home | mail | news | features | nonsense



Have something to say? Letters to the editor should be sent to skepchick@skepchick.org.

The Editors Request a Moment of Your Time
A word from Rebecca Watson and Diane Perry, your faithful Skepchick editors


Rebecca Watson

Managing Editor
Diane Perry

News Editor
Chani Overli

Contributing Writers
Darcie Hodgkins Langone, Lynette Davidson, David McGehee, Ben Radford, Michael McRae, Matthew Armstrong

Photos and Graphics
Barbara Mervine, Aynsley Mervine, "Flash Guru" Nick

About Skepchick | Links Elsewhere


Responses to the February Issue

Dear Skepchicks -
I heard about your website from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site, and I was very impressed by the discussions on anthiesm, spirituality and skepticism, particularly the article by Dr. Davidson. As a theist, I'm often appaled by the dogmatic approach to Religion so commonly forced upon people that it is a tremendous breath of fresh air to see people devoted to furthering the cause of critical thinking in general, as well as the specific idea that we can either choose reason or faith, but not both. Keep up the good work!

-Donald McLeod
P.S. Is there likely to be an archive of previous issues? I missed the first issue and I don't want to accidentally miss another.

Hey Donald,
Archives are now available! You can access them via the link in the bar to the right, and you can also use the shiny new search function. Some links and images may be broken while we work out the kinks.


To: Jamila Bey-Greenhouse
Reading your article in SkepChick, I remembered the story of Diogenes --the lonely wandering soul with a lantern, searching for "an honest man."  I'm pleased to know that, in spite of the throngs you left behind in the closet, you were more successful than Diogenes.  Had Diogenes been looking for a black woman, perhaps he would have succeeded.

Keep shining your lantern!


And about that nipple . . .

Just thought I'd throw out my thoughts on your call for comments regarding the semi-infamous nipple picture:

Part of the bonuses of being a Bright / sceptic / rational thinker is that we're not constrained by society's (which, for the most part, boils down to religion's) ideas about what's allowable and what's not. We have much more fun, as we're not constrained by the concept of "sin", only by our own morals. "Too far" or "not far enough"? I think that depends entirely on what the person in question (you?) is comfortable with. If you're having fun, then by all means continue. Don't let someone else's irrational hang-ups stop you. :)

Graeme Humphries


I love the nipple.
And I bought the calendar.
I think the irony is perfect.
You skepchicks are awesome.
Monte Gilstrap

Hi Rebecca,
Just responding to your "Letter from the Editor" in the Skepchick second edition. And yeah, I agree with you - I believe that skeptics can be irreverant, sexual, and funny, even all at the same time. I do not think you went too far by showing a nipple on the front page of the Febuary edition of the newsletter. Should you go father - I don't know. Being shocking/explicit isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it elicits thoughtful thinking and commentary. And, I believe that your posts do that, so I guess I would support you going even farther than you have to date. As long as you remain true to your critical thinking roots (which you most certainly have done so far), I will support you wherever you decide to wander. Please, accept my thanks for what you have done so far, and keep up the good work.

Best regards,
Mike Potter


Firstly, I'll admit that I'm somewhat biased on this topic: I'm a sucker for a good sin, especially a mostly harmless one. That confession dispensed with:

I think that a sense of fun and mild debauchery is beneficial to an intellectual cause. Too many people see science as boring, and scientists and skeptics as dusty old men in tweed suits debating safe dull topics 24/7 and occasionally stepping out of the library to risk getting  rained on when they feel the need for an adrenaline rush. This tends to cause people to shy away from the subject.

One could argue that a sense of 'dignity and proper decorum' is required, but I think they're wrong. For one, in most cases to pretend that people don't blow off steam occasionally would be blatantly false and misleading. More importantly, it gets dull after a while. I don't know about you, but as much as I appreciate the less energetic studies as well, my favorite sciences are the ones that occasionally explode, fry things, or make you see funky colors.

It wouldn't do much good for our collective cause to give the impression that TAM was a bunch of people going to Vegas to gaze about themselves, unimpressed by the spectacle, and lock themselves in a conference room to discourse on how easily deluded the other tourists are.

To summarize: if anyone gives you a hard time about your fun, or your report on the event, tell them they need to lighten up. My only 'complaint' is that I wasn't able to be there. =P

Keep it up,
Ryan C.

So the results are in. People like nipples! Who knew?

copyright 2006 Skepchicks Limited