• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

January 8, 2016 — Erica Lukes

Forums New posts
Gene Steinberg

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
From women in Ufology, her reasons for resigning from MUFON, to lots of other subjects, which include some fascinating UFO cases, this was a fun session.

We also briefly mentioned Roswell, and the partial recantation by Kevin D. Randle in his recent book, "Roswell in the 21st Century." Was it the last word on the subject.

That also forms the major part of After The Paracast, which featured Gene and guest co-host Paul Kimball.

After The Paracast is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+, and more information can be found at:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
Early on, Erica makes the statement that for an archivist it is ok to remain anonymous, but when one is "coming to conclusions and voicing your opinions" (I assume she means as a researcher) it is necessary to use a real name. Which is pure epistemic poppycock.

Also, much later in the program, Chris implies that most of the questions from the forum relate to gender issues. I was wondering if he (or Erica) read my not-gender-related comment and would like a chance to comment here?
 
CuCullen said:
Early on, Erica makes the statement that for an archivist it is ok to remain anonymous, but when one is "coming to conclusions and voicing your opinions" (I assume she means as a researcher) it is necessary to use a real name. Which is pure epistemic poppycock. Also, much later in the program, Chris implies that most of the questions from the forum relate to gender issues. I was wondering if he (or Erica) read my not-gender-related comment and would like a chance to comment here?
Click to expand...

The show was about gender issues, so why should questions about gender issues be ignored? My question was a fair-minded and balanced. Maybe that was the problem? Maybe I should have donned the women as victims glasses along with the rest of the pro-feminist movement?
 
Usual Suspect said:
The show was about gender issues, so why should questions about gender issues be ignored? My question was a fair-minded and balanced. Maybe that was the problem? Maybe I should have donned the women as victims glasses along with the rest of the pro-feminist movement?
Click to expand...

Give her a chance, they may have run out of time on the show. She just answered mine today in the question thread. Perhaps an answer to your question is forthcoming.
 
Red said:
Give her a chance, they may have run out of time on the show. She just answered mine today in the question thread. Perhaps an answer to your question is forthcoming.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping you're right, and was referring more to why my question wasn't asked on the show. @Erica Lukes is not responsible for what questions were or were not asked. Plus I've been one of the people who have been fair minded about her during the whole Koi debacle while others here were giving her a really hard time. She's comes across as having a great attitude and it seems she became involved with MUFON and IAUPAR with the best of intentions. I hope she's learned from those experiences how to avoid more of those kinds of problems in the future.
 
Last edited:
That's why we pay membership to listen after the Paracast to researchers (instead loaded historical ridicule labels UFO/Paranormal) are asked the hard questions (without ridicule) shows us the scientific evidence with open mind. You guys want more membership maybe add "at extreme edge of science investigation" signs.
 
So here's my take on it.

The cream always rises to the top. If your good in your field, others cannot keep you down over a long term.

There are countless examples of women succeeding in 'male dominated' structures. Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher etc etc... If you want an example in Ufology look at Linda MH (one of the most successful ufologists surely in terms of popularity).

If a woman is in UFOlogoy and her logic is sound, her research is solid, her presentation is strong she will succeed regardless of what the males say. Her success is not controlled by male ufologists.

I wonder (and here comes controversy) if the minority card gets played here as a reason for lack of success or achievement. Sometimes it's easier to blame others for lack of success than it is to look in the mirror. E.g. I couldn't get that job because I'm black / yellow etc

Men are not immune to those forces within organisations and social structures that try to keep you down. Those on the top of the hill will naturally want to stay there and even for the men they will still be victim to name calling, labelling, group exclusion. In a way these negative voices help to ensure those who want to be considered top of the class have all their ducks in a row because if not, someone will be pointing it out.

The key to success whether your a man, woman, white or not is to do what you do well and have the strength of character to keep going and push through the barriers again and again.
 
Back
Top