge part of the anti-PZ voice there.

The argument escalated.  And then PZ broke Michael Nugent with a tweet that has caused Michael Nugent to obsess over him, and the tweet, constantly since 4 Oct 2014.  The tweet reads:

It’s not about what he thinks, but what he’s doing: defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists.

Nugent has latched onto the idea that he’s providing a “haven for rapists” and demanded a recantation from PZ repeatedly. As far as I can tell, PZ feels that defending Shermer and allowing the Slymepit to be in your blog comments is very accurately represented by that tweet.  PZ has also blocked and ignored Nugent, because Nugent has written some 80,000 words about him in the last 8 months.  Which is, you know, a novel.

So now we are at this week.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali said that the worst thing that happens to gays in America is that they are not served cake, while gays in Muslim countries are thrown off buildings.  Ignoring for a moment that this is ridiculously inaccurate, it’s also a pointless thing to say.  PZ pointed this out.  Nugent, the Chairperson of Atheist Ireland, took the opportunity of PZ Pointing Out a Famous Person Doing a Bad Thing to have Atheist Ireland officially break up with him.  Atheist Ireland pulls slightly more weight than Nugent himself, but even Hemant Mehta read it as Nugent writing a dissociation letter until Nugent claimed otherwise.

In the Public Dissociation Letter, Atheist Ireland mischaracterizes a number of PZ’s statements without actually giving citations in order to paint him in the worst possible light.  Thankfully, Alex Gabriel has reprinted it with citations so that you can investigate the claims of PZ Pointing Out a Famous Person Doing a Bad Thing to see how terribly worded those blog posts truly are.  Honestly, I hadn’t read most of them, so I had to look for myself, PZ has been brutal in the past, and he’s not entirely unbrutal, but it’s all pretty reasonable to my eye.

Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, shared this public dissociation, and in it, he basically agreed with their characterization of PZ as a person who is unkind to people — which makes sense, given that Hemant makes an effort to be, you know, friendly to as many people as possible.  Where Hemant goes a bit off-target is that he talks about the Slymepit in a way that makes it sound like he approves of them.  My understanding of the situation is that Hemant wants nothing to with the Slymepit and avoids them like the plague, but the wording of this particular sentence is not great:

As for Myers himself, he responsed on Twitter with a sarcastic “Oh no! I’ve been disowned by the slymepit!”… in other words, associating Atheist Ireland with an online forum that frequently criticizes and mocks him and is populated by people he deems trolls (even though they correctly uncovered plagiarism on his blog network). In other words, he didn’t care.

As I explained to Hemant, when I read that sentence, it reads like he’s saying PZ shouldn’t call them trolls because they’re just criticizing his work and sniffing out plagiarism.  Add to this the fact that Hemant is obviously unaware of the extent to which Atheist Ireland’s post is influenced by Slymepit, and you’ve got an entire post from Hemant that is sharing a lot of Slymepit positions.  It’s like Slymepit sent out a Press Release full of mischaracterizations, Atheist Ireland reprinted it to disown PZ, and Hemant has posted highlights and questioned their troll status.  And since people care what Hemant thinks, Hemant is the one who has gotten the attention.

This has led to drama.  Rebecca Watson wrote a blog post that is, in my opinion, a little unnecessarily aggressive in its claim that Hemant is endorsing the Slymepit.  Having said that, when I first read Hemant’s post I literally cried because I thought my friend and colleague was tacitly endorsing a group that has used my face to make rape jokes and made videos of me being shot to death, so I really get where Rebecca is coming from.  Ron Lindsay, ED of CFI is now calling on Rebecca to change the wording of her blog post and apologize.  All fall out because Michael Nugent is upset that people called out Michael Shermer’s bad behavior.

Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that.  I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference.

His reply is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn’t remember. I don’t know — I’ve never been drunk in my life. It’s an unfortunate thing… I haven’t seen him doing that. But I get the word from people in the organization that he has to be under better control. If he had gotten violent, I’d have him out of there immediately. I’ve just heard that he misbehaved himself with the women, which I guess is what men do when they are drunk. — James Randi, emphasis added

The post The Background of Atheist Ireland’s Breakup with PZ: It’s about Michael Shermer appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

A piece has just been published about misogyny in skepticism and atheism, and particularly about Michael Shermer, that includes me as a named source who has experienced inappropriate behavior from Mr. Shermer.  It’s worth pointing out that my story is merely a supporting story to the larger overall story of Mr. Shermer’s behavior, and not nearly as awful as some others.  I have never told it in public, though many people have heard it in private, because of a fear of litigious reprisals and hate mail; it never seemed worth it until I was asked to comment on this story.  To the extent that it’s useful and people would like to have full details on what happened, this is my full story.

