The Fat One in the Middle

My Son Pwns Me on Skepticality - Will Now Be Shipped to Swoopy

This past Sunday, my son Hollis and I, and eventually the youngest Max, joined Derek and Swoopy on Skepticality to talk about Santa. Hilarity ensues.

Skeptical Parenting: Raising Young Critical Thinkers

My article on Skeptical Parenting that was published in Skeptical Inquirer is finally available online. I know it has been hard for you to sleep at night while waiting for this day.

Skeptical Parenting: Raising Young Critical Thinkers

There comes a moment in every parent’s life when your child asks you the question you most feared hearing from your dear one’s lips.

“Mom?”

“Yes, honey?”

“Where did people come from?”

“You mean babies? Well, um, first the man takes his penis and . . .”

“No, no, I mean the very first people. Where did the first people on Earth come from?”

I was dumbfounded. What could I say? I knew this moment was coming and yet was completely unprepared. I would be more than happy to discuss sex with him, but evolution? How could I explain evolution to my three-year-old when I myself was fuzzy on the process? I was, after all, the product of the South Carolina public education system.

And that is when I said the worst possible thing any parent can say to a child asking about this controversial subject. No, I did not tell him that we came from God or that we were planted here millennia ago as an extraterrestrial experiment. I told him something much, much worse.

Go to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry to finish the article!

Concern Troll Dolls Are THE Hot Christmas Toy!

SO I was called a concern troll and a spammer for posting my opinions about the sexism/anti-vaxxer/skeptic brouhaha on Respectful Insolence yesterday. I had to look up what those meant, as I have not studied the rule book on internet posting as deeply as many others have. Why do I get the idea that much of the internet is composed of old D&D people who love their rule books?Anyway, I was called a spammer because I posted on more than one site at once about the same thing. I am apparently the world's laziest spammer. Today two sites, tomorrow THREE! Before you know it, the all of Al Gore's creation will be MINE!!!A concern troll is someone who derails an argument with concern for the other side. Actually, I was trying to put the pro-vaccination movement BACK on track to what it needs to be about, science and vaccines. So here is my last comment, because I seem to be a masochist and had to get back in it. Which is kind of weird, because submissive yes, masochistic no and those . . . Never mind, we are not talking about sex, we are talking about vaccines!

Orac, you are right. It did look like I said you specifically called her a slut. I apologize. My wording did indeed paint ALL skeptics with the same brush stroke. It was not what I meant to say, but what my wording said.

Chris, I did read the blog entry, and all the comments. And you and I agree that we need to focus on attacking the issues and not the people. We also agree that skeptics are not immune from criticism.

The reason I posted on this site, as well as Skepchick (you said there were more, I have honestly forgotten if there were) was that the issue of sexism and disgusting personal attacks was raised. That is the issue I commented on. They are not ok from either side.

When people who are neither skeptics nor anti-vaxx search for information on whether or not to vaccinate their children, they want facts and advice written in a way that neither offends them nor makes them feel stupid. I am a pro-vaccination mother of two who in the trenches EVERY DAY with mothers making decisions about whether or not to vaccinate. I post about it on my FB page, talk about it with female co-workers, and educate about it with breastfeeding and mother's advocacy groups.

I am confused as to why I would be labeled a spammer or concern troll, when my concern is and always has been, on how to increase the number of children vaccinated. That's it, bottom line.

And when ANYONE, anti-vaxxer or skeptic, uses sexist and misogynistic attacks on a woman for her opinions, other women will get turned off. And in THIS country, who is still responsible for the majority of decisions made about children and their health care? Women.

My mistake is clearly that I have chosen the wrong forum to discuss this on, and not followed the rules you have set up on your forum. That is tacky and rude on my part.

But please, do not discount my sincerity at wanting to increase the number of women who hear the pro-vaccination message and choose to protect their children and mine.

Crazy Anti-Vaccine Fear Mongering

A Kansas City clinic has set a disturbing precedent by kicking out a two-year old boy because his mother had failed to follow childhood vaccinations schedule guidelines set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

via survivalstation.org

You know, I guess I should not expect more from a blog entitled Survival Station, but I would have thought that the most likely libertarian leaning writers of this post would have thought it completely proper for a PRIVATE pediatric practice to decide who their patients will be.

Also, in this post, they say they do not understand what the practice means when it states it is doing this as a protection for others coming to the clinic. The author states that since everyone else is vaccinated, what harm would these unvaccinated children pose?

