Atheists have been fighting stereotypes for as long as I’ve been one, and longer: that we’re all Communists, that we’re Vulcan robots, that we’re amoral and likely to rape small children (no, ma’am, you’ve confused us with Catholic priests), that we all think we’re so much better than everyone else. Thanks to the behavior of our Great Atheist Thinky Bigbrain Leaders, though, another one is taking currency fast: that we are all MRA-style anti-woman freaks.
Excellent work, leadership! Atheism is just another subreddit.
On the Vulcan robots and thinking they’re better than anyone else, that’s certainly the impression Dawkins & co. have given me as long as I’ve known about them. I’ve never thought atheism had anything to do with someone’s politics or any other bigotries, but damn, that lot and a few more of the SceptickyScepticDudes™ aka AssholeAtheists™ sure as hell managed to convey the idea that if you’re anything but Their Brand of Atheist, that you’re a loser and an idiot and should be sneered at and mocked.
So [draws breath after long sentence] yeah, it doesn’t really come as any surprise that these shitstains – Dawkins in particular, since I know more of him than the USian lot – are as arrogant and bigoted and fucking smug with no justification when it comes to misogyny as with any of the other crap they throw around. It really is the white dudes’ logical debate club, rules to be decided on the night, no girl cooties allowed.
I really have to laugh at the Vulcan robot stereotype: Dawkins in particular goes into crybaby hysterics at the merest whiff of a suggestion that what he says is harmful and/or demonstrably wrong. Christ, “Guys, don’t do that,” got him so worked up he had to come over here and shit himself on PZ’s blog.
A bunch of us actually are communists or socialists. I mean, if we don’t even worship Jesus & the Saints, why the heck would we want to worship greedy-ass capitalists? So this particular fear of the religious right is not without some basis. People who deny the mythical religions may very well deny the economic religions as well.
meh. At the end of the day it’ll just be a quibble over semantics…I’ll just call myself a secular non-believer…no lives lost. Jettisoning the ‘name’ atheism doesn’t change the basic tenets of it…open secularist here! ( :
woawoa woa
People worship capitalists? Capitalism is an economic religion, and communism or socialism aren’t?
You blurted those out rather casually.
When I first started reading this blog, PZ Myers fell into that category, constantly spewing disdain at anyone who suggested that being an asshole all the time wasn’t the best way to make people receptive to one’s message (and like Harris and Dawkins, whenever called on factual errors, he would either ignore the criticism entirely, or double down on his original statements despite the evidence that he was wrong).
So I’m really glad that he’s distinguished himself from them by abandoning that SkepticySkepticDude™ mindset. Because of that, I still read Pharyngula on a daily basis — and find it much more enjoyable to do so — whereas I’ve stopped reading Harris and Dawkins (though I still do encounter some of their works, when other people are reacting to abysmally stupid things they’ve written. Which seems to be more and more frequent recently).
John Small Berries 6:
What are you on about?
I suspect that John Small Berries may be confusing a rejection of the accomodationist “argument” that one should only and always play nice with theists and speak sweetly to them, with a position that I’ve never actually seen adopted around here: namely that one should only and always be “rude” to them. As far as I can see, nobody but the usual strawpeople have ever suggested that “being an asshole all the time is the best way to make people receptive to one’s message”; on the contrary, the position is usually “you go and talk sweetly to the theists if you like; I’ll laugh loudly and point angrily at them, thank you very much – we don’t all have to adopt the same approach, so stop telling me to tone it down, ta”
.
A lot of people seem to get these very different things mixed up, and JSB seems to be one such.
.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen PZ double down in the face of actual evidence. Perhaps JSB could link us to an example?
brianpansky @5: In the US at least, you have the Trickle Down as well as the Ascension, and the Invisible Hand as well as the Holy Spirit. A lot of people (i.e. Republicans) actually believe that shit, but the folks in charge know it’s all smoke and mirrors (i.e. lies) to keep them and their friends wealthy, and the rubes in check.
brianpansky @5:
Yes. Right now, in the United States of America, the 1%ers are worshiped. The System that has given them the money is worshiped. And people dream of being 1%ers and are willing to worship at the altar of, and vote for the propenents of, increased economic disparity.
Well, both capitalism and communism are, no question, political/economic religions. Look at the lies the worhipers of capitalism swallow: all tax cuts create more tax income, tax cuts for the rich create jobs, gutting public spending creates jobs, the failures of conservative ‘get-government-of-the-back-of-business’ is because we didn’t do it enough, regulations kill jobs. All have become just as important as the trinity, Jesus died for our sins, Jesus was resurrected, etc. And right now, in the United States, the country is being structured and run by faith-based ideas and ideals which do not intersect with reality. Which sounds like religion to me.
As for communism? Definitely a political/economic religion. How many communists regularly make the front cover of US magazines? How many communists are asked to write the regulations that will affect their interests? If almost no one in the US, or in other countries for that matter, is following the politico-economic religion of communism, does it really, right now, matter?
Socialism I see as pragmatism. If it works — public works, universal health care, roads, schools, national parks, etc — do it. It employes people, puts money into circulation, and makes the world a better place. Which, to me, is about as far from a religion as one can get.
You were expecting a disertation?
I’m sure those on the other side of the Rift would be blaming you PZ for this state of affairs. After all, the problem isn’t the misogyny, it’s speaking up about it that’s the problem. If we all just put aside the “simple disagreement” about women, and focused on the 90% we agree on, everything would be peachy. Don’t you know that it’s the feminists being all
conflict-averse and nurturingdivisive?irisvanderpluym @2
But no no no! That isn’t him having crybaby hysterics! Manfeels aren’t emotions, they’re totes logical and rational and reasonable thinky thoughts. Emotions are what those other people have, the ones who aren’t superiorwhiteatheistdudes.
Regarding John Small Berries‘ comment – I can only say that I had *something* of the same impression of Pharyngula in years past, and that’s why it’s taken so long for me to comment here. It’s the mistaken impression that opposablethumbs describes, I know. Mistaken, not hard to get, sometimes tricky to shake off. ::wriggles vigorously:: Buzz off, mistaken impression!
I have seen that latter attitude adopted by a few people here. I don’t think, though, that any of them are left; at least one actually got banned (for different but psychologically similar reasons), IIRC.
opposablethumbs: Ah—The Great Accommodationist Rifts. Of course. AFAIK, PZ has always been on the side of we need all hands on deck. “We must always speak sweetly to theists if we wish to persuade them” is a failed hypothesis.
2kittehs: thanks so much for clearing that up. I keep forgetting about the logical, rational and reasonable manfeels, probably on account of my estrogen-addled ladybrainz.
Atheists are like any other group – they are a heterogeneous mixture of all the different vices and virtues of humanity. There will always be atheists who are assholes, just like there are religious people who are good humans. Atheists never have been a monolithic group of “good” people who are all socially upstanding. Why do we continue to try to make everyone (famous or not) fit into our own particular set of what we want ourselves to be? I know, they are “the face of atheism” – but that is sort of my point. Atheists are not an organized group. I dont attend services nor give any of these people money. They are not me. They don’t share my particular ideas about things – and neither does PZ. This bickering between different atheists solves nothing. Neither side is going to change. I think its fair to point out that X isn’t my kind of person because she does Y. But this droning on about continued bad behavior from the same people seems pointless to me. I think PZ is at his best when he is explaining an interesting new scientific publication in the context of evolution, or batting down loony IDers. All of the stuff focusing on other atheists is stuff that I am not sure why I or anyone else should care about. I am not apologizing for anyone’s actions, nor condoning them. I guess it just seems that a lot of energy and posts are dedicated to explaining why those other atheists suck. And maybe they do. But it seems like a fruitless endeavor to keep explaining why. Carry on.
opposablethumbs @ 8;
and 2kittehs @ 12;
While it is entirely understandable how someone who hasn’t had much contact with the commentariat around here could make that mistake in good faith, as 2kittehs did, there are also some accomodationists – and others like the ‘pitters – who go out of their way to promote this misapprehension in a bid to poison the well and discredit pharyngula in the minds of people who hear about the blog before they even come here. It makes it that much easier to maintain their preferred discourse that we are all mean ‘free thought bullies’ whose extra rifty divisiveness is tearing atheism apart. That is the trouble when someone like John Small Berries turns up and makes a comment like hir @ 6 – it could easily be made in good (if mistaken) faith, but it could just as easily be the act of someone with an ulterior agenda. There is no way to tell from one comment, though the truth of the matter usually becomes apparent over time.