In 2010, I went to the Orange County Freethought Association Conference after reading about it on PZ’s blog.  You could pay $50 to eat dinner with PZ, which struck me as a good deal.  I was in LA and didn’t have a lot of friends and I was a big fan of PZ’s blog.  I was, at the time, an atheist but not really aware of the larger skeptic and atheist communities.  Which was a shame.  As I later learned, if you were part of the movement before you went to events, you’d get warnings on who to avoid.  The number one person I was told to avoid was Shermer, but I didn’t hear that until months after I met him.

I largely had a good time at the conference.  I was there alone, but succeeded in talking to a few people, including PZ, who I really liked.  And, with the exception of Shermer, I wasn’t really hit on or harassed despite it being an overwhelmingly male environment.  I didn’t really know who Shermer was before this, I’d never heard of him — he was obviously a speaker with a book, but he wasn’t swarmed by people either.

During a break, I went to speak to him as he was sitting alone at his book stand.  We had a brief talk, he was flirtatious but I ignored it and I bought one of his books.  I had noticed that he had his hand on his crotch while we were talking, but I tried to not look at it, thinking he must not have realized.  He appeared to scratch himself a few times, though I was making an effort not to look because he otherwise seemed like a nice enough guy.  Then he kept chatting a bit and sunk lower in his chair and started asking me more personal questions and was clearly not only touching and rubbing his crotch but apparently trying to drive my attention there by slouching further and thereby directing his crotch more clearly at me.  He repositioned in such a way that my direct line of vision to him required I see his crotch and his hand moving on it.  It felt like it went on an eternity, but it couldn’t have been more than a 10 minute conversation.  I extricated myself.

It was weird, to say the least.  I had no idea what to make of it.  It’s the kind of thing you expect from weirdos in a subway car.  He wasn’t excessively hitting on me verbally, though it felt like it was leading to that before I left.  I tried to rationalize the behavior… Maybe he just like had a very thorough and never-ending itch?  It rattled me.  But I pushed it to the back of my mind, because it was gross and weird.  And I didn’t know him.  I was by myself, there was no one to talk it through with, so I just ignored it and decided not to talk about it, because how do you?

At the dinner, I was extremely worried that Shermer would sit near me.  I just felt like if I had to spend more time with Shermer, it would go badly, and then I wouldn’t be able to ignore it and pretend it was nothing.  I was new to all this, new to all these people, didn’t know the guy at all, and didn’t have firm ground to stand on.  It had also become clear to me over the day that politics around Shermer were complicated and I didn’t want to become a pawn in that particular game when I didn’t even know what game it was.

You can read nearly full accounts of my dinner with PZ and my overall impression of the conference.  I point you to these two, because they both mention Shermer, and do not mention this behavior, and I don’t want anyone going through the archives to feel as though I am hiding this information.  The bits on Shermer:

I never quite figured out what [PZ] was vaguely irritated with Michael Shermer for.  Michael Shermer, by the way, looks eerily like Jonathan Pryce and has a weird arrogant swagger to him that is both compelling and a bit unsettling.  He was super nice when I talked to him and I got his newest book, so nothing personal there, just an observation.

Post lunch and it’s Michael Shermer, the aforementioned Jonathan Pryce doppelganger with the arrogant swagger, and I can’t for the life of me remember what he talked about except that it pissed some people off.  If anyone was there and remembers, tell me?

I cannot remember whether I spoke to Shermer before or after his speech, so I don’t know if my complete blockage of his speech is because I couldn’t pay attention after our encounter or because it got subsumed by my vivid memory of our interaction.  I’m a bit surprised at myself for going as negative as “unsettling” in my description of him at the time.  And he was perfectly nice in conversation, he just was also touching his crotch and trying to get me to look at it.

The closest I got to posting about it was a year later when I was writing for SheThought.  Once I was part of the movement, I heard a lot more stories about him and realized that my experience was part of a larger pattern.  I just wish I’d gotten the warning so many skeptic women get about avoiding Shermer before my first conference rather than after.  My friends dubbed him Crotchdexter, though it’s clear to me that while his behavior towards me was absurd, some of his other behavior has been incredibly damaging.  To be clear, there was damage done to me by Shermer — it made me question joining the movement at my first event ever and it made me feel obligated to keep a secret to prevent the Lewinsky effect, whereby the only thing I’d be known for in the movement was as a footnote to Shermer rather than a person.