When children who have immune disorders or are too young to be vaccinated are UNABLE to be vaccinated, they need to NEVER come into contact with people who have the diseases that vaccines prevent, like whooping cough. If you bring your unvaccinated child to a pediatric clinic, and YOUR child has whooping cough, your child can spread it to the weaker patients.

Besides, with health care being a free market, it's not like you can MANDATE doctors to provide care when to do so would be disruptive to their profits.

Right?

Now THIS I Can Get On Board With!! 2012 Done Right

2012 - Even My Love for John Cusak and Amanda Peet Can't Overcome This

Oh Ben Radford. I am so so sorry that you had to go see this.

Guess My IQ - Based on My Bra Size*

I recently attended The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas. It is the world's largest gathering of skeptics, with about 1,007 in attendance this year. It was a wonderful event, and though I was there only for 52 hours, I met many lovely people and had "much excitement".

Less than lovely was the fact that the majority of the speakers were male, and that two of them said things that were stupid, if not downright offensive. Bill Prady, creator of the Big Bang Theory sitcom, apparently made a joke implying that it was not worth it to try to teach "beautiful women" the difference between astrology and astronomy. Even more upsetting was the fact that Brian Dunning of Skeptoid thought it hilarious to replace the photo of a Russian cosmonaut in his presentation with a more attractive woman because the Russian was too ugly. Right.

After TAM, a few blog posts were made about the incidents, as well as the a dress of the women attendees at TAM. One blogger, Barbara Dreshcer of ICBSEVERYWHERE, commented that one of the female attendees was clearly inappropriately dressed for the event in fishnets, short shorts, and spike heels. This led to a post on Skepchick, where Carrie discussed that post AND the incidents at TAM. Barbara Dreshcer has since apologized for that remark and I believe her sincerity. The comments on the Skepchick page, however, are very interesting.

It appears that many people are of the belief that when presenting yourself, if you include your sexuality in the presentation, you should not be surprised when that is the only aspect that people respond too. Honestly, THAT would surprise me. I often dress in a cleavage displaying manner, for two reasons: 1) I have a great rack and 2) I look like an apple on sticks if I do not define my bustline. I do not mind when men (AND WOMEN!) look at my cleavage; like great art I WANT it to be admired. However, like great art, there is also a look but don't touch policy.

I sometimes wonder if THAT is not the reason for the hostility from men regarding provacative dress. It seems to anger the penis driven part of the brain that BOOBS ARE DISPLAYED AND IN TOUCHING VICINITY, but they are not allowed to touch them. Like a dirty trick that makes the reptilian brain very mad.

I can not speak for other women, but when I dress in a sexy manner I am fully aware of the effect it has on people. I like it, I am somewhat exhibitionistic, and enjoy showing off my attributes. Why is that a personality flaw? Lord knows many of the male presenters at TAM were swinging their "fame" around for all the ladies to admire, but THAT appears to be completely acceptable!

Are we supposed to hide our sexuality and display it only for those we are going to have sex with? Also, why can't you look at my boobs AND listen to me talk? I enjoy sending and receiving sexual energy from other people, even those I am not intimate with. If this bothers you, just move along. But don't dare think that you are smarter than me because cleavage distracts you. Because if you think my tits are big, you should see my brain :)

At what point is my cleavage offensive and distracting????

Picture A - What A Nice Wholesome Skeptic - She Must Be Smart!

Picture B - How did THIS girl get into TAM? Maybe she is lost! I will go tell her that she has pretty eyes!

Picture C - WHORE!!! EVIL SLUT!! TEMPTRESS TRYING TO DISTRACT US FROM THE IMPORTANT WORK OF HUNTING GHOSTS AND PERFORMING MAGIC!!!!!!!! BURN HER!!!!!!!!!!

Just in case you could not tell, my IQ stayed the same the ENTIRE time, no matter how much cleavage was showing. How much did yours change while looking at them?

*142 and 38K, FYI

Spanking, But Not the Good Kind

On a Skepchick, a skeptical blog that I frequent, there was a question posed about spanking children. Was it ok to do so? What does it teach children? Is it an effective tool in the arsenal of parenting?

And here is was response:

I believe that it is never acceptable to hit a child. My job as a parent is to raise my child to be an independent person and thinker. That said, it is not ok for one person to hit another when they disagree.

