It’s been a while since I’ve written about nudity.
But luckily thank heaven due to fate the good news is that once again, the fabulous Rebecca has come to the rescue:
The new Skepchick calendars are available for ordering!
Some of you may remember this from last year (refresh your memory here and especially here for picture goodness). SkepChicks is a group of women who promote critical thinking and skepticism in women, a seriously under-represented group in the field (most skeptics are white guys like me). This is a serious issue, since statistically speaking women (and girls) are not represented as much as they should be in the sciences. To raise money to help send women to James Randi’s Amaz!ng Meeting, Rebecca, the SkepChicks president, put together a great calendar last year featuring skepchicks. Some were in various states of undress, but not all, and the pictures were artistic, interesting, and very well-done. See for yourself (that link is mildly not safe for work– but I’ll add that October is now my favorite month, for many reasons…). The pictures have skeptical quotations on them, too.
She sold out of the calendars pretty quickly — duh — and several women were able to attend the meeting who otherwise would not have been able to. I think that’s wonderful.
And this year she’s doing it again. But in a wise move, Rebecca added a second calendar to the mix: SkepDudes! Twelve skeptical men, again in various states of repose. They include such skeptical stars as James "The Amaz!ng" Randi (I have to admit to a certain curiosity about that picture), Michael Shermer (head of the Skeptic Society, author, and columnist for Scientific American magazine), and the brilliantly funny rocker George Hrab (on one of his CDs is a shot of him wearing only punctuation, and I’m guessing some folks will find the calendar worth it for his picture alone).
Oh yeah… and me.
Yes, me,, your humble Bad Astronomer. Rebecca asked, and I can’t say no to her (unless Mrs. Bad Astronomer is reading this, in which case I can easily say no to Rebecca– not that I’ve ever actually had to… I mean, not that I ever need to… oh, to heck with it).
I won’t give away my pose, or state of dress or lack thereof in the shot, but I will give a small teaser. Those of you eating breakfast may wish to avert your eyes:
The calendars are $20 each, or both for $35. Go on, order them!
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
You can’t look as bad as me.
It’s not that I mind people looking, it’s when they look and laugh.
Keep’em laughing Phil.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Let’s see…a few years ago I was pretty scantily clad in a production of Cabaret and I am auditioning for a production of the Full Monty next week
Rob
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
You do seem to be grimacing a little in that picture. It’s ok, you can let your gut fall back out now.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 pm
You’re… in the sun.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:50 pm
I hope you’re not a human sundial.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Yeah- and I think I’ll pass on the Randi picture. (After all, I want to be confident in my heterosexuality.)
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Oh, and Skepchicks and ‘Skepdudes’. Wimps…. There’s a masculine noun that would have been more descriptive than ‘dudes’ and would rhyme with chicks!
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:50 am
The reflection is blinding…so white…..
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:41 am
They talk about A-list and B-list celebrities all the time… based on that picture, I’d say Phil is about a G0 celebrity.
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:52 am
Did somebody say “suntan”? ASAP
This is proof that astronomers DO come out during the day; they are not just nocturnal
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:56 am
My eyes!!!!!!!
Aughhh!!!:)
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:56 am
And here I thought all astronomers were vampires!
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:25 am
Good Lord. I’ve never been so completely grossed out and then so enthralled (November!) in such short order. I think I need to gouge one eye out!
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 am
All we need to go with your picture is a song, HIT IT BOYS….
I’ve paid my dues -
Time after time -
I’ve done my sentence
But committed no crime -
And bad mistakes
I’ve made a few
I’ve had my share of sand kicked in my face -
But I’ve come through
We are the champions – my friends
And we’ll keep on fighting – till the end -
We are the champions -
We are the champions
No time for losers
‘Cause we are the champions – of the world -
I’ve taken my bows
And my curtain calls -
You brought me fame and fortuen and everything that goes with it
-
I thank you all -
But it’s been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise -
I consider it a challenge before the whole human race -
And I ain’t gonna lose -
We are the champions – my friends
And we’ll keep on fighting – till the end -
We are the champions -
We are the champions
No time for losers
‘Cause we are the champions – of the world -
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:50 am
Oh yes, getting naked is going to get them taken more seriously. Great thinking girls.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:12 am
I have such mixed feelings about this, and I guess I’m with vigilant20 on this.