Comments Policy: I normally am very liberal with the kinds of comments I allow on my site.  However, due to my high anxiety about dealing with the fallout, I will be very heavily moderating the comments to this post.  I would like the comments here to be a safe space for people who’ve experienced sexual harassment and assault as well as a safe space for me, and as such, will delete anything out of keeping with that goal.  There are many other places to discuss this if you’re uncomfortable with this policy.  If the comments become overwhelmingly bad, they will be turned off.

The post Michael Shermer’s Harassment appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

On the legal fund set up for Michael Shermer there is now a note from Shermer himself, acknowledging the campaign.

People are asking me about this legal fund set up in my name, if I am aware of it, if it is legit, should they donate?, etc. For the record: I am aware of and completely support this legal fund and deeply appreciate Emery for setting it up and for the people who have donated thus far. I made it clear to Emery when he set it up that the money goes into an account that I have no access to, that my legal bills will be paid out of the fund directly to the law firm representing me, and that if there is any money left over after the case is finished that it be donated by Emery to a nonprofit organization of his choice. If anyone would like to email me directly for confirmation of the above, my email is [email protected], which is posted on our web page www.skeptic.com. My reputation is all I have. I did nothing wrong–legally or morally–and I intend to defend myself and prosecute Myers until he issues a retraction and apology, as stated by my attorney.

And I would say something about that, but honestly one of my commenters, imnotandrei, really nailed it.

And, as a result, he blew whatever chance he had left of regaining credibility with me.  Because at this point, whether or not he’s done as was claimed, his actions *since* have demonstrated that I shouldn’t trust him.

When your fundraiser makes a rape joke, and asserts that people are out to “do harm to the institutions” and “have set their sights on atheism”, and your response is to say you “completely support this legal fund” — well, it’s clear that you are not only aligning yourself with people defending you, but the people who think rape jokes are OK and Atheism+ is some massive blight on the face of atheism.

And if you’re allied with them, you have lost all credibility in my eyes on these issues.

The post Michael Shermer’s Note on the Legal Fund appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

I actually don’t have a problem with people deciding they want to help raise money to pay for the legal fees someone else is incurring.  I think the justice system is such that that is entirely reasonable, especially if you’re a fan of the guy and think he’s being falsely accused.  It’s really no different from OJ or Michael Jackson fans wanting to financially support “their guy” through their legal troubles.  I happen to find myself on the opposite side, having heard and experienced too much behind the scenes to believe in Shermer’s innocence, but I don’t begrudge those without that knowledge for wanting fair legal representation of Shermer.

I do, however, begrudge them their inability to believe in the good intentions of others with a demonstrable history of trying to do something positive with the movement.  It seems that, to some skeptics, merely offering criticism of problems you see in the organizations, conferences, celebrities, or overall movement is tantamount to wishing to destroy skepticism, rather than an attempt to make skepticism better.

“PZ Myers and the FtB feminists have set their sights on skepticism and atheism in general. They clearly want to do harm to the institutions.”

You hear this argument a lot from Republicans, that criticizing America is anti-America or trying to destroy America, when in fact it’s trying to make America better and fix the problems within, rather than turn a blind eye.  Yes, a lot of “FTB feminists” have set their sights on skepticism and atheism in general, because we’re part of those movements and care deeply about making them better.

And, of course, it’s difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re just trying to make sure justice is served when there’s this:

A show of support will send the message that we as a community will no longer tolerate illogical attacks on people who do not condone nor support sexual harassment, sexual predation, or rape any more than we support defamation of our community members from anonymous allegations.

Ah, so donating to this is not, in fact, an attempt to help Shermer get decent representation, but rather a way to condemn unnamed victims who come forward with their stories.  Got it.  Out of curiosity, what is the appropriate way for a reporter to deal with a story from an unnamed source who is known and trusted, whose story and reputation is vouched for by multiple others?

The post Michael Shermer Legal Fund appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

First up this morning was a marginal breakfast.  I don’t understand this — why do people put cooked fruit into things that don’t need cooked fruit.  Cooked fruit is not chocolate.  It does not make things better.  It makes them measurably much worse.  Croissants don’t need jelly on the inside.  It’s gross.