I was spanked occasionally as a child, and yelled at as well. I understand the urge to do so to my own children, but triumphing over my instincts is one of the things that got me into skepticism in the first place.

Even for skeptical parents, intuition is NOT a basis for making decisions.  Rational thought, and critical thinking are. Children are people, albeit much smaller. It is not ok to hurt other people unless it is in self-defense, bottom line.

When your child goes into the "real" world, they will not be allowed to hit the people they disagree with,  nor will they have someone there to "whack" them when they make a mistake. The purpose of parenting is to raise children who can make decisions in a critical manner with rational thought.

Violence as a behavior modification system is neither rational nor ethical. I truly believe that people spank because it makes you feel good to hit something that pisses you off, bottom line.

Now before many of my friends anf family who spank jump on my ass, I do not think that people who spank are wrong, evil, or abusing their children. But I do think its wrong, and I think that it does not work.

My children are no better or worse behaved than children who are spanked. In fact, here is what the research say about spanking:

From the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Guidance for Effective Discipline (stolen from Skepchick's Elyse):

Despite its common acceptance, and even advocacy
for its use, spanking is a less effective strategy
than time-out or removal of privileges for reducing
undesired behavior in children. Although spanking
may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior,
its effectiveness decreases with subsequent
use. The only way to maintain the initial effect of
spanking is to systematically increase the intensity
with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate
into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is only effective
when used in selective infrequent situations.

 

Now consensual, sexual spanking between two or more adults? Bring it on!

As Spongebob Says, The Best Day Ever

So the past few days have been fucking amazing. Friday night some lovely things happened of which I am not at liberty to share, but take it from me, I was happy!

Then on Sunday, I reconciled with my best friend from college, who I have been estranged from for many, many years. Our lives are completely different, and yet we share almost ALL the same values. I have missed her so much, and am glad that things are in the past. Lesson learned: communication is the most vital thing in a friendship and don't avoid conflict. Conflict is necessary to work through the crap that happens in ALL relationships. The pain comes from avoiding the conflict.

And finally, yesterday. Of course, everyone knows that I finally got my iPhone. What you may not be aware of is the smokin' hot 25 year-old Lebanese AT&T employee that sold it to me, Wally. Wow. Youth does have its advantages, especially on him. He made my iPhone experience that much better. I wish there was some way that I can repay him? (MILF-O-Gram?)

Finally, yesterday I was copied in a email that an aquaintance of mine sent about a documentary he is helping to produce about evolution, kind of a response to Expelled. So I was copied in an email that also was sent to just about every freaking scientist who is a hero of mine, including Richard Dawkins, Neil Shubin, PZ Myers, Daniel Dennett, and Michael Shermer. But it gets better.

All of those scientists responded to my friend's email, and instead of reply, they hit reply all. That's right folks, my inbox yesterday had messages from all of those scientists. HOLY CRAP, in a roundabout fashion, RICHARD DAWKINS SENT ME AN EMAIL. Ironically, it was almost enough to make me believe in God.

And the truly geeky thing I did? I put all of them, ALL OF THEM, as contacts in my iPhone. Because that is just how geeky and fanboyish I am.

This is Why You're Stupid

From Pharyngula, where the godless masses like myself report daily for our marching orders, comes the news that in the bleak, science-phobic plains of Texas, there appears hope from the unlikeliest of sources, two politicians, State Senator Rodney Ellis and State Representative Patrick Rose. These two gentleman have written an op-ed to the Houston Chronicle stating that the creationist filled Texas State Board of Education needs to be held accountable for their performance, especially as the state claims that it wants to be a leader in the field of scientific research.

So, upon going to the Houston Chronicle site, I came upon this gem of a comment, from the so-called editor of EducationNews.org (THE INTERNET"S LEADING SOURCE FOR EDUCATION NEWS!!!!!)

"Too bad Ellis and Rose don’t understand the facts of like. The same people and organizations that have been against the SBOE for years are also strong advocates for teaching kids how to have gay sex, kill babies, anti-free enterprise and so on. I often wonder where Ellis is when it comes to the massive drop-out rate in Houston ISD? Stand up for the kids senator not somoff-beat agenda."
Jimmy Kilpatrick
Editor, EducationNews.org

It's not always easy to connect the dots between gay sex, baby killing, and communism, folks, but hats off to Jimmy Kilpatrick. Chris, perhaps you can go thank him personally!

Sometimes, I am glad I live in South Carolina.