I’ve been a skeptic all my life. I’m skeptical about almost everything (hell, especially government these days). Yeah, I’ve noticed most skeptics that people listen to are guys.
I can see that such a calendar could help raise money to promote women skeptics. But wouldn’t a book help, too?
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:12 am
soooo……women who use their minds have to dress like nuns? I don’t think these women are concerned about being taken seriously, I imagine they are quite confident in their abilities.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:19 am
OK… ok… whos idea was it to put a astronomer in the sun?
My suggestion for next year (if they ask you back, Phil
) is a black back ground, with you sitting in the classical “thinker pose” looking up into a telescope, carefully lit to let the shadows fall in all the right spots.
I must say, that takes guts! Talk about putting yourself on the line for science! Way to go Phil.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:25 am
Phil should start a new website, Naked Astronomy, in which he regularly lays bare long-held popular fallacies.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:13 am
Please tell me there’s a telescope in Phil’s picture.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:34 am
Well, vigilant20, first off, they are women, not girls.
Second, I’ve written about this topic before. In fact, let me quote it here:
The SkepChicks are: smart, funny, clever, interesting, skeptical, curious, and wonderful. Some of them are also beautiful. In this case, their beauty is what will sell calendars, and that will in turn go into supporting more women who can get their chance to be smart, funny, clever, interesting, skeptical, curious, and wonderful.
I hear this a lot– this is sexist, it plays into male stereotypes, etc. I don’t buy it. Sexism is treating a woman as an object only for one thing — generally, sex. But these calendars, while promoting that aspect, also promote skepticism, and are a direct conduit into getting a) more women involved with skepticism, and b) getting more people involved in getting more women involved (that is, men and women both will go to the SkepChicks site, and hopefully many will become members of the forum).
If some men are going to only see one aspect of the women in those pictures, then that’s what they’re going to do. But I think a lot will see more. I know a lot of these women, and I know how cool they are. Maybe others will too.
And don’t forget that men have posed for a calendar as well. How sexist is that?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:44 am
I’m going to check back here after the calendar comes out to see if BA’s new nickname is White Dwarf or Red Giant.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Dear Phil,
I’d just like you to know that I used to be a fan of yours before you decided to be in this filthy calendar. I think it’s sad that boys like you and this “James Randi” fellow feel like you have to strip off all your clothes in order to be taken seriously. Tsk tsk!
Also, my girlie parts feel funny when I look at your photo. Is that normal?
Sincerely,
Rebecca
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 am
Not getting naked to get taken more seriously. Getting naked (tastefully) in order to sell calendars. It’s entirely different.
There are several things about it that disturb me.
The first is that, while I might like to support such a cause, I wouldn’t want to lay out money for either of these calendars. They’d be of no use to me, as I couldn’t display them.
I don’t know about other folks, but I have a mother and a girlfriend, both of which preclude the possibility of my displaying even tastefully shot nudes covering themselves with guitars and Bad Astronomy books and whatever.
Being perfectly honest, it’s not something I’m likely to do anyway. In general, I prefer to have pictures of ACTUAL heavenly bodies hanging on my wall. Admittedly, that probably makes me strange, but I’ve long been used to being strange.
On the second hand, it simply comes down to jealousy. I don’t think it’s fair that these women can rake in money just by taking their clothes off while I’d have to get a job or something.
Finally, I do not support targeted outreach programs. While I agree that it’d be great to have more women in the sciences, I also think it’d be great to have more MEN in the sciences, and I simply won’t support any effort that discriminates on the basis of gender.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 am
Sigh. For those wondering, this rebecca is also this Rebecca.