Another don’t-rock-the-boater heard from. When I comes to problems, I am always reminded of the ‘Nam war/civil rights slogan, “you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution”. You are part of the problem.
See my “duh” characterization in the Thunderdome for what I meant by casually blurting.
intron:
No reason to think either of those is true. Why do you say that?
You’ve apparently gotten (at least some of) the message. Do you think everyone has?
Because “caring” about anything assumes certain values, and because “science” and “batting down loony IDers” are not the only valuable things. And apart from all that, it’s just plain obvious that you should care when people behave badly. It’s embarrassing to see atheists ask things like this.
Why does it “seem like a fruitless endeavor”?
Gregory Greenwood:
If I’m remembering correctly, 2kittehs is a theist. Not to start an argument over it here, but that does bring with it different sorts of motivations than you get from an atheist accommodationist who’s concern-trolling about the state of atheism. It seems like someone who’s genuinely targeted by ridicule of theism (sometimes, but not constantly) would be more attuned to when it is and isn’t actually happening and how it’s directed to particular forms of theism, while the accomodationist types are likely to spew their condescending garbage no matter what because they have no real stake in it.
This is the problem with equating sexist statements by a few prominent atheists with “a problem in the atheist community”.
Being atheist has zero to do with an increased likelihood of holding sexist views, and if anything it should be associated with the opposite.
Sexism exists in all corners of society and atheists are no exception. The suggestion that atheism has a special sexism problem is exactly what leads to this preception.
Criticize sexism where it reveals itself, but do not tar entire ideallogies with the most sexist beliefs of the few.
intron #15
This statement is either incredibly callous or incredibly oblivious. This isn’t just complaining about some person’s private opinions. This is about what people say and do. It has effects on other people. Some people aren’t in a position to just ignore these things. The fact that you are is the very definition of privilege: You get to not care. Not everyone is so lucky.
But you do want us to shut up about them. Tell me, in practical terms, exactly what’s the difference?
#notallatheists? Seriously?
@20 Jeff S.
You have to fight the battles that are in front of you. If you’re in the atheist “community” (whateverthefuck that is), and you encounter sexist behavior (or racist, or ableist, or a whole host of other “ists”), it’s to the benefit of that community for such behavior to be called out by those within that community. Self-policing is so more-more effective than policing by outside voices.
If you’re a Catholic and you encounter “ist” behavior, it’s to the benefit of that community for such behavior to be called out by people within that community. Because they don’t listen to us mere atheists, you see.
Heh. #NotAllAtheists, and don’t forget that the ones who #AreNot should #ShutUpAndDoScienceyBlogging. That combo is certain to work out in everyone’s* favor.
*Everyone, in the sense of straight, old, rich, white dudes … who are probably authoritarian religionists.
@3
“A bunch of us actually are communists or socialists. I mean, if we don’t even worship Jesus & the Saints, why the heck would we want to worship greedy-ass capitalists? So this particular fear of the religious right is not without some basis. People who deny the mythical religions may very well deny the economic religions as well.”
With all respect due, if someone is an honest to blog Marxist/communist that is far more religious/wishful thinking than even the most hard core anarchro-captialist nutters from the right. Marxism is inherently committed to the labour theory of value, which among other things is wrong at first glance , incoherent and has been discredited for at least 100 years. Yet without this theory of value you can not even the motivate basic framework for Marx’s theory. The entire position is a nonstarter because of this issue.
Why should atheist activists care about rape and harrassment at their cons, rape and death threats online, and apologia for same by the most famous atheists in the movement?
I’m sorry, but fuck the three post rule.
FUCK YOU, intron.
Gregory Greenwood:
I’ll give John Small Berries the benefit of the doubt, he’s been commenting here a long time, and his comments have been good and on point.
Intron @ 15:
Oh, well, if it pointless to you, we must absolutely stop working for gender equality, and getting people to understand everyday sexism, and rape culture. After all, that doesn’t affect Intron, so hey, it isn’t important.
Of course, what Intron thinks is ever so important, so I’m sure PZ will get right on that.
Gad, insufferable whininess.
michael kellymiecielica
You’re saying there is an orthodox Marxism and anyone who calls themselves a communist or a socialist must adhere to that orthodoxy? That socialist thinking cannot grow beyond the classical model? I don’t believe that’s true. Everything evolves.
atheist @#3
Editorial suggestion. I thought you might have left something out.
Stereotypes about neckbeards also play a role. Atheists are a bunch of neckbeards. Neckbeards are a bunch of misogynists.
Intron @ #15
So you go from:
To:
And you didn’t once stop to think how, given your own argument, “batting down loony IDers” is completely pointless? After all, as you yourself said, neither side is going to change.
—
Jeff S @ #20
That’s like saying one shouldn’t criticize the Catholic Church just because of a few incidents of child abuse. Namely, it ignores a) the way structural factors help maintain and assist the abuse, b) the fact that “a few” is disingenuous at best and c) it ignores the real harm these actions do to people.
Yeah, all that droning about the usual suspects sure is boring.
Yeah, fuck off Ken Ham! More droning on about that ol’ Ken Ham and his bad behaviour, PZ!
(Nice work, intron. Is there anything else you’d like to say and then refute in the same paragraph?)
@Gregory Greenwood @16: I dont know about the old commentariat, but some years ago I used to visit occasionally and, like John Small Berries, was sometimes put off by PZ’s attitude, which I thought unduly harsh; it discouraged me from delving into comments, too, because of what I thought I might find. I think the tone has changed for the better, and probably did so some time back. I don’t think this is just because of arguments with [former] allies, though that may of course have helped.
consciousness razor @ 19;
That is a good point, and certainly that context changes the motivation markedly. To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, I would just like to say that I was not doubting 2kittehs’ sincerity at all; given hir commenting history on other threads, I have no reason to believe that ze is anything other than an earnest and insightful member of the commentariat.
Why? As atheists, we’re no better or worse than anybody else, and non-atheists sure like to do it, so what’s your problem?
Q: How many atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Exactly the same number as it takes Catholics, apparently. Burnt-out lightbulbs exist in all corners of society and atheists are no exception. But seriously folks, religion poisons everything, because reasons.
Atheism. Most. Useless. Fucking. Movement. Ever. (And that’s coming from its apparent proponents.)
Jeff S:
Y’know, sometimes I think you are utterly determined to not get it. There is a problem in the atheist community, and we’ve been talking about it for years. This is not a matter of Dawkins or Harris saying something sexist, and all the people who follow them and pay attention to them saying “nope, sorry, you’re wrong old chap”. This is a matter of when a prominent person says despicable things, people who are comfortable in their privilege, bias, and sexism are encouraged and cheering, which leads us to…a problem in the atheist community.
No, it isn’t associated with the opposite, at all. Why would it be? We all grow up in societies and cultures with entrenched, systemic sexism. It takes thinking and work to become aware of your privilege, Bayesian priors, and sexism. Then it takes more thinking and work to change your attitudes and behaviour. Right now, a good portion of the atheoskeptisphere is very busy refusing to do that, along with claiming there’s no need to do that. It’s a problem. A big, huge problem.
Instead of women being welcomed, they face harassment and threats for the crime of being visible on the internet. There’s still a reluctance to reach out and be more inclusive of women, POC, and GLBT people. Problem. Big, huge problem.
I do understand that you want to stay on the ‘be happy’ side of life, but that should not require a disconnect from reality.
Iyéska, mal omnifarious @ 27;
Fair enough. I was unaware that John Small Berries was an established commenter with a known history here – that was my mistake, and I apologise for my laxity.
2kittehs #12
Moi aussi. But that’s only because someone told me Pharyngula was full of bile and vitriol. I had to come see for myself, and after reading for some weeks, realized that whatever bile and vitriol existed was reserved for assholes, people in power and the intellectually dishonest.
Works for me.
@32 Ze Madmax
That is a fair point. To others who simply got annoyed and wrote things like “fuck you” – bravo. Way to encourage open discourse. I appreciate a good debate about a topic and I appreciate people pointing out how my arguments might be wrong. But I don’t see how saying “fuck you” is beneficial to anything.