George Hrab opened the conference with a brilliant song, the best part of which was the direction to make sure that any questions you direct at a speaker are actually questions, not opinions, speeches, or comments on the speaker.  It was pretty funny.

Michael Shermer was first up and I literally don’t remember what he talked about.  I was not awake and not that interested, so I guess it just didn’t stick.

Then there was a panel, Skepticism and TV.  I got over the fact that *I* wasn’t on the panel, but I have to say it is really hard to look at these panels of old white guys and think that they’ve made the effort to get more than one point of view.  When they found out Adam Savage wasn’t coming, they had the opportunity to try to get a minority or a woman on the panel, and they didn’t.  Which was a shame because everyone on the panel agreed with one another and didn’t have a lot of useful advice on how to get more skepticism on TV.

Here’s the thing, when you don’t have young people talking about what’s going on, you miss stuff.  If you don’t have women, or mothers, or people of color, or people from different socio-economic levels, you don’t hear about whether people are actually being exposed to skepticism on TV.

Did the old white men mention any of the children’s programming out there?  No, not at all.  And that’s probably the place where you see the most skepticism incorporated into fiction storylines.  Look at Dora the Explorer, or any of the other investigative type shows that are aimed at kids.  Those teach critical thinking and why don’t they think that that qualifies as skepticism on TV.  Yes, you watch Bones or whatever and it’s absurd and not related to real critical thinking, but prime time adult television is not the only thing on TV.  There’s more than the Discovery Channel.

They also talked a lot about editing and how to get around being edited in ways they don’t want to be.  I’ll just say that it’s almost impossible to get by a determined editor.  They’re tricksy people.

*deep breath*

Yes, so I took some issues with that panel.

Next up was Lawrence Krauss.  A few months ago, Krauss made some statements in support of his friend who was an admitted rapist of underage girls.  There was a fair amount of backlash, and threats to walk out on him at TAM.  If that happened, I couldn’t tell.  There’s so many people in and out of the room anyway, it wouldn’t have been noticed, but also I think that elevatorgate has so overshadowed this that no one quite cared as much.

He gave a history lesson on Richard Feynman, which was OK, but I wasn’t that interested in a biography.

Then Jamy Ian Swiss led James Randi and two others in a recap of Project Alpha, which was when two magicians pretend to have Uri Gelleresque powers for several years and the lab believed them despite the fact that it was very obvious what they were doing.  Embarrassing for science, but kind of hilarious for magicians.  It shows how lame psychics are.

Eugenie Scott was up next, but I didn’t listen to that talk, I looked at books and walked around.  I wasn’t very interested in Climate Change Denial and I was tired and wanted to move around.  I’m trying to get over feeling guilty for not going to every talk, but it’s uncomfortable to sit all day.

And then it was lunch — I sat with the amazing Greta Christina and several other really cool people.  Elevatorgate was the primary topic, but what I liked that we talked about was how the movement needs to be getting people in disadvantaged circumstances involved.  So many people who are in the movement are there because they are the ones who can afford it.  If you look at where the large populations of black people are, they are also poor places with strong religious communities.  South Carolina and Mississippi have huge percentage of black people in their population, and those are places where being an atheist is not necessarily safe but more importantly, these are places where there are problems facing the community that are so much more pressing than religion.  Teen Pregnancy, education, jail time.  These are problems that the skeptic community should be working on, because we can’t get people to participate if they’re struggling to live.  Let’s get people in better life circumstances so that they can spend time on education and learning to be scientifically literate.  And it’s not just the South, of course, it’s inner city, it’s Detroit, it’s Compton.

Ok, sorry, off the soapbox.

After lunch, it was just pure uninterrupted awesomeness.

Jennifer Michael Hecht spoke first, and she decided she was going to try to talk about everything that ever happened ever and that she would accomplish this by talking super fast.  She talked a lot about the history of skepticism, which is the focus of her very excellent book Doubt, A History.  She was fantastic.  She talked about the movie The Road to Wellville, and said that a lot of people who go to quacks do it because, essentially, they want the attention.  Though she also implied that women could get a happy ending from a chiropractor.

They had to cut her off before she was finished, and then it was time for PZ, who was hilarious.  Every slide had a picture of either squid or octopi, which I feel is necessary.  He was talking about the biology of aliens.  I think his most interesting point was that there are several highly intelligent animals on earth that are self-aware that we still don’t know how to communicate with, yet we’re seeking out aliens.

