Print

[Eule]

In den USA (und drumherum) gab es jahrelanges Kampfgeschrei AuserlesenerInnen, die den Geschlechterkampf betreiben wollten...



http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120718085151/phawrongula/images/a/aa/Hall_back.jpg

Die überaus emanzipierte Harriet Hall hatte ein T-Shirt an, dessen Aussage den KampfgeschwaderInnen nicht paßte...



http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/i-am-not-a-skepchick/

[*quote*]
I want to see harassment taken seriously and dealt with, but I don’t agree that calling the president of the JREF a “douchebag” who doesn’t care about “vagina owners” is a helpful approach to the problem.
[*/quote*]


http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/TAM_2012_T-Shirt_Manufacturversy

[*quote*]
TAM 2012 T-Shirt Manufacturversy  Edit 
   
 Comments16
70
pages on
 this wiki

This page documents the manufactured Amy Davis Roth ('Surly Amy') T-Shirt controversy. Have at it. Contents[show]

OverviewEdit

The front of Harriet Hall's super-offensive T-shirt.
Added by PeeZus

Harriet Hall T-shirt (back)
Added by PeeZus

Nutshell synopsis: Amy Davis Roth felt "harassed" by Dr. Harriet A. Hall's t-shirt at TAM2012, causing distress to the point of tears and Roth's early departure from TAM.

The t-shirt in question has written on the front "I feel safe and welcome at TAM" and on the back "I'm a skeptic, not a 'skepchick', not a 'woman skeptic', just a skeptic".

Amy Roth is also known as 'Surly Amy' of Skepchick fame. FfTBers chose to defend Amy and cast aspersions on TAM's policy and volunteers instead of seeing the silliness of getting upset over this t-shirt.

For now, here are some links as the discussion continues:

Pro-Roth:
Ophelia Benson: In your face
Jason Thibeault: TAM's harassment policy was secret. Why?
PZ Myers: I don't want to deal with this anymore

Anti-Roth:
Thunderf00t: Feminist reduced to tears by t-shirt
[*/quote*]


http://uberfeminist.blogspot.de/2013/02/harriet-hall-wins-day.html

[*quote*]
Saturday, February 23, 2013
 Harriet Hall wins the day
 Harriet Hall wrote a piece called Gender Differences and Why They Don’t Matter So Much
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gender-differences-and-why-they-dont-matter-so-much/

 As expected, it received a lot of criticism from the Atheism+ / Skepchick crowd.

 Hall responds: I Am Not Your Enemy: An Open Letter to My Feminist Critics
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/i-am-not-your-enemy-an-open-letter-to-my-feminist-critics/
[*/quote*]


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gender-differences-and-why-they-dont-matter-so-much/

[*quote*]
Gender Differences and Why They Don’t Matter So Much
 Posted by Harriet Hall on February 5, 2013 (209 Comments)

Several incidents have recently created divisions within the skeptical community.  The latest one was over a casual comment Michael Shermer made in an online talk show. He was asked why the gender split in atheism was not 50/50, “as it should be.” He said he thought it probably was 50/50, and suggested that the perception of unequal numbers might be because attending and speaking at atheist conferences was more of “a guy thing.” They might have asked him to explain what he meant. They didn’t. He didn’t mean to say it was encoded in the male DNA. He was simply recognizing a reality of our society: male/female interests and behavior tend to differ due to all sorts of cultural influences. Among other things, women might find it more difficult to attend meetings because of lower incomes and the need to arrange for babysitters. Watching sports on TV with other guys and beer is a guy thing too, but not because it’s hardwired into the male brain. It’s a guy thing because of customs and attitudes in our society.  And it certainly doesn’t mean women are less capable or that societal influences can’t be overcome.

Nevertheless, Ophelia Benson assumed Shermer meant:

that women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.”

That’s not what he meant. It’s not fair to judge him by one off-the-cuff remark. His record stands for itself: there is not a hint of sexism in his writings and he has always fully acknowledged women’s intelligence and their ability to think critically.

In a rebuttal article, Shermer quoted me:

I think it is unreasonable to expect that equal numbers of men and women will be attracted to every sphere of human endeavor. Science has shown that real differences exist. We should level the playing field and ensure there are no preventable obstacles, then let the chips fall where they may.

PZ Myers called this “a sexist remark.” He went on to say:

So sex differences are real, and we should just pretend that we don’t see sex and gender everywhere we look?…..

By the way, I hate the phrase “Science has shown” followed by some irrelevant fact…

There is no reason anywhere to think that women have less capacity for critical thinking, or that they are intrinsically more gullible and therefore more likely to be religious, or that they are less rational and so less suited to careers in science.