I guess here is the perspective that I didn’t put in the first post. Someone mentioned that “atheists activists” should care about what happens at their meetings. And I entirely agree. And since PZ is clearly an atheist activist, these posts make sense. Its part of his community and is affecting him and his community deeply. I suppose my comments come from a perspective outside of that community. I admit that my comments demonstrate my lack of thought into PZ’s deep personal connection to these issues. I am not a regular poster, but I read the blog everyday and sometimes peruse the comments. So, take my comments from that angle. Should all atheists care about this in-house bickering? Not necessarily. Do I care about sexism and a culture of rape and supporting the rights and dignity of women? Of course I do. In that vain I care about what Shermer did and I hope that if he is guilty then he is brought to justice. But I don’t particularly care about what Dawkins thinks about what Watson thinks about what PZ said. That is my, non-community member take. Obviously, that is not shared with everyone here given that the comment sections in the blog tend to attract members of the activist atheist community – obviously in part because of PZs involvement. I applaud him for standing up to change his community.
Pete Shanks @ 34;
I see your point. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but for myself I always found PZ’s preparedness to be direct and his refusal to sugarcoat things (he rarely prioritises preserving the other person’s feelings above actually addressing the issue at hand in a clear fashion) to be rather refreshing and an important part of his approach that still seems to be very much in evidence to this day.
Then again, perhaps PZ has mellowed over the years, and I simply haven’t noticed.
You’re forgetting that the ENTIRE GENESIS of this “discussion” was atheists in the atheist community looking around and saying “huh, why aren’t there more women here? We seem to have fewer women than statistical probability would indicate”. And then women who wanted to be in the atheist community but were driven out of it answered.
And then some guys didn’t like those answers very much, because those answered revealed a viper’s nest of sexism within the atheist community. And the problem with opening a viper’s nest is that then the snakes go slithering out everywhere and then everyone can see all the vipers, which is what has happened ever since.
So yes, it is a problem in the atheist community. It’s the problem that showed enough visible symptoms that it started to be discussed in the first place.
Says the person who asserted that “[t]his bickering between different atheists solves nothing” and “[n]either side is going to change”.
I mean, when I congratulated you on refuting your own point in the same paragraph, intron, I was being sarcastic. Don’t keep doing it over multiple comments.
You might consider that the person saying “fuck you” isn’t trying to encourage open discourse, because they do not think this is an appropriate topic for the “debate” you wish to have, nor do they think the arguments you’ve posted are worth their time to dissect.
Intron #40
You’re going to get frequent “fuck-yous” from the commentariat here if you stick your head in to wax poetically about “tolerance” and “being nice.” That’s tone trolling and there’s no patience for it here, because it’s patently dishonest within the context of the discussion.
A lot of what’s challenged and dissected here has to do with very real, very harmful perceptions and behaviours. There is no reason to “be nice” about it. Misogynists, bigots and their enablers need to be put on the spot for their horrific attitudes, and if that’s done harshly so what? Why would anyone with even a sliver of morality be focusing on how harsh the language is in the face of misogyny and bigotry? It’s the latter that should be questioned, not the angry tone of the victims and those who support them.
intron #40:
*sigh*
Not going to happen and not your place to suggest that “justice,” as in the criminal justice system, should be involved.
This, this right here, what we’re talking about, bringing all this crap into the open and letting the old guard show what they’re made of, THIS is justice. Yeah, it’s crap. Yeah, it’s indistinguishable from the same injustices of the past some days, and even worse on days when the backlash is at its howling pitch. But the vain “hope” that a “real” bringing to justice will somehow obviate the need for this kind of constant engagement with the problem, is a way of ignoring the problem.
re intron #40:
Those are not separate issues.
They’re not separate, because it’s common to imply any given incidence of sexism against a woman – from an ill-chosen word to severe relationship violence to stalking – is just personal issues instead of what it actually is, which is part of a dangerous cultural pattern. See for instance Grothe’s “locker room banter” comment, used to cover up a real pattern of sexual harassment and victim-blaming. It’s no different than the current Leaders saying critiques of their sexism are just personal flame-baiting. They’re not just personal attacks, they are criticism. Valid criticism does you a favor.
Intron @ 40:
Has it occurred to you that we have a very good idea of all the things you don’t care about? This is not about you. A whole fucktonne of people do care about Dawkins says and thinks. A whole fucktonne of people gleefully latch on to what he says as a justification for sexism, or a justification in being anti-feminist, or a justification in denying rape culture, and on the list goes.
It’s grand that you don’t feel these issues affect you at all, however, they do affect me, and a lot of other people. These aren’t new issues, we’ve been fighting for change for decades, and the fight still has to be fought. Have you asked yourself why you are taking the time to insist these issues really aren’t all that, you aren’t affected, you aren’t interested, and so on? Because if you were as indifferent as you make yourself out to be, I doubt you’d bother.
Also, if it’s true that you’ve been reading here, then you know it’s a rude blog, and would be able to take away the substance of a comment, rather than finding yourself screeching to a mental halt over a fuck or three.
Small John Berries
Cut out the passive aggressive crap. Because we are talking about the misbehavior and anti humanistic views of many atheists and not whether atheists are too strident in their views.
intron #40
I’m sure women everywhere are very glad to have your “support”.
Seriously, do you think these points are unrelated? Do you think the fact that major atheist front-figures can provide shelter for rapists without losing their fanbase is unrelated to the more general culture of denigration of women? Do you think that you’d have ever heard about what Shermer did if nobody had been willing to fight these battles? Do you think anything would ever get done if nobody was willing to stand up and say “I disagree with this”?
You say “in-house bickering”. I say “an essential step towards changing the culture”.
Jeff, if it had only been “a few” who hold such beliefs, we wouldn’t be going through this. The supposedly less sexist majority of atheists in the movement would not have brought Elevatorgate about by descending on Rebecca Watson like locusts because she had the gall to say “guys, don’t do that”, for one thing. If Dawkins had gone after her anyway, he wouldn’t have been backed by so many members and leaders of that movement, and found it a good idea to act like a martyr now.
I could go on to describe how for another thing, we wouldn’t need to keep asking ourselves why there’s so few women actively involved with the movement. Also, Shermer would never have ended up on an apocryphal black list women pass on to each other in secret because if the community didn’t have a problem with sexism, he would have been blacklisted by the effin conference organizers the very first time he transgressed. Do you see where I’m going with this?
In this instance, I don’t think it matters how vocal the anti-MRA’s are in the atheist movement. The people who will generally be making the ‘atheists are woman haters’ argument are the kind of people who will latch onto anything to support their preconceived notion that atheists are just terrible people. The mere fact that vocal MRA’s exist in the atheist movement is sufficient evidence for them that all atheists are MRA’s, regardless of what everyone else says or how loudly they say it.
Ze Madmax
That is not at all what I’m saying.
When I said “criticize sexism where it reveals itself”, I’m not saying “one shouldn’t criticize”.
To use your example, I would be advocating against “tarring the entire Catholic idealogy” with the heinous crimes of the few. Few being a relative term, not to diminish its significance, but compared to the size of the total number of catholics/atheists. I certainly would find a mass characterization of the worlds Catholics as child abusers and child abuse enablers as being extremely unfair. I wouldn’t assume a gathering of catholics to be any more dangerous to children than any other gathering of people.
Perfectly fair to criticize Dawkins for “Dear Muslima” or his various rape tweets. It’s not fair to repeatedly characterize atheistic men with a fedora-wearing, neck-bearded, misogynist stereotype (see cartoon).
I truly don’t think this is a problem that has anything to do with a lack of a belief in god, and everything to do with society as a whole having a problem with sexism. Sadly, sexism is rampant and the atheist community is certainly no exception.
If you take just about any segment of the populace, you will find justification to label that segment as having a “sexism problem”. Science has a sexism problem, police forces have a sexism problem, the military has a sexism problem, Magic The Gathering has a sexism problem, construction workers have a sexism problem, fans of Dr. Who have a sexism problem, etc…
To see atheists being characterized as especially sexist is what is bothersome, considering the abundance of negative stereotypes already associated with atheism.