He was awesome, and was followed by Pamela Gay, who I didn’t particularly like.  Not that she wasn’t good, she was calling for more funding and emphasis on science.  What I didn’t like was her criticism of the skeptic movement as scattered, as though the emphasis of everyone on the movement should be on science.  The fact of the matter is that not everyone can care a lot about every cause — outrage fatigue.  Science education is important, and I’m for it and happy to support it, but it’s not what I’m particularly interested in.  It’s not the cause that I’m going to spend time on.  That’s not because I’m scattered, it’s because my time is spent elsewhere.  I appreciate her enthusiasm for the cause, but it’s not a very useful criticism.

And then it was time for the best thing I’ve ever seen ever.  I can’t wait for it to be on YouTube, because I want to watch it again.  It was a panel on the future of humans in space.  It was moderated by Phil Plait, and had Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pamela Gay, and Lawrence Krauss.  NdGT started off real quiet and then he jumped in like a ninja and started kicking ass.  He thinks that we don’t spend enough money on science and we should double NASA’s budget and do everything.  The bank bailout was more money than everything we spent on NASA in its fifty year existence.  Lawrence Krauss sort of poo-pooed the idea of humans in space, and Neil deGrasse Tyson bitch slapped him, with major assistance from Bill Nye.

NdGT totally dominated, and I didn’t want it to ever end.  I would say it was impossible to follow, except it was Tyson himself who was following it up, so he was fine.  He is a great speaker — he’s funny, he’s passionate, and he knows what he’s talking about.  Once again, it was simply so amazing that it’s difficult to sum up.  His focus was on stupid things that people believe that aren’t true.  I told Jarrett that Bill Nye and NdGT should be in a buddy cop movie together, he tweeted it, and the Jen McCreight saw that NdGT in his talk was going to go on his Twitter feed and she quickly posted it AND he read it outloud.  Hysterically funny.  I want it to happen.

And when NdGT was finished, that was it for the day.  I went back to my room for a while, came back up while Jennifer Michael Hecht was doing autographs.  I sat in a throne-like chair beside her while she fielded people who wanted her signature on her books.  It was entertaining sitting on that side of the table.  After that, I went down to eat.  Saw Heidi Anderson briefly and then got ready for Penn’s Party.  I hung out with Jen McCreight and some people before the party and then it was time for Donuts and Bacon.

Penn has a band called the No God Band — they’re decent, and the party was essentially a concert for them.  They did a lot of covers and some original songs as well.  I ended up hanging with Jen some more, as well as Hemant and a few others.  I saw Christina Rad briefly, and that was fun.  It was really loud and I was really tired, so I ended up bailing after about an hour and a half.  Then I collapsed in exhaustion because my legs could no longer hold me up.

AND THAT WAS FRIDAY!

The post TAM Friday appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

Jen McCreight and PZ Myers have both posted on this — how welcome are women to skeptic events?

I want to say, before I get into some of the less flattering stuff, that I had an excellent time at TAM8 and I met a lot of really interesting, cool people, both men and women.  And many of the women there were strong, outspoken and hilarious, so even if the women are under-represented, they’re well-represented.  I say under-represented because there was a 20 guy long line to the men’s bathroom and no wait to the women’s bathroom.  If that doesn’t speak to gender ratio, what does?

Of course, there were the constant murmurs of how every guy wants to “bag a skepchick” and the winners of the skepchick party costume contest were the girls willing to make out with each other, but I generally accept that with just some eye-rolling.  There were comments I heard about the looks of the female speakers, but then people were making fun of James Randi and Michael Shermer’s height, so maybe that plays out.

I hang out with geeks, I like geeks, I like geek humor, and a lot of that is offensive if you’re easily offended.  And there can certainly be an air of sketchiness around some of those guys with less familiarity with social interaction, and I will say that TAM was a lot less creepy than Comic Con or Dragon*Con when it came to my average interaction with a strange dude.  People there seemed to be genuinely interested in what I had to say, and the environment seemed to be as deliberately nonsexual as possible most of the time.  Though I was occasionally asked if I was in high school, but ageism is a whole nother thing.

I was, however, really bothered by how the female psychic, Anita Ikonen, was treated and talked about.