I was taken aback. I never suggested any such thing. I don’t think women have less capacity for critical thinking or are more gullible. And I certainly didn’t think I had made a sexist remark.
[*/quote*]


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/i-am-not-your-enemy-an-open-letter-to-my-feminist-critics/

[*quote*]
I Am Not Your Enemy: An Open Letter to My Feminist Critics
 Posted by Harriet Hall on February 19, 2013 (286 Comments)

Note: The previous post is my usual weekly contribution to SBM. I am taking the liberty of posting this additional entry today on an issue that is peripheral to Science Based Medicine. If you are not interested in the recent squabbles within the skeptical movement, you will probably want to skip it. But it does respond to a detailed critique of an article I posted here two weeks ago, and some might find that of interest. We have seen the same kind of behavior on this blog, where commenters have responded not to what we said, but to what they wanted to believe we said.

I have been falsely identified as an enemy of feminism (not in so many words, but the intent is clear). My words have been misrepresented as sexist and misinterpreted beyond recognition. I find this particularly disturbing and hard to understand, because I’m convinced that my harshest critics and I are basically arguing for exactly the same things. I wish my critics could set aside their resentments and realize that I am not the enemy.

Two weeks ago I published an article on gender differences and the recent divisions in the skeptical community.  Ophelia Benson showed up in the comments. Not unsurprisingly, she disagreed with me about the Shermer incident, but then she said “I like the rest of this article a lot. I particularly like the point about averages and individuals, which is one I make all the time.”

I took that as a hopeful sign that friendly communication might be achieved, but my bubble was quickly burst by a hostile takedown of my article on Skepchick by “Will.”  His critique is demonstrably unfair. He attacks me for things I never said and tries to make it look like I believe the exact opposite of what I believe.
[*/quote*]

[Eule]

Die Zitate habe ich natürlich alle aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen. 

Was so stinkt bei diesem international (!) hin und her schwappenden Geschrei (auch mitten rein in die deutsche Provinz!)  ist die dahinter stehende Blödheit. Alle reden sie von Vollphostenjournalismus. Dabei sind sie  selber welche!

Eine Stelle will ich hervorheben: jene, wo Rebecca Watson das Maul aufmacht.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i-am-not-your-enemy-an-open-letter-to-my-feminist-critics/

[*quote*]
Rebecca Watson says:
February 19, 2013 at 10:46 am

Hi Harriet,

I won’t bother commenting on the sex/gender argument, as Will is more than capable of handling that. I will echo a few other commenters and point out that your “queer” statement doesn’t do you any favors in convincing anyone that your knowledge of these topics is anything close to approaching Will’s.

You didn’t mention me as a person included amongst your feminist critics, but I suspect many people reading this will assume I’m in there somewhere, possible because your t-shirt at TAM did directly call out my website and you’ve mentioned that incident specifically in your post. So, I figured I’d respond briefly because I’ve never really discussed it publicly and never talked with you about it at all.

When you made your “I am not a Skepchick” shirt, I did consider writing a blog post about it. Then I changed my mind and I composed an email to you in which I explained my feelings on the subject, since you seemed confused by the reaction you received. I pointed out that no one to my knowledge had ever called you a Skepchick, and I had never asked you to become a contributor to the network. I then used an analogy in which I pointed out that if a physician like Steve Novella went to the effort to create a CafePress shirt that read something like “I am not a SkepDoc. I am a skeptic,” you would be confused, a little hurt, and, when he wore it three days in a row, concerned for his personal hygiene. Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.

So I wrote the email, tinkered with it for a few days, and eventually I deleted it without sending. The reason was that after reflecting on it for so long, I came to the realization that while a week prior I held an immense amount of respect for you, I suddenly had lost that respect so completely that I had no interest in getting it back. I realized I was stressing out over someone who was so proud of an immature t-shirt she made that she wore it for an entire weekend. I realized that anyone who needs an explanation of why that was silly and hurtful doesn’t actually deserve an explanation, and they certainly don’t deserve real estate in my head. So I let others argue over it while I moved on to more interesting things.

I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.

So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.



M. A. G. says:
February 19, 2013 at 10:51 am

Thank You. Awesome post Dr. Hall.

Also, those are precisely the reasons I have mostly stopped reading other “skeptical blogs”. They become too entangled in criticizing other skeptics simply to either generate more “views” or just for spite. They do not read what others write carefully and are quick to give their opinion.

One thing I’ve wondered, and I’ve discussed this with other psychiatrists, dentists and doctors at the clinic I work at; It’s amazing how we think we can multitask, when in truth, it decreases our productivity. We think we can read 3-4 articles at the same time, but while doing so, we miss the true point or the article. ADD is grossly misdiagnosed, and partly a cause of not having someone making sure your child sits at home doing his/her homework (if it weren’t for both my parents, someone would have definitely diagnosed me as having ADHD).