Yesterday Greta Christina asked Sam Harris to repudiate some vile comments on Twitter attacking her in Harris’s name. (He did, eventually.) But before he got that far, Harris said:
From blogger Hank_Says: Unfortunately, some things really do need to be said
Right now, we’re hearing a heck of a lot from various Big Name atheists in positions of influence, and not about decrying harassment.
intron @40
Translation: “I know I have to say I care about this because it’s what people expect you to say, so that’s my lip service. Now can we get back to how much of a droning drag it is for me to see this women’s lib stuff showing up in my hobby? This blog run by someone I don’t know is really falling down on catering to my personal interests correctly.”
Why? As I said above, either you are part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. Any Catholic not voting with their feet and money to remove support for the church which doesn’t do anything other than plaster over abuses, is enabling those abuses. It’s one or the other.
Um …I know this is lame for comment 57ish but … am I the only person who is bugged by that third panel where it says “TWO: THAT LOGIC IS THE ANY THE PATH!” Am I missing a joke ? Is that a typo ?
I know that the rest of this discussion is rather more important, but I have re-read that thing several times and it is annoying me. Am I missing something ?
pHred: I think it’s a typo that got fixed in the full cartoon (here). It says “That logic is the way and the path!”
Q: Why fight religion?
A: Because religion is bad. It’s all sexist an’ shit. Muslima can’t drive because of religion.
Q: So, atheists are less sexist?
A: Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more.
Q: That’s a ‘no’ then?
A: Sexism exists in all corners of society and atheists are no different.
Q: Okay…so why are you against religion again?
A: I told you, it’s because of all its badness.
Q: So, without religion, people are better?
A: Duh. As Hitchens wrote, “Religion poisons everything.”
Q: So, Hitchens is kind of like your pope?
A: No, we don’t have popes. That’s a religious thing. We have Horsemen.
Q: I see. And how are they different?
A: Well, for one thing, we have four, except for Hitchens, who’s dead. And we don’t necessarily have to obey them, like Catholics do with the Pope.
Q: Have you ever actually met a Catholic?
A: I don’t see what that has to do with anything. But yes. Just the other day, one was telling me we shouldn’t judge Catholicism by the actions of a few priests.
Q: And what was your response?
A: I said that the problem wasn’t just the molestation, but also the attempts by the recognised leaders and church authorities to cover up the crimes and hinder prosecution. Some of these rapist priests still haven’t been prosecuted in a court of law.
Q: And your Catholic interlocutor’s response?
A: He said that’s a small matter in the face of all the good the church has done.
Q: So, let’s talk about Richard Dawkins, and his tweets defending Michael Shermer, or as he now claims, defending hypothetical rapists in hypothetical situations.
A: Drama. All drama cooked up by people who are jealous of their influence and authority.
Q: People can’t be genuinely concerned about allegations of sexual predation in the community?
A: Of course people can, but these people aren’t. They all want Dawkins’ prestige.
Q: All of them?
A: Why else would they be blogging about these things? It’s for the money.
Q: So atheists are concerned about money?
A: Have you been listening? Atheism is just the non-belief in gods. Some are, some aren’t. No different than any other group.
Q: So then, you think Michael Shermer is innocent.
A: I think he hasn’t been prosecuted in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty.
Q: And what of Dawkins’ tweets about drunkeness and rape? Some would argue he doth protest too much.
A: Well, those who say that haven’t done nearly as much good for the movement as Dawkins, and they should maybe stop criticizing him so harshly. So, he’s not perfect. Who is?
Q: Not the Catholic Church, obviously.
A: Exactly. They’re the real enemy. Eye on the prize, people.
Thanks Pteryxx @58
I still had that page loaded in from way-too-early this morning and just got back to it so I was convinced that I was missing something. That bit makes more sense now at least.
Or Christian patriarchy such as Quiverfull, which somehow doesn’t get much notice from the Big Names. Why might that be…
I’m amazed that there are any Atheists who even notice when people talk about how they’re abrasive and offensive. No matter how much the accomodationists try to pretend otherwise, there is no polite way to say “your holy book(s) is(are) full of nonsense, and fairly obviously lies, and continuing to believe what it(they) say makes the world a worse place”. You can’t be an atheist and not be offensive to religious people on a very basic level. (And it goes both ways: if you are a member of religion X, you have the same essential contempt towards the worldview of people with other religions, as well as atheists. Minority religious groups certainly feel that contempt — Jews and Hindus in the US may keep quiet about it, but they would probably say similar things about Christianity as Christians say about Atheists.) Even if you think religious beliefs are harmless, the amount of time and energy wasted on religious ceremony has a tremendous opportunity cost for the world at large. There’s no point in trying to pretend we like religion.
Sexism/racism/etc. within our own movement, on the other hand, we can do something about. I hope.
There’s a limit to how much you can change a really hard-core authoritarian theist’s beliefs, right? Especially when their entire identity is tied up in the most
repulsiveby-the-book aspects of their religion. For example, the post on RawStory about escaping the Quiverfull movement; when a woman in that movement objects to anything she is told that she might be succumbing to temptation by the devil and the men are automatically given a way to discard her opinion. Not so (ideally) with atheism.Why waste all of our time on those apex religious patriarchs? While it’s good to call out the worst oppressors, it’s also good to try and teach the not as -ist people — who might actually listen. Being told you’re failing at being an ally is a complement because it acknowledges that you are trying, and it implies that you can do better. I certainly don’t think the worst of the Catholic Church are going to pay attention to a mere female atheist, but maybe sexist guys in my sphere of influence will pay attention, and even change for the better.
To summarize: I set a higher bar for my friends (and myself) than my enemies.
Jeff S:
They are “child abuse enablers” because they’re enablers of the child-abusing institution they support. (Links are there, in case you somehow forgot what ordinary English words mean.) And that goes way beyond financial support — it literally would not exist without all of the people in it. That does not make them “more dangerous to children,” because being an enabler doesn’t mean you must be doing it yourself.
And yeah, because those are just plain facts, that does include some of my own family, who are RCC, and lots of friends who were also raised Catholic just like I was. I don’t take my “loyalty” to them more seriously than basic honesty. Neither should anyone else.
drst @55
That would be an incorrect assumption. It was rather silly of me to disassociate the activist atheist community from this board. But…. that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about women’s rights or about the culture of rape in society. I just didn’t care what Dawkins says about it. I guess I didn’t consider him a “leader” – he is an author and speaker to me. I have read The Selfish Gene years ago. But I haven’t read any of his other stuff. I saw him speak once and thought he was merely ok. So, to me, he is simply a man with an opinion. An opinion that only matters to those who are deeply involved in atheist activism. That activist community is important, but I am not part of it for a variety of reasons. So, I mistakenly didn’t see his opinion (or any of the others involved) as having any bearing on anything that matters. I will admit that that was a rather selfish minded view. And I stand corrected that to those in the activist community who attend these things and look to him as a voice for their cause – his opinion obviously matters and has the potential to influence the behavior of others who listen to him. I was wrong to not see that. His opinion doesn’t matter to *me* and I was right to be called out on that. But, having been deeply affected by *three* sexual assaults (1 rape by a high school teacher and two molestations by family members) very very close to me, and participating in community events in support of women’s rights (in about the most ass backwards state in the union), I would argue that suggesting that I am dismissive of “this women’s lib stuff ” is incorrect. I was just dismissive of Dawkins opinion (and that of others). But people in the community obviously *should* care. It is their community and they should be working to make it a better place for everyone involved. This blog is by a prominent member of that community and the forum obviously attracts many from the community. It makes sense to discuss it here. Thanks to those who tried to point out the flaws in my thinking.
And before anyone suggests that I am not a “good” atheist for not being part of the community that engages and cares about these meetups I would like to suggest that everyone fights for causes in their own way. I don’t feel the need to join any of the atheist organizations or attend the meetings but I do stand up in my community in a number of ways: by writing letters to the editor pointing out overt religious bias, fighting with my local politicians, continually addressing our state board of education who are always teetering on the verge of passing ridiculous standards, and confronting my son’s teacher, school and school district about the use of “god” in the pledge of allegiance, their punishing my son for saying “oh my god”, and a teacher dismissing a classroom question about biology with a flippant “well, that is just the way god made it”. I am very glad that their are people who attend these meetings and are loud voices for secularism but I chose to do my fighting on a local level. Both are equally important components of changing our culture. My focus has been on the negative influence of religion at a local level. But if I was trying to get a national organization together to do the same thing then obviously it would be critical to ensure that the community conducted itself in a manner that is inviting to all. I was thinking small and not seeing the bigger picture.