JediBear, no one is making money off this: SkepChicks is a non-profit, and the money goes toward scholarships and grants. Also, while I wouldn’t hang the calendar at work, I do have last year’s on my office wall at home. I like it, and Mrs. BA thinks it’s funny.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 am
“Oh yes, getting naked is going to get them taken more seriously. Great thinking girls. ”
Does this mean we must upon Phil’s (surely impressive) telescope, and sigh as we dismiss him as a well-meaning yet misguided scientist who yearns to not be taken seriously?
Consider that being ashamed and embarrassed by one’s own nudity (or the nudity of others) is usually the result of a strict religious upbringing. Or insecurity because of ridiculous societal standards, especially for women. Or a fear of sexuality…none of which a smart, skeptical person would embrace.
Besides – it’s not as if the SkepChicks are pretending to be a caricature of women (i.e. Pam Anderson types) who are airbrushed to the point of looking inhuman. They are not being bullied into the project, nor made to feel inferior. Those are the things you can righteously get pissed about.
If it were just the women showing buttcrack, I’d understand some of the criticism – but with the boys getting in on the fun, it should be all good (and equal)!
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
BA, there’s no point in selling something if someone isn’t making money off it. The models may not be (and I wasn’t trying to suggest that they were), but the organization is.
In order to make a comparable contribution to a nonprofit entity (as these women are effectively donating any pay or royalties they would be due as models,) I would have to get an /actual/ job.
Now /you/ manage to make a (possibly, we’ll see) comparable contribution with the Skepdudes calendar, but that’s because you’re a netcelebrity, a status you worked hard to acquire. As sexy as you are, just you (without your modest fame) in the buff would be worth jack-diddly-squat.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I have to admit that I pre-ordered more because I support the cause than because I need two (or even one!) calendar…
…that said, when does the daily desk-calender come out?
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:53 pm
While I am not about to go looking at the calendar pics at the moment (I am at work, after all), I must say you do yourself a disservice, BA. That head-and-shoulders shot makes you look very appealing.
No fear of losing anyone’s breakfast. Maybe fear of making the ladies (and some of the men) lose their concentration, though….
I admit to a certain curiosity about Randi’s picture.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
[...] There are Skepchick and Skepdude versions available[1] and all money goes to good skeptical causes. Intrigued as I am by the presence of James Randi, I think Skepchick’s the one for me. Last year’s version sold out rapidly – well before I heard about it – so it might be worth getting in a pre-order before early November if you fancy one. Anybody worried about exploitation should see this forum thread and last year’s photos. somebody on Bad Astronomy commented that they could have easily made the male version rhyme – I bet they were tempted ↠[...]
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
…James Randi? In a sexy calendar? What?
October 4th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Phil, you are somewhere between linen and ivory.
reference
October 4th, 2006 at 5:05 am
Dear BA
SPF 150 should do the trick.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:44 am
After some recent experiences i really could use a reminder that there are some really smart women out there. Think i might order one.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:32 am
I just saw a SUPERNOVA! A SUPERNOVA!
Oh, wait. It’s Phil with his shirt off.
He he. Just a little kidding from one rather white person to another.
Keep up the great work.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:18 am
poor jedibear… he has a mother *and* a girlfriend. how he must suffer! i just ordered one of each for a skeptchick and skeptdude friends of mine as christmas presents.
as for the nudity thing… i get a little tired of people assuming that you can’t be sexual, confident *and* intelligent. as a matter of fact, i have heard rumours that some people (even men) find confident, intelligent people (even women) sexy! sad to say, i’ve yet to find one of them… but i know they’re out there.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Laurie Mann said:
> I can see that such a calendar could help raise money to promote women skeptics. But wouldn’t a book help, too?
This calendar is not the only thing they do. For starters, they have a web forum. They post articles of a skeptical nature. Rebecca has a skeptical blog. They try to foster a sense of community with other like minded skeptic interested in promoting skepticism, especially by encouraging women and girls to be more skeptical.