I understand that the “other” in a skeptic convention is not going to be gender, race, or sexuality but opinion and point of view.  Someone who thinks that they have magical powers is automatically going to be the center of a fair amount of eye-rolling, derision and name-calling.  It’s natural for groups to behave that way, unfortunately, and I’m not here to say that I support the things Anita believes or even her behavior, I don’t know her that well.  But I will say that most of the insults and jeers thrown her way were all based around the fact that she was a young and attractive woman.

Someone called her, on her facebook page, a “psychic slut”.  Many people at TAM accused her of using her sexuality to her advantage, of sleeping around, of sexually getting off on attention.

I will break this down in a second, but let me make one thing very clear: No one, male or female, should ever call a woman a slut.  The intent of that word is to make a woman feel ashamed of her sexuality, to humiliate her, to make her feel degraded.  Not only does it shame the woman in question, it also makes every other woman scared of admitting to being a sexual creature.

It is the fear of being thought a slut that keeps women from accepting their own sexuality and it keeps victims of rape and molestation from feeling safe revealing that they’ve been hurt.  There is, in my opinion, no more hurtful word you can use towards a woman, it is as vile and low as the N-word.  And society uses it to keep women in their place, especially uppity women with opinions and beliefs you disagree with.

So, if you want to say this psychic woman revels in attention, fine, but you don’t get to start calling her names because you don’t like attractive women who are at home with their own sexuality.  You do that and you start driving away the skeptical women in the group.  I don’t want to be part of a group that slut-shames any woman who doesn’t agree with them, though I don’t think the majority of the skeptical group is guilty of that behavior.

I talked to Anita yesterday, I let her know I was writing this and she told me some other things that had happened to her.  She got turned away from taking pictures with a skeptic celebrity with a brusque, “I’m married,” as though she was trying to sleep with them rather than get a photo, and she was asked to send topless photos to a skeptic when they learned she was a psychic.  I know I just went off the other day on how skeptics don’t need to show a consistent face, but this behavior is completely unacceptable in any human.

The girl may be nuts, she may have HPD, she may be incredibly attention hungry for whatever reason, but that doesn’t make her a slut.  I know some people may have personal reasons to dislike her or the discord she apparently causes, but that doesn’t make her a slut.  And if you hate her, fine, and if you hate that the JREF brings her more publicity, fine, but you don’t get to go around complaining that she’s too flirtatious or that she gets all this attention just for being young and cute.  If people react to that in a way you don’t like, it’s their own fault.

This reminds me of the TDS kerfluffle.  Everyone is pissed at TDS for not hiring enough women or having enough visible women.  So, when does everyone get really vocal about it?  When TDS hires an attractive, sexualized woman.  Guess what?  Women have sex!  Women can have sex and be funny!  Olivia Munn is being punished and slut-shamed for pursuing a career in comedy because she’s not the right kind of woman.  You think that when you complain about it the only person you’re hurting is The Daily Show?  How would you feel if someone hiring you turned into an internet shit storm about how you posed in Playboy and just aren’t that funny on G4?

The feminist movement can really hurt women who aren’t the “right kind of woman”.  Women who are naturally thin (real women have curves), like to have sex (sex is men taking advantage of women), or really like clothes or barbies or the color pink.  It’s hard enough to be a woman, it’s hard enough to be different, can’t we let women be human?  Can’t we let them be sexual beings without trying to make them feel horrible about themselves?  Can’t we focus on the intellectual shit instead of petty bitchery?

The post TAM: For the Ladies? appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

I’ll give you all the links up front, and all the pictures at the end.

All the pictures are here.

9:20 Phil Zuckerman
10:00 Edward Tabash
10:40 Brian Dunning
11:20 William Lobdell
Lunch 12-1 with ‘Tabletalk’ table discussions
1:00 Michael Shermer
1:45 PZ Myers
2:30 Dan Barker
3:15 Stephanie Campbell
4:00 John Shook
4:45 Joe Nickell
5:30-7:15 Dinner

—–

The conference was in Costa Mesa, and I’m in Glendale, feel free to map it, suffice to say it takes about an hour fifteen to do that drive.  I decided I wasn’t going to kill myself and try to get there at 9 since I didn’t really know any of the morning speakers and I didn’t want to get up at 6AM on a Saturday.  So I got there around 10:45 and got through the whole check in thing to catch the second half of Brian Dunning’s talk.  He was talking about the Virgin of Guadalupe and I confess my interest was not sparked by the topic.  Which is just as well as it gave me time to get my bearings.