Anthony K@59,
Yep, that seems to capture it.
@ 66 intron, despite my earlier sarcasm, I really appreciated that clarification of your position. I am really sorry to hear about your experiences with sexual assault.
Jeff S @20:
Please stop right there. There *is* a problem with sexism in the atheist community. Where have you been, and have you been paying attention?
I don’t know when you started participating in the online part of the community, but you don’t have to look hard to see that there’s a problem and many people have been expressing this for years. You might not be having a problem, but then you’re not the target of the sexism. Women have been the target of sexism. It’s been ongoing, from the anti-feminist pushback against anti-harassment policies at conventions, to leaders in the movement who engage in and support sexism (Ron Lindsay, Ben Radford, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and more), to those who don’t want their atheism mixed with feminism (such as Thunderf00t and his fans) and more. As you seem to doubt the significance of the problem, perhaps you ought to read this Open Letter to the Secular Community on sexism in the movement.
You have got to be kidding me. What makes you think this is the case? While I don’t believe that being an atheist means a greater likelihood of being sexist, I don’t for a second believe that the opposite is the case. There’s no proof of that. In fact, there’s ample proof, for those of us who have been paying attention for the last few years, that atheists are NOT immune to sexism and misogyny. Again, where have you been?
Part of the problem in this community and one of the sources of the Great Rifts is that a vocal contingent of the atheist movement is openly hostile to the community taking up social justice concerns, especially feminism. A lot of these people are dictionary atheists, who adhere to a belief that atheism is nothing more than not believing in a god or gods. They refuse to accept that there are implications to non-belief…that there is a ton of baggage that accompanies religious belief and if you stop believing in a deity, you ought to reexamine that baggage. Sexist beliefs are often found as part of religious baggage, but many atheists in the movement haven’t examined their beliefs with a critical eye to eliminating those that are harmful. They see no connection between the pursuit of social justice advocacy and atheism, which is absurd given that atheists very often criticize theists for their views on LGBT people (yet another example of baggage that accompanies religious beliefs; if you stop believing in a god or gods, ought you not reexamine whether your views on LGBT people are reasonable? I think you should. Some people do not).
It’s like you have ignorance running through your veins. Who is saying atheism has a special problem with sexist behavior?
What I’ve seen are bloggers and commenters in the atheist movement saying that sexism and misogyny are *a* problem in the movement. Very often these same people say that there is nothing unique or special about this community that would shield its members from the same sexism that pervades society. It is to be expected that members of the atheist movement would hold sexist beliefs, bc they exist as part of a society that has sexist beliefs.
You’re speaking from a position of ignorance and it’s. Please read more about this subject before commenting on things you clearly know little about.
intron @66:
Thanks for the clarification on what you meant and the apology. A willingness to admit that one is wrong is a good quality to have.
By the way:
I’d be one of the first to condemn anyone who said this to you or anyone else.
intron:
First off, howdy; I don’t think we’ve interacted before; I generally hang in the [Lounge].
Secondly:
No.
You know how, these days, the “news cycle” is frequently mentioned—a subject is the “hot topic” for a week, two weeks…and then something else <*squirrel!!!*> captures the media’s and the public’s attention, and you don’t hear about the previous topic any more?
This is how to combat that.
Don’t just drop the ball, when the injustice is still continuing.
Keep it in mind.
For one, very recent, example, where is the outrage over the Ferguson iceberg? All over the media for a couple of weeks, even heaving some of the 9/10 that isn’t clearly visible out into view—then the cycle turns, no-one’s talking about it, no-one’s thinking about it…and *bloop!*, it submerges again. Nothing is done about it, because nobody is watching, Change Is Hard, and anywhere there’s a profit to be made, somebody is making it—and loath to give it up. The old “business as usual” takes over. Then, in a few months, the same damned thing happens again.
And again.
And again.
I guess, going back to the title of this thread—Perception Matters.
The Perception needs to be…we’re still watching.
–
opposablethumbs #8:
Well, yes, I was referring to his once-constant running feud with “accommodationists”, but posts like this one do contain bits which sound an awful lot like the position you claim never to have actually seen (e.g. “I think being rude to the snotty stupidity of religion is entirely appropriate and the least that it deserves.”)
On the other hand, reading back through the archives, most of his rants against accommodationists and the tone police were not quite as absolutist (and seemed a lot more justifiable) as I had recalled (though of course there still were a few times when he boasted proudly of his rudeness). So I’ll apologize to Dr. Myers for an unjust characterization of his posts due to my faulty recollection.
The incident of doubling down that really sticks in my mind was when Jen McCreight was taking a poll of her readership (back in 2012), and PZ sent his hordes to pharyngulate it. She was furious at how her data (on what her existing readers wanted to see more of) was being skewed, but to paraphrase one of the commenters on her site, he “pulled out the DM’s guide and explained how he wasn’t technically in the wrong.” Since PZ later pulled down his post, I can’t verify my specific recollections of the incident, so given my above apology I won’t recount those.
Most of the doubling-down that I remembered was done in the comments, during the scienceblogs days, and it looks like all of the old comments there have been wiped; so no, it looks like I can’t link to anything after all.
Yeah, I know. “How convenient.” But please remember, in my initial post I did say that he doesn’t do that sort of thing any more — which, to me, makes him a much more admirable person.
Jeff S:
If you care to learn about the problems with sexism in the movement, Jason over at Lousy Canuck has a chronological timeline of events in the campaign to get conventions to enact anti-harassment policies.
He’s also created a timeline of major events concerning the sexual harassment in the community.
Both timelines contain a wealth of links and reach back several years. I suggest you dig in and read all the links.
Tony
Of course atheists are not immune to sexism, and I never suggested such.
Not saying there is “proof” of it, simply saying that it “should” to be associated with less sexism.
The reason for this? How about an absence of believing extremely sexist religious dogma?
Just look at all the misogyny in the bible. If I was a true believer in Christianity, I’m pretty much guaranteed to hold sexist views, even if I disregard some passages that are unpalatable to me. Don’t even get me started on the Koran.
I dunno, maybe being free of these ridiculous dogmas that perpetuate ancient misogynistic values might make atheists more likely to be LESS sexist as a group. What a radical idea.
Maybe not believing in a god that supposedly thinks LGBT people are abominations worthy of death would tend to be associated with less homo/transphobic views? Shocker.
My point is that an absence of a belief in god allows for one to discover what is right and wrong through life experiences and interacting with others, rather than an absolute morality.
Perhaps you are completely unaware of just HOW prevalent sexism is in the teachings of major religions? That must be it! Since I disagree with you, you must be profoundly ignorant!
It’s like you have ignorance running through your veins. I don’t know when you started participating in the online part of the community, but please read more about this subject before commenting on things you clearly know little about.
John Small Berries @72:
I’m glad I reread your comment with a more critical eye too. When I initially read it, I misinterpreted what you said. Once I re-read it, I realized you were talking about your perception of how PZ used to be.
I will say that I agree with his views on accomodationists (this Salon article being a recent example of someone who wants atheists to be nicer to theists at the expense of criticizing the harm done by religious beliefs-something I’m none too fond of).
That doesn’t sound like “always be rude to theists.” It sounds like you should be “rude [about] the snotty stupidity of religion.” Are theists themselves the “snotty stupidity” of their own belief system? No, they’re people, not an abstraction.
This is also only half of a sentence you’re quoting. In the context of even that one short paragraph, it does change the meaning to be about the particular examples Stangroom cites which PZ isn’t ashamed of, so that those are the kinds of examples that both parties have put into consideration (not all forms of “rudeness” to anyone and anything). But that’s beside the point, if you understand that people cannot be something like snotty stupidity.
Jeff S:
You have no grounds to throw my comments back at me. I have demonstrated no ignorance about the extent of sexism and misogyny found in religious beliefs. You, OTOH, said @20:
This is denying the extent to which sexism is a problem in the community. The sexist statements of Shermer, Harris, and Dawkins are not being conflated with the problem of sexism in the Atheist Movement. They are *examples* of the problem of sexism in the Atheist Movement.