Selling books might raise money. Of course, you have to right a book first. It’s probably easier to compile and publish a calendar than a book. Also, there’s a built in annual resale potential on a calendar.
JediBear Said:
>The first is that, while I might like to support such a cause, I wouldn’t want to lay out money for either of these calendars. They’d be of no use to me, as I couldn’t display them.
Fair enough. You have the choice of whether it is useful and makes sense to purchase or not.
>I don’t know about other folks, but I have a mother and a girlfriend, both of which preclude the possibility of my displaying even tastefully shot nudes covering themselves with guitars and Bad Astronomy books and whatever.
Again, you have the right to make that determination. Some people are more comfortable with nudity than others, and whether it should be displayed casually at home or not. One of my good friends and his wife have numerous fantasy nudes and near nudes displayed all over their walls. And I have taken my parents over there to visit.
>On the second hand, it simply comes down to jealousy. I don’t think it’s fair that these women can rake in money just by taking their clothes off while I’d have to get a job or something.
So you’re admitting this is your own character flaw and nothing inherently wrong with their actions. That’s fine.
As for fairness, life is inherently not fair. Too many times in our modern culture we take our desire for fairness and being treated as of equal value as humans to mean there are no differences. This is clearly not true. Tall people make better basketball (and volleyball, for that matter) players. Height advantage helps. Being athletic and able to jump helps, too. Also, having good hand/eye coordination. It doesn’t matter how much practice I put in, I’ll never be able to dunk, and my shooting percentages suck. I’ll never be able to earn a living playing basketball.
And it’s not just women who can make money off their bodies.
>Finally, I do not support targeted outreach programs. While I agree that it’d be great to have more women in the sciences, I also think it’d be great to have more MEN in the sciences, and I simply won’t support any effort that discriminates on the basis of gender.
Your right to choose what programs you endorse. I, for one, find no problem with targeted outreach. They are reaching out to an under-represented segment of the population – many of them actually being from that segment. (There are men involved on the site, which is why I didn’t voice it in the exclusive.) Yes, I think it important that more men should be skeptical and scientifically aware. I also think that women are underrepresented, and some of that may be in the atmosphere of the way it is perceived and presented. So I encourage different views and approaches to outreach, and encourage trying to find out how women in particular might be better attracted to skepticism. As long as the methods for publicizing and attracting don’t conflict with the aims and means of skepticism itself, I’m fine with that.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
That’s the best picture of Phil I’ve seen, very regal, perhaps there is a bit of Orion in him after all. Women do seem more gullible than men, must be a brain sex type of thing. I don’t think the skepchik web site will help with that, sort of like preaching to the converted.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Damn, BA, you’re Buff!
October 5th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Can you say ‘pasty faced white boy’? I knew you could…
I ain’t lookin’ at The Full Bad Astronomer without that new polarizing filter…either that, or a solar filter…excessive glare and all, y’know…
October 5th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Those of you who read this blog and the replies to it are probably aware that I have never before posted a reply myself, despite the fact that the BA frequently tries to lure me in by blogging about Playboy Playmates he has met and other titillating topics. I chose to break my silence here for 2 reasons.
First, I want to defend the BA for being so blindingly, unrelentingly white. Being an intelligent man, he knows that if he stays out of the sun he’ll avoid skin cancer and wrinkles, and that I firmly support his avoidance of both. Besides, you know all you blog-reading uber-shutins are as white as he is.
Second, I feel I must respond to JediBear’s post of October 3 at 11:21 am. JB – if both your mother and girlfriend would seriously be bothered by a calendar that contains very tasteful and modest nude pictures, you need to dump the girlfriend and stop inviting your mother over (unless of course you still live with her, which I strongly suspect based on your comment that you “might have to get a job or something”). These women are either prudish or insecure, and no one should willingly acquiesce to the sensitivities of either of these traits, as it will only reinforce them. Also, in reference to your comment that you don’t support outreach programs based on gender, I would invite you to join the rest of us in the real world. It’s the twenty-first century, and women STILL don’t get paid as much as men or promoted as quickly for the same work, girls are STILL not as strongly encouraged as boys to pursue interests in science and math, and we STILL have not had a woman President.
