Hopefully, however, one would not need to be too skeptical about the attractiveness of the persons featured in the calendars.

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

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.

Isn’t that what they call, like, you know, shallow …

Phil, now you can add “Calendar Model” to your resume.

BA Mom

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

He he. Just a little kidding from one rather white person to another.
Keep up the great work.

SPF 150 should do the trick.

reference