Also, Jeff:
Did you miss the entire section of my comment @69 where I point out that there is a lot of harmful baggage that accompanies religion?
Your response to me @74 makes no sense.
Yeah, taking down the post after her objection sounds a lot like “doubling down”.
Oh, “should”! Awesome! A hypothetical situation that does not map onto reality, that we can discuss easily and ad nauseum, because it’s always better to discuss how things should be, rather than how they are, especially when it’s an uncomfortable truth right in front of our faces.
And yes, all signs point to sexism being a huge problem amongst atheists here, now, in the present.
What’s the use of hypothetical less-sexist atheists if the real ones are as sexist as the next average group of people? Not helping.
I expect better from a group that I’m a part of.
If I’m going to invest time, energy, emotional capital, possibly money, and part of my identity with a group, I’m not going to pick a group that has rampant sexism as a main feature of it. I’m saving my energy for a group that is not rampantly sexist. Does that seem a bit precious to you? It might, if you have no idea what it really means to be in an environment that is constantly hostile to you as background noise. If you don’t know what it’s like having that wear you down every day, it might not seem like a big deal if an atheist group is sexist too “just like the rest of society”. But it gets old, and it’s not fun, and I run into it enough that I’m certainly not going to voluntarily expose myself to more of it.
Think of a fairly typical day for a woman: After sitting next to a man on the subway doing the enormous leg spread move encroaching on her seat space, a day at work watching the boss speak directly to the man sitting next to her in a meeting and never making eye contact with her, going to lunch and being pushed in front of by people who know that women aren’t supposed to be “rude” and complain about it, going to the store and having a salesman patronize her by assuming she doesn’t know anything about the tech gadget she’s trying to buy, then hearing a few jokes on the radio about women drivers and PMS and feminazis on the way home, why on earth would she want to socialize with a bunch of atheists who are doing the exact same thing?
So no, by all means, go ahead and say “ha ha, our sexism is just like everyone else’s sexism”, and say “Who needs you anyway? What makes you special?” to any woman (or man) who looks at the culture there and decides to not have any part of it. Just don’t then complain that you don’t have enough women in your ranks, or worse, complain and then belittle women when they try to tell you why, because those reasons don’t seem good enough for you.
Jeff S (does the “S” stand for “supercilious” I wonder?)
Oh my dog. Why hello there, Unintentional Irony! How the fuck are ya?!
What’s this, some kind of reverse No True Scotsman?
I was just thinking about the days of the “accommodation wars”, so I find it interesting that they’re being brought up again here.
My perception is that PZ, and all the other “rude” atheists, use the same tone as ever (and I mean that in a good way). But now there isn’t as much pushback against accommodationists, because I guess we have bigger fish to fry. I think the accommodationists, for the most part, haven’t stuck around. Either they were pushed out, persuaded, or in some cases they were outsiders to begin with (ie concern trolls). The current consensus is that people should use whatever approach that suits them. And to this day, tone arguments are considered discredited.
Does this match other people’s perceptions?
BTW Tony, I don’t actually think you are ignorant at all. I parroted your words back to you because I felt you were unjustified in calling me ignorant with such condescension and smug as you did.
Jeff S @85:
Bless your heart.
intron: in light of your 66, I retract my “fuck you.” Thank you.
You know what doesn’t help? Things like this petty little snipe by Ally Fogg at Emma Watson’s campaign: https://proxy.freethought.online/hetpat/2014/09/23/the-five-little-words-that-betrayed-emma-watson/
It’s weird, because in the past he’s said he has no problem with campaigns that are feminist and thus aimed at improving the lives of women and girls. But this is somehow different.
I never liked him much before, but this is just, like I said, really petty.
Yeah, that shit from Ally Fogg definitely gets a big “fuck you.” Will not be retracted.
Cicely:
Very much so.
SallyStrange:
This was the first time I clicked over to his blog. Now I’m sorry I did, and it won’t happen again.
It’s different because it’s specifically asking men to speak up about sexism directed at women and girls. I suppose that sort of thing is okay if you’re a female, but it’s just not a manly male thing to do. Or something.
miller @84,
Same here re: Fogg. I never thought much of him either but that post seems rather incongruous with his usual attitude. Seriously. The campaign is called “HeForShe” and Emma Watson’s speech was primarily about sort of reclaiming the feminist label and he’s going to claim to be surprised that the pledge focuses on discrimination against women and girls? Give me a break.
See I initially skimmed through Jeff S’ post about how “Atheists should be less Sexist” and I read that as a sort of wistful frustration. “You know Atheists really should be less Sexist, denying the sexist dogma of religion seems to logically lead to being more egalitarian to me. A pity it isn’t that way huh?” A pity also that Jeff S didn’t actually say that, and indeed they seem to be engaging in the old-fashioned “Look over there! A distraction” method of derailing discussions you don’t like.
Jeff S, if you’ve got anything more in your deck than “Religions are sexistier!” please play it. The bad behavior of other groups does not excuse the bad behavior of your group. Just because there are virulently sexist religions does not make it okay for Atheism to be virulently sexist. Just because atheism doesn’t kill women doesn’t make it any more okay for atheists to be okay with the marginalization, denigration, and even sexual assault of women.
quoted for truth.
Actually, they got tired of hearing “show us how to do it by taking it to the ‘pit™”, where they had no intention of going, most recognizing that was a lost cause. They finally figured out they couldn’t show us better results, and we wouldn’t shut because of that.
Omnicrom:
Jeff S has whined about this before, it’s not the first time, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.
Well, we’ve seen atheists covering for a rapist, allowing this to go on for years. We’ve seen atheists actively fighting against implementing harassment policies. We’ve seen atheists cover up incidents of sexual harassment. We watched atheist internet explode over a “guys, don’t do that.” And on. And on. I’d say we’ve seen way too fucking much already.
The five words that Ally Fogg is stumbling over are this clause “faced by women and girls.” as in ” I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination…” his critique is nothing more than a sophisticamated version of “What about the MEEENZ!”, parroted by derps everywhere. Why on earth would you balk at taking action against violence and discrimination against women and girls because it specifies women and girls? It’s as if some people cannot comprehend anything that isn’t specifically meant to benefit them. Why would you even complain that an equality campaign that seeks to end real gender inequities like the disproportionate amount of violence perpetuated on women doesn’t mention men? You would never say ” I can’t sign this anti-racism pledge because it doesn’t specifically decry violence against white people.” Perhaps the idea that “it’s not about you”, is one of those things that only people with estrogen vibes can properly understand? /sarcasticbafflement
Yeah, Fogg is being utterly ludicrous.
Observe:
This just seems like blatant dishonesty to me.
In looking over my comment @69 I want to apologize to
Jeff S. My criticisms of your post were based on a misreading of your comment @20. I *do* have problems with some of what you said, but I wanted to walk back my prior comment. Again, I’m sorry.
****
Hopefully *this* criticism will more accurately reflect your comments–
You said @20:
I think my big issue here is that it feels like you’re minimizing the extent to which sexism is a problem in the Atheist community. The sexist statements of Harris and Dawkins are examples of the problem with sexism in the Atheist movement. They hold a good deal of influence and command a great deal of respect in the Atheist movement. When they speak, people listen. Moreover, when they say sexist shit, it provides support for those atheists in the movement who share their views. It validates them, and emboldens them. I think you fail to realize the extent of the influence Dawkins or Harris has in the Atheist community and the extent to which sexism is a problem. The links I provided @73 were for the purpose of showing you that sexism is a problem in this community and it’s not isolated to a few prominent people.
Secondly, who is trying to tar all atheists? You don’t explain this. The comic in the OP (by Matt Lubchansky of Skeptical Spectacle) isn’t tarring all atheists. It’s poking fun at Sam Harris and his recent sexist remarks. This isn’t an issue of anyone in the atheist community tarring all atheists. It’s about how harmful behavior in this community contributes to the public perceiving us negatively.
I had a complete reading fail earlier. I misread your comment for an *is*, rather than an *ought*. You’re saying atheism ought to be associated with a decreased likelihood of holding sexist views (and I agree, it ought to). If more nonbelievers reexamined their religious baggage after leaving theism, it might be the case.