The conference was held in a community center adjacent to a local public library.  It was a smallish venue, and everything was contained within one large room.  This was a little awkward because the vendors and speakers were in the same room, so if you wanted to go look at stuff you had to do it either as quietly and unobtrusively as possible or in short bursts between speakers.

After Dunning was finished, I met up with a guy I met on Meetup.com who had said he was also going and sat up front with him.  So the first talk I sat through entirely was William Lobdell.  Lobdell is a very dynamic speaker, and I really preferred the speakers who focused on sort of broader strokes and the whys and what we can do about it, not just simple facts.  And I am always drawn to stories of how people lost their faith.

Then, it was lunch time, and I walked across the street to Quizno’s because I’m a picky eater and I doubted they were serving a sandwich I would eat.  There was a very strange homeless guy who sort of followed me and I bought him a sandwich.  Don’t tell my mother, she gets freaked out by those things.  Ran into an interesting guy, I want to say from Riverside, who was also at the conference and eating at Quizno’s.  Apparently Riverside has the biggest Atheist community like ever.

I took my sandwich back across the street and there was a seat open next to meetup guy who was sitting with PZ, but first I wanted to say hello to my twin.  There was a guy there wearing the same shirt as me, and interestingly enough he and the guy he was sitting with, lime green Alaskan, would end up being the people I sat with at dinner.  Anyway I said hello and they graciously offered me a seat but I wanted to go sit with PZ.

So I sat with PZ during lunch, which was really half over by the time I got back with my sandwich.  But it was an interesting group.  Talked about why we call evolution a theory and why changing the name to something like “law” is letting the terrorists win.  Here’s where my former math major instincts made me probably a bit too ferocious about the fact laws involve math equations and there’s no mathematical way of predicting evolution.

Post lunch and it’s Michael Shermer, the aforementioned Jonathan Pryce doppelganger with the arrogant swagger, and I can’t for the life of me remember what he talked about except that it pissed some people off.  If anyone was there and remembers, tell me?

Then it was PZ and he went out of his normal field and talked about astronomy and William Herschel.  And posed the simple answer to the days topic “Can science and religion coexist?  Yes.”  And made many many jokes about stepping all over Dan Barker’s time.  And then he talked about neanderthals and people having sex.  What I like about PZ when he speaks is that he seems like he’s going to be a stuffy non-offensive professor, but he’s someone who’s genuinely at ease with both himself and the realities of human nature.  In other words, he likes to talk about sex with neanderthals.

Dan Barker spoke and, again, his was a story of de-conversion so I found it pretty interesting.  His book has been recommended to my by Amazon but it didn’t strike me as interesting til I saw he talk.  He spoke mostly towards lawsuits, particularly the one against the National Day of Prayer.  As someone who finds the intricacies of constitutional law interesting (nerd!) I thought this was interesting.

I did not find Stephanie Campbell that interesting, not because she’s a bad speaker, but because her talk was so focused on the facts of the case of Texas Education and not about anything broader reaching.  The entire thing ended with a Vote for your School Board plea that I guess was somewhat universal, but it felt very much like a lecture.  And this is a topic, education and the south, that I find generally interesting, but I guess it was just that it was all about Texas and not about why it was happening, or the players involved, or how it impacted people.  Just the facts, ma’am.  I was also sad that there was only one woman speaker.  Where are all the ladies at?  Clearly I need a book deal so I can be invited to conferences to be snarky about religion.

John Shook surprised me and was, I thought, the most interesting and compelling speaker of the entire event.  He was so interesting that I briefly entertained the idea of sitting with him at the speakers dinner instead of PZ.  He’s a philosopher and is of the opinion that philosophy, not science, is the natural opposition to religion.  And he used a term “a-theology” as that which is most directly opposed to theology.  He recognized that the more insidious religious ideas are those that are constantly moving the goal posts, because they accept science and then turn it into religion.  Anyway, if they end up selling DVDs of this or it ends up on youtube, I’ll link to it.

The day ended with Joe Nickell who talked about the Shroud of Turin.  PZ had just talked about it, so I was up to date on the facts.  He’s an interesting guy.  After he spoke, I talked to him when we walked over to dinner and he’s one of those guys who is determinedly open minded.  In a way where you worry that they’re too open  minded, but he’s dedicated enough to the scientific method that he seems all right.  But he doesn’t judge things as a whole, only specific incidents.  Like if a woman is possessed, he would go and look at her specifically rather than looking at possessions as a whole.  He doesn’t consider himself a debunker, but rather an investigator of supernatural claims.  It’s a fine distinction, and I’m guessing it wins him points with the people he’s investigating, but I found it interesting that he is so committed to not being dismissive of people’s bizarre claims.

