My article on the science of Boobquake at The Guardian

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have an article up at The Guardian on the skeptical goal of Boobquake. I present my “scientific” results from the “experiment” there, but I also touch on my motivation and response to critics. And I’m super excited to be a part of such a huge, respectable newspaper – so go check it out!


  1. says

    Forgot to join your boob jiggle event, but I had read the news item regarding the clerics’ comments, and have to say that when people like that make such stupid comments all they do is further the idea that their men are weak, weaker than women in fact, and that this is the reason they keep women down in Iran – because they do not want women to be able to get the upper hand.

  2. Hugin says

    Yes, because sexism is perfectly fine when it’s a woman doing it.Comments like what the cleric made serve to further the idea that belief to the exclusion of rational thought makes one an idiot, and that sexism and religious bigotry are accepted in Iran to a degree that most Americans, living in the land of the free, can’t even comprehend. The fact that he’s male doesn’t matter, except for the fact that males are the ones in power in Iran and therefore able to make stupid comments with much more publicity.

  3. hjb says

    Jen, since you live in the US I’m guessing you might not be exposed to the Daily Mail too often. I’m also pretty confident that the article you linked to has given you a pretty good idea of the quality of their science reporting.However, just in case, and for general amusement, I recommend this site: http://dailymailoncology.tumbl

  4. says

    I don’t know if it’s what you’re hoping for, especially as I’ve not read much of your archive, but I hope that this is the start of a stellar career in liberal/sceptical media. Obviously, if that isn’t what you want to do, then I wish you success in whatever, but for the rest of us, you’d be great, based on this blog and your recent sudden celebrity.

  5. guest5 says

    You are smart, witty, fun to read and I am a big fan. But I do think you are misunderstanding the cleric’s intentions when he made that statement. Iranian leaders tend to speak with a great deal of metaphor and poetry, so it is highly unlikely that he meant that earthquakes literally happen because of women showing skin. The literal interpretation of his remarks is pretty insulting, but whatever, if I had to pick a side, I guess it would be yours? There is a major cultural disconnect and ridicule just widens the gap.

  6. Alexrkr7 says

    Did they make you spell skeptic with a ‘c’? The basterds! Other than that wonderful article!

  7. 66steve says

    Wow!I’ve been reading you since your wonderfully witty review of the dire Prof & Dom book last year. Atheist Barbie was great, the Colbert report is a coup, but this?Well done Jen, you deserve the stellar path you’re following.Congrats!

  8. Hugin says

    Assuming metaphor, he’s still saying that god kills people if you don’t obey his religion’s moral code. That’s not exactly worthy of respect.

  9. Clever_Badger says

    Jen -Didja know that David Mabus/Dennis Markuze has added Boobquake to his frothing ravings?

  10. Clever_Badger says

    zen -While that may be true, I can’t help but note that “Boobquake” is fairly easy to type with the one hand that Mabus can work out of his straight jacket…

  11. Megan says

    Just in, Iran is elected head of UN Commission for Women’s Rights. Has the world turned upside down!! I think it’s time we pull the plug on the UN

  12. Hugin says

    I’ve never understood why anyone cares about the UN. The concept is good, but since it has no power over anyone except it’s own members and it tries to reflect the views of all of it’s members, the end result is a group that has no real stance on anything. Something like NATO is better, but currently lacks the global punch. I’d still prefer expanding it to keeping the current UN, which seems focused on putting the worst possible countries in charge of it’s councils.

  13. says

    boo! I thought the barmaid was a skeptic, but it looks like she might be into New Age woo! (or maybe she’s being sarcastic; I hope she’s being sarcastic)

  14. says

    anyway, congratulations on all the skeptic fame, you totally deserve it. I’ve been occasionally reading your blog since that epically bad book review (erm… the book was epically bad, not the review), but for some reason rarely commented… oh well :-p

  15. plublesnork says

    “weaker than women in fact”…While I agree these men are weak, pathetic individuals, do you think you might phrase your insult better next time? This implies that you think women are weak, and thus makes you look like a douche.

  16. eggplantinorbit says

    I have only just come across this blog, and I have to say I love it. Simply genius. Big well dones all round. You have really brought a smile to my face and consider yourself subscribed & blogrolled

  17. Valhar2000 says

    Actually, it’s more like what they think. Women need to be kept in the house and taken care of because they are weak and can’t be by themselves, but the men who are supposed to be watching out for them are weaker still… It boggles the mind.

Leave a Reply