By fucking Christ, Ally Fogg is literally whining along the lines of “WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ?” Seriously?
Tethys:
What Ally Fogg did is an oft used tactic by those who eschew feminism, regardless of what lip service they pay. Rather than talking about actual issues, and rather than doing something about actual issues, it’s the ever popular game of
Yup. And now the put-upon menz of noted shelter-for-survivors-of-misandry 4chan are forced to defend themselves by threatening to release nude pictures of Emma Watson.
We’ve really failed them, our boys.
*snicker, tee-hee, bwahahahahaahaha*
Only a delusional fool who doesn’t look at the real evidence can say that.
Tethys @97:
Nothing sophisticamated about it. That’s exactly what he’s saying. If Pettifogging wasn’t already a word…
Oh, but he has a point. In my line of work, I see this kind of discrimination all the time. For instance, did you know that in order to be treated with cisplatin, you have to have cancer? What kind of fucked up affirmative action bullshit is that? You’d think in a country like Canada, where we claim to have ‘universal’ healthcare, such discrimination wouldn’t stand. Sure, yes, it’s true: people with cancer experience significantly higher cancer-related morbidity and mortality than those without cancer, but we’ll never achieve equality as long as we treat them like victims!
And how come ISIS gets all the airstrikes? Racism, that’s why. Why, if Obama had just added three little words “and London too”, how much more equal would the world be?
And why doesn’t my dining room table have legs pointing up as well? Naked floorism, but you’ll never hear the media talking about that.
intron:
complete and utter nonsense. Mind you, some individuals on either “side” of any given issues won’t change; but what does change is the size of each “side” and the influence it wields within atheism. Not having the toxic, bigoted douchefaces (nor the “don’t ever point out bad things about religion because it’ll upset people” folks) in charge of the movement and as its representation to the outside world is certainly worth the effort, I think.
do you have any clue at all how changes in societies and subcultures are accomplished?
so pointing out the bullshit of creationists over and over, that’s ok and worthwhile, but pointing out the bullshit of atheists isn’t? I SEE.
yeah, whyever should you care about sexism and sexual assault and rape and racism etc. [/sarc]
no.
well, it’s certainly good for the health of the person saying it. (which is to say, your tone argument has been duly noted)
if you’re outside of it, why the fuck do you think you can come in and whine at people within it, trying to change it for the better?
that’s actually not a hugely useful attitude. In a more just world with an actually just criminal “justice” system it might, but not in this world where demanding police/law involvement actually just means demanding that victims subject themselves to further abuse for the slim chance at seeing a conviction (and then watching your rapist walk out in almost no time).
Which is to say, no, Shermer will not be “brought to justice”; what we want is for Shermer to not be a prominent part of the community; or better yet, no part of it at all.
I’m not sure you understand how not caring works. if you actually don’t care, why are you complaining about it?
.
Jeff S:
nah. the problem is that you think this is what’s going on. the “sexist statements by a few prominent atheists” are a demonstration of the pervasive sexism, but certainly not the full extent of it.
there’s no evidence whatsoever to a correlation between decreased sexist prejudice and atheism at the individual level.
The fact that sexism exists outside of atheism does not actually mean it’s not a problem within atheism; meaning it will still need to be addressed within atheism Also.the only people with that perception are those who create that strawman to begin with. The atheist subculture/movement is in fact in exactly the same spot many other male-dominated subcultures/movements (gaming, comics, IT, sports, anti-racism, environmentalism, LGBT rights, etc.) are at, i.e. minority folks demanding change, and the white dudebros being aggressively resistant to it. This reality in no way exempts atheism from doing internal anti-sexism work.
you’re confused and ignorant. I’ve yet to see you make a comment that wasn’t complete nonsense that has fuck all to do with what people are actually doing and trying to achieve.
actually, yes you are, since you’re whining about every instance where people have criticized sexism.
yes, that’s unintentionally the right analogy: you’d be pretending that “heinous crimes of a few” is what the entirety of the problem is, ignoring that these crimes are examples of the rottenness of the institutional structure iof the RCC. And note I said structure, not ideology.
and there again you’re demonstrating the strawman you’ve built. characterizing Catholics as members of an organization with a deeply corrupt structure would be accurate; similarly, the atheist community/movement has sexist (and racist, and classist, etc.) structures, and thus it’s entirely fair to characterize it as sexist, even if not every single member is “a sexist” or whateverthefuck.
way to remove the structures from the conversation AGAIN; the point is not an informal gathering of catholics; catholics on a lunch are as harmless as atheists on a lunch. catholics as members and supporters of the RCC are a different issue; spaces that are specifically a part of the institution are a different issue. Same again for atheists (which is why the comic is about a conference); atheist spaces are sexist and racist; the community is sexist and racist; and not because one or two leaders said sexist shit, but because there’s a lot of support for these sexists and a structure that got them to the top and is keeping them there, protecting them.
so? no one is claiming a causal connection here, that’s a strawman you’ve built and continue railing against.
which is why the atheist community needs to address it in its entirety. why the fuck is this so hard for you to figure out?
and each of these communities will have to address it. you have no fucking point here at all.
they aren’t; they’re characterized as sexist, which they are; and as more sexist than some other communities which have already addressed that problem internally, which they also are.
well, it certainly ain’t ever going to be if people like you keep whining about every instance of internal housecleaning.
religion did not cause the patriarchy. And as we’ve seen, leaving religion in no way makes people abandon patriarchy. As long as religions as institutions prop up patriarchy within a society, even the atheists in those societies will be patriarchal. And in any case, secular institutions with a lot of emphasis on tradition tend to have the same effect as religious institutions.
an idea not borne out in reality, so who the fuck cares whether it theoretically should have worked out that way in your head?
maybe it would; is it though? AGAIN: as long as you are enculturated in a society in which heterosexism is maintained by traditional institutions, even those who aren’t members of those institutions will hold these views. And these traditional institutions needn’t even be religious to have that effect.
except that’s how most people, religious or not, tend to acquire their ethics; usually they then project these onto their holy books. I mean, come on: most christians don’t even fucking know the bible, few have read it. That’s not where their morality comes from.
because anyone EVER feels that it’s justified to call them on their ignorance? lol.
.
John Small Berries:
where in that quote does it say that rudeness is the ONLY appropriate response, and the ONLY thing it deserves? Oh, that’s right, nowhere.
and why shouldn’t he boast of it? AGAIN: rudeness is a perfectly valid part of the strategy, which is something accommodationists denied and are once again trying to deny, as if rudeness and bigotry were the same things.
I have no idea why you think PZ has ever backed down from the idea that rudeness and ridicule have a place?
consciousness razor:
lol. I was gonna say “where ‘everyone’ is defined as straight white cis dudes with money’… and then I noticed the asterisk :-p
Pete Shanks:
it certainly changed, but I’m in the minority who thinks it’s not been for the better. Certain things that were accomplished in the pre- and early- Endless Thread Era would be impossible to accomplish now.
Jadehawk, you can of course criticize intron’s early comments, but you should read their clarifications and retractions in comment 66 to get a more accurate assessment of where they actually stand now.
Anthony K:
That hits the target dead on. The Jan Bradys of the atheoskeptisphere.
I missed that specific comment, but yes, it was clear from the previous ones that intron was commenting as a complete outsider to the atheist community and that this skewed their perceptions.
I always find the accommodationist’s arguments amusing. They really can’t point to a successful change in culture that didn’t have a vocal and loud component. To change the minds of those opposed, the first thing required is ridicule to make them begin to think. Otherwise, the same old slogans are used to justify the bigotry.
The same-sex marriage was helped along by loud groups like Act-Up, who showed they weren’t going back into the closet, no way, no how, and then the concept was brought home by cousin Joe coming out and saying he is marrying his long time roommate…..and nothing changed….
though, since I did miss comment #^^, I might as well take care of that now real quick:
The fact that he’s an author and a speaker almost by definition means he’s influential. It always matters what influential people say and do, regardless of whether you (or anyone) consider them leaders or not.
simple men with opinions don’t have huge platforms from which to proclaim them.
well, not really. I mean, only people in the atheist community/movement might listen to and discuss his opinions, but their effects unfortunately stretch quite a bit beyond that. So people might not care about RD’s opinions unless they’re part of the atheist movement, but it matters beyond that movement because their effects reach beyond it. Which is not to say that you have to care, but it’s not quite right to say that it doesn’t matter.