I realize the BA may delete my entry and ban me for my attack on poor JediBear. This is why I don’t post on these things – I’m an obnoxious loudmouth. Farewell, for I fear we shall never meet again.
P.S. – Buy the Skepdudes calendar, if only to see the very hot and ripped BA and his HUGE telescope.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Troy said:
>Women do seem more gullible than men, must be a brain sex type of thing. I don’t think the skepchik web site will help with that, sort of like preaching to the converted.
I would suggest that “gullible” is perhaps not the right word. I think it is a matter of a difference in outlook, something to do with different needs in the way to connect with other people and the world. For instance, I know several men who are fiscal conservatives and ardent capitalists and support the Republicans over economic issues. I know no women who proclaim the same. Maybe it’s a more emotional approach. I’m not sure what the right words are. Understanding the difference in needs and outlook can help promote skepticism and science to them in a way they can connect with it.
The website serves as a focal point. It gives women who may be interested a place to explore that is conducive to their participation, more inviting than a room of stodgy old white men debating the finer points of The Argument From Ignorance, or whatever.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
My wife is very cool.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:58 am
My son is VERY cool……as is his wife. As for me, I would like to think that I am ‘with it”. I have seen last year’s calendar and think it is great. Looking forward to this one and its companion piece. I applaud whatever it takes to make society appreciate that women have good minds and can use them as well as men can [better in some instances] even if differently. I am a realist…not a sexist.
Phil, now you can add “Calendar Model” to your resume.
BA Mom
October 7th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Criminy, who’s next?
October 10th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Bah!
October 11th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
So JediBear is telling me I’m worth jack-diddly-squat. Great
Isn’t that what they call, like, you know, shallow …
October 12th, 2006 at 7:04 am
[...] Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy: Naked Skepticism. Akusai at The Action Skeptic’s Blog: Circular Reasoning. [...]
October 12th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
exarch, without knowing what you look like naked, that’s hard to extrapolate. Jedibear appears to be saying a calendar of pictures of naked men isn’t worth as much as a calendar of pictures of naked women. From my perspective, I have to agree. I certainly don’t have much use for a calendar of pictures of naked men – regardless of how they look. Even as a calendar.
On the other hand, there are people out there who like to see naked male forms rather than or in addition to naked female forms. They would have more value for the skepdude calendar.
There is something to the notion that Phil’s body may not be all that great (though from the snippet shown, it doesn’t appear that bad – he is trim and lean if not cut – can’t tell from the above clip and not really planning to look that closely
) and that the key to his appeal in this context is his notoriety rather than purely his body. It is probably true that a calendar of regular joes would not have much market while a calendar of skeptical joes has more hook. Since this calendar is aimed at a particular market, that’s not an issue.
Ultimately, your complaint seems to be that JediBear is measuring purely by the physical and not allowing for intellectual, emotional, or personality to count. In fairness, it is a collection of pictures. What’s on display is not Phil’s IQ or rationality or common sense or likable funness.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Ohhh. If I post wildly inaccurate astronomical calculations on my blog, will you come over and spank me?
Wanna see what happens when a geochemist tries to calculate the number of neutrinos released by a supernova? Go no further:
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/10/supernovas-zinc-mines-and-north-korean.html
November 14th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Greater public skepticism is required. Religious beliefs are outmoded and outdated. Superstitions encumber the minds of the populace. To emancipate the mind is necessary to attain true freedom.
Hopefully, however, one would not need to be too skeptical about the attractiveness of the persons featured in the calendars.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
[...] skepdude – Link Love. [...]
August 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
[...] many other forms of pseudoscience, it can inspire great art. Seeing as how I like art, and I like nudity, how can I resist the Incredible [...]
June 8th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Phil
Is that a telescope in that picture or are you just happy to see me?
Hoho! Kneeslap!
A loving admirer,
Kenny