1000 years ago humans recited stories as long as the Iliad from memory. 10 years ago I knew all the phone numbers of ALL my friends and acquaintances (at least over 75) by memory. Now… I depend on my phone and speed dial. I only remember 5 or 6 crucial numbers.

Maybe we should stop, take a deep breath and reassess where we are. Because we sure as hell are moving fast, without a clear picture of where we are headed, and we are taking down everyone on our way. Even if they fight for the same cause.

I don’t know if what I said has anything to do with any of this…. but there you go. My mind wanders.



tigzy says:
 February 19, 2013 at 11:52 am

Hi Rebecca

So that’s the best you can do, is it? Presume that Dr Hall would be hurt if someone wore a ‘Not a SkepDoc’ t-shirt in her presence, and in doing so make crude and unnecessary references to her personal hygiene.

Pathetic.

You post is a perfect illustration of why Dr Hall is justified in making sure people know that she is not a skepchick.
[*/quote*]


Rebecca Watson war auch in Deutschland. Bei YouTube gibt es davon mindestens ein Video. Da kann man sehen und hören, wie sie sich darin feiert, oft das Wort Scheisse zu benutzen.

Man bedenke : Rebecca Watson ist seit Jahren ein herausragender Kopf der Szene.

Ordinär zu sein und hohl zu sein mag in einem Rockerhaufen als Qualifikation genügen. Aber nicht in der Wissenschaft!



[Fettschrift reduziert, ama]

[RubyCat]

http://www.skepdoc.info/

[*quote*]
The SkepDoc

Home
My Book
Science-Based Medicine Blog
SkepDoc Columns
Skeptic magazine articles
Skeptical Inquirer articles
Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
Quackwatch
Other
Speaking Engagements and Videos
Credentials   
   This site   The Web 



http://www.skepdoc.info/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/Harriet_at_TAM_2012.jpg.w300h293.jpg

I'm Harriet A. Hall, MD, a retired family physician and former Air Force flight surgeon. I write about medicine, so-called complementary and alternative medicine, science, quackery, and critical thinking.

I'm an editor and one of the 5 MD founders of the Science-Based Medicine blog.
I write the SkepDoc column in Skeptic magazine.
I'm a contributing editor to Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer.
I'm a medical advisor and author of articles on the Quackwatch website.
I recently published Women Aren't Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon.
 
 
NEWS: I am a co-author of the recently released textbook "Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions"
I was recently appointed to the Executive Council of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Contact me at hhall[at]skepdoc.info
[*/quote*]

[RubyCat]

http://www.amazon.com/Women-Arent-Supposed-Fly-Memoirs/dp/0595499589



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rsIP3UZ2L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[*quote*]
Women Aren't Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon
by Harriet Hall

When Harriet Hall graduated from medical school in 1970 and entered the Air Force, she was in a distinct minority. As the second woman ever to do an Air Force internship, she had to fight for acceptance. Even a patient's 3 year old daughter proclaimed, "Oh, Daddy! That's not a doctor, that's a lady." She was refused a residency, paid less than her male counterparts, couldn't live on base, and couldn't claim her husband as a dependent because he wasn't a wife. After six years as a general medical officer in Franco's Spain, she became a family practice specialist and a flight surgeon, doing everything from delivering babies to flying a B-52. She earned her pilot's license despite being told "Women aren't supposed to fly," and eventually retired from the Air Force as a full colonel. She is witness to an era when society was beginning to accept women in traditionally male jobs but didn't entirely like the idea yet. A somewhat warped sense of humor kept her afloat, and it spices the stories she tells about her own experiences and the patients and colleagues she encountered.
[*/quote*]

[ama]

So eine B-52 ist schon was ordentliches.

https://www.stratofortress.org/specifications-b52h.htm



xhttp://www.gkweb.net/images/machines/planes/b52/images/b52lafb.jpg

Ein nettes Foto. Ein kleines bißchen größer als der Lanz Bulldog. Echt was für Feinschmecker. 

Ich glaub, wenn die Harriet Hall auf dem Flugplatz aufgetaucht ist, sind die Rekruten zur Eissäule erstarrt und die Maulwürfe in Ohnmacht gefallen. Die B-52 ist das größte Kriegsflugzeug der Welt. Ob inzwischen eine Antonow oder eine andere fliegende Kiste den Titel übernommen hat, ist egal. Wer als Frau so ein Ding fliegt, der nimmt es mit Jedem auf. Aber locker!

[Bild aus dem Web-Archive gerettet. Rhokia]

[Rhokia]

Marke: 6000