Rebecca writes:
I know what you think. You think this job is all about jetting off to Las Vegas to hang out with famous scientists, or chatting about skepticism on podcasts, or getting to see sexy photos of critical thinkers. Well, you're wrong. I also get to read a ton of great articles submitted every month to the magazine, which is fascinating but time consuming.

To help keep Skepchick a well-oiled (get your minds out of the gutter) machine, Diane Perry has stepped up to be Managing Editor. Instead of me going on about how awesome she is to take on such a huge task, I'll just let her speak for herself. Welcome to the team, Diane! Sucker.

Diane writes:
I first became familiar with the term “skepchick” through an article on TAM3. My initial reaction, however, was one of contempt. It seemed clear to me at the time that skeptical women lacked what it took to run with “the big boys” and had to resort to cutesy epithets and other like tactics in order to attract other women and/or gain the respect of their male counterparts. I simply could not understand why they had to distinguish themselves in this manner.

Last September, that opinion changed.

In his August 26, 2005 commentary, James Randi wrote “Personally, I suspect that women may not have as great a natural interest in active skepticism as men do.”

I emailed him a reply to this comment, asking how he had come to this conclusion (his response was that 60 years of experience had led him to it). I also added that, despite the fact that I was a skeptic and female, I defied anyone to refer to me as a “skepchick” as I found it demeaning. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Randi posted a link to Skepchick.org which immediately prompted me to send him a retraction—apologizing because the negative connotations that I had associated with the expression and organization were incorrect.

This exchange got me thinking. If I had rendered such a hasty judgment, there must be other women out there who did, or may do, the same thing. This was something I could not allow.

So, here I am, your humbled, but devoted Managing Editor, requesting that you prevent what almost happened to me from happening to others.

Your voices—opinions, musings, papers, research—need to be heard. We just happen to have the perfect amplifier for them: submissions@skepchick.org.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Diane

BTW: We should have our "submission guidelines" available by the next issue. And yes, the idea of monthly "themes" is fomenting nicely.

Rebecca again:
So we hope you enjoy this issue, which brings us news stories collected by Chani Overli and superb new pieces from past popular contributors Ben Radford, Darcie Hodgkins Langone, and Lynette Davidson, plus newcomer Matthew Armstrong. This issue also heralds the premiere of Skepchick's Answer Guy David McGehee, who will answer a new reader question every month (this month he learns everything he ever wanted to know -- and more -- about PMS). To get your Skepchick-related question answered in a future issue, write to answerguy@skepchick.org.

As always, be sure to check out the daily Skepchick blog and the rapidly growing Skepchick forum to hold you over between issues. Happy reading!

Rebecca

ISSUE 3 CREDITS

Skepchick-in-Chief
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

Archives