And then was dinner, which I’ve already talked about, and after dinner I went home because it was a long drive and I didn’t want to spend another 50 bucks to stay for the rest of the program and not get home til one in the morning.

The post OCFA Conference 2010; Where I met PZ appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.

I have no camera, but I do have an iMac.  Apologies for any legibility issues, it says, “Notice: No Squid!  This is Bullshit!  PZ Myers.”

That’s the Gideon Bible what I stole and kept because it was green.  I stole it because that’s generally my MO in hotels, but I didn’t throw it away because it was green and I didn’t have a Bible to desecrate reference.  I got it signed because I had the brilliant idea at midnight when talking to a friend who was super jealous he couldn’t go.

I’ll probably do a separate post about the whole conference thing, but the dinner was really neat.  Firstly, there was someone else wearing the Squid vs. Noah shirt, and there was a very cool and interesting guy from Anchorage/Irvine/England who was wearing lime green.  I have forgotten his name.  There was also Phil Zuckerman and a cute blonde guy in glasses, who were sitting a bit down the table but occasionally joined in.

But dinner was really cool because it was basically just hanging out with some really interesting smart people who enjoyed snark.  And I learned new things about PZ.  We hit a broad range of topics but I’ll give the highlights.

We talked about his experiments with zebrafish.  Apparently fish in captivity are really dumb, and fish in the wild are really clever.  I’m not sure how much to talk about because apparently some jerkface stole something about the zebrafish experiments from PZ’s blog and published it so I don’t want to spoil anything.  Suffice to say we spent a long time talking about zebrafish and it was pretty interesting.

We talked about Neanderthals.  I asked how do we decide that Neanderthals are a different species from us since we could interbreed, to which PZ gave the witty reply that they are all dead, that’s how.  I’m fond of Neanderthals because they had red hair.

We talked about the Uncanny Valley and the creepy proportions of the Shroud of Turin.  And how the fingers look like they’re made of rubber.  Funny Alaskan said they were tentacles, and I made a jab about Onanism with tentacles for fingers and PZ drifted into a reverie for a moment or two.

I got to be directly catty about the comments in favor of the genital nicking on the part of pediatrics.  I feel often that my comments are fairly ignored over there, which isn’t that big of a deal, comments seem mostly about hearing yourself talk anyway, but it was nice to feel heard on the issue.

I found out PZ’s opinion on Andrew Sullivan (nuanced), Episcopalians (relatively OK with), men hijacking any thread about women to make it all about them and their issues (aware of), Dr. Who (for), Macs (for), Linux (against!), PZed (against!), Australians (arrogant bastards insist on saying PZed), and steak (medium).

I also got to see the cover of his upcoming book which apparently needs to be written.  I give the cover a B+.  It has tentacles, an elephant and a great deal of purple, but it doesn’t have PZ and there’s something weird about the color scheme in general.  I suggested he get a quote from Trophy Wife TM and if that happens I’m just going to go ahead and claim credit right now.

I never quite figured out what he was vaguely irritated with Michael Shermer for.  Michael Shermer, by the way, looks eerily like Jonathan Pryce and has a weird arrogant swagger to him that is both compelling and a bit unsettling.  He was super nice when I talked to him and I got his newest book, so nothing personal there, just an observation.

I also saw PZ at lunch where he said he knew what his grandmother’s face looked like when she orgasmed, made fun of Utah and Mormons, and laughed heartily at my True Stories About Atheism.  I made my mother’s friend cry when I told her I was an atheist.  Hysterically she asked, “Don’t you want to get married and have a family?!”  I told my ex-Catholic mother when she was taking me to college that I was atheist and she said, “I’m so disappointed you don’t believe you’re going to Hell.  Wait, that came out wrong.”

There was lots more and I don’t remember it right now, but if I think of it, I promise I’ll add it.  It was totally worth the money.  And not just for PZ but for the other interesting people who also wanted to have dinner with PZ.  It was all very snarky and civilized.

I forgot to ask him if he’ll do a bit appearance in Bible Con, my script making fun of Christians and atheists, if it actually gets made.

EDIT: The rest of the story: http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/ocfa-conference-2010-where-i-met-pz/

The post My Dinner Date with PZ Myers appeared first on Ashley F. Miller.