I might be really confused here, but what does ACT UP have to do with gay marriage (directly, anyway)? Wasn’t/Isn’t ACT UP about the AIDS epidemic specifically and sexual health of gender/sexual minorities more broadly?
Thanks Tony. I found your earlier criticism puzzling, but that clears it right up. I’m sorry that I wasn’t more clear in what I was saying.
I find your new criticism completely fair.
I will admit that I am arguing against what I feel is an overstatement of the problem of sexism within the atheist movement compared to in society as a whole. If you wish to call this “minimizing”, that is fine.
What I am not minimizing is the problem of rampant sexism and full blown misogyny in the world.
I am objecting to the new stereotype that as PZ puts it, “that we are all MRA-style anti-woman freaks.” I don’t believe the cartoon is criticizing Harris specifically, and nor does PZ it would seem.
Certainly, as with many stereotypes, there is a grain of truth to it. Indeed, there ARE many misogynists among the ranks of atheists. However, I completely reject the notion that they are representative of atheists.
Prominent atheists making (debatable and undebatable) sexist remarks recklessly on Twitter is not helping anyone. They deserve the criticism they get.
Of course, this is not the same as a religious leader stating that a sexist opinion is also the word of god.
Richard Dawkins did not say anything like “because I am atheist, this is my opinion on the validity of rape accusations, and all true atheists should share these views on the validity of rape accusations”.
Largely anonymous online commenters within the atheism movement are also not great examples of what constitutes mainstream atheist opinions on feminism. Unfortunately, in an online forum the worst of the bunch tend to bubble up to the top. Those with the most ridiculous, offensive, and un-nuanced opinions are far louder and get far more attention than they deserve.
Here’s what I would agree with:
There is a problem with sexism in the apparent online face of the atheism movement. This problem is leading to an inaccurate stereotype of atheistic men as being predominately misogynist.
Atheism as an ideology does NOT have a sexism problem.
There is NOT a problem with sexism among the “tenants” (haha) of atheism . Unlike nearly all religions.
There is no reason why being an atheist alone would be associated with a higher incidence of misogyny, if anything it should be associated with a lower incidence.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a higher prevalence of misogyny among atheists than in society as a whole.
The major religions of the world are organized, institutionalized misogyny. Any worldview that begins with the rejection of this, is already miles ahead of most of society (sadly).
RE: Ally Fogg, I never felt comfortable with his take on things. I would check in on his blog from time to time, but something felt “off” about it, not least because lots of inveterate Slymers hang out there and freely spread their hatred of women around the comments section.
Now, it seems, the mask has slipped, and my discomfort was justified. Ally would always “seem” to be a feminist, though he wouldn’t use that label . . . but he’d get in little digs at feminism from time to time, and seemed to support the notion that men are abused by women almost as much as the other way around, which (lacking the hard data in my hands) always seemed wrong to me. He often seemed to accuse feminists and the government (British) of bending over backward for women and ignoring the plight of troubled men. However, since it is a obviously a blog aimed at men, his focusing on those issues wasn’t surprising.
I kept wondering if I was being unfair in my opinion. Sometimes, it’s good to realize your instincts weren’t completely off.
Iyéska
Yes, his argument does seem to be presupposing that all other things are equal. It is a handy way to avoid grappling with the fact that the vast majority of the violence against men and boys is committed by other men and is usually not dismissively ignored in the way that sexual assault and domestic violence are. Too many people see rape and domestic violence prevention as womens issues, without stopping to connect the dots between children who learn that violence is acceptable and then grow up to be violent adults. The Lysek study found that the same men who were rapists were also responsible for a large percentage of other forms of violent crimes such as child abuse and all types of assault in general. Changing that aspect of our culture would go a long way in reducing all violence, not just violence directed at women,
Hee! :D
Do you have any empirical data to that effect? Simple question, but it does take your view out the equation and focuses on facts…which you may be ignoring.
JFC. Harris (and Dawkins, Shermer, Hitchens) is not the sum total of the sexism problem in atheism. It would be inaccurate to pretend it’s just a few guys making sexist comments.
This cartoon? It makes fun of exactly what the experience of going to an atheist conference has been for women for decades; it’s finally and slowly starting to change with a few of the conferences, but many of them still look like this cartoon. That’s what it criticizes. ACCURATELY.
They are though. Not of every single atheist, but that’s not what “representative of” means anyway. The problem with sexism in atheism is that it’s entrenched, and that there most definitely are teeming misogynist and sexist masses; because without them, and without the social structures they’ve helped create and are not helping to maintain, the Harrises and Dawkinses would not be in influantial positions anymore.
yes it fucking is, when they assert it as a legal or even biological truth.
actually, that’s pretty much exactly how RD frames his positions: that he holds them because he’s a logical and rational thinker, and that people who disagree with him need to go learn how to think.
incorrect. Aside from the nonsensical separation between internet behavior and meatspace behavior, it’s not like there’s a shortage of sexist dudebros in the meatspace atheist groups and at conferences.
that’s exactly the same way meatspace works, dude.
once more: conferences and meatspace atheist groups are choke-full of sexism, sexist behaviors, and misogyny. This is not an internet problem.
how very irrelevant; no one claimed disbelief in gods causes sexism. However, atheism as a movement/community does have a sexism problem.
except yes there is; I know people love the dictionary atheism thing to weasel out of the notion that the atheist community has shared beliefs, but it’s unfortunately true that the atheist community does have unstated tenets which buy into sexist notions. That’s the whole bullshit about “it’s more of a guy thing” and “estrogen vibe” and “logic experiment” and all that other fuckery: the belief that white male opinions and emotions are objectivity and logic is in fact a belief that permeates the atheist community. And we’re called science deniers and irrational/emotional for pointing out that it’s bullshit.
In other words: the atheist community has institutionalized the patriarchy as well. It’s not just a religious thing.
and I have seen none showing the opposite, either.
so is the atheism movement at the moment.
atheism rejects religion, not patriarchy. those are separate things.
freudian slip :-p
fixed. *sigh*
Ya, just wow. That is huge logic face plant Ally has there. The two are nowhere near 100% the same in meaning. I think he needs to learn some really basic logic there.
What a fail.
this bugs me so much. SO fucking much.
Women are not being raped and sexually assaulted on the atheist internet; that’s all meatspace.
I mean, how more basic can it be?
“I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.”
IS NOT EQUAL TO
“I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination – except that which affects men and boys.”
The first one merely doesn’t specify what to do about discrimination which affects men and boys. And since this is being addressed to people who already have the interests of men and boys in mind (because they ARE men and boys) it would be fucking redundant to include them, but very necissary to get a pledge for the half they may more easily forget.
What a fail. (even before we get into non-binary genders!)
the whine about how emphasizing giving a fuck about violence & discrimination against women means actively not giving a fuck about violence and discrimination against men reminds me of the MRA who came by here once whining about the awareness campaign for heart attack symptoms in women. Because there wasn’t a specific one for heart attack symptoms for men.
Capitalism demands one believe in the existence of the benevolent invisible hand of the free market, and the degenerate clergy that claims to serve it while being in fact entirely dedicated to preserving the lavish lifestyle of its sybaritic princes tends to encourage people to worship billionaires as if their wealth was by itself a sign of exceptional virtue.
See the similarities?
***
Back in the scienceblog days, a fraction of the commentariat tended to behave like the guy in the cartoon: “Religious believers are inept morons beyond any help so let’s use this comment section to freely express our self-proclaimed-superior-minds’ contempt for these rubes“. I suspect that Myers’ expressing disgust at genocidal and authoritarian rhetoric eventually drove these people away, but they used to be here.
well, given that a tiny fraction of the pharyngula commentariat from back then actually turned into pitters… that’s probably and unfortunately true.
But that’s still not entirely the same as asserting that this is the only method to be used, all the time.
False. See my mentions of capitalism in the Thunder Dome.
@ 70 Tony! The Queer Shoop
and
@68 Anthony K
Thanks for the comments. Much appreciated.
@ 71 cicely
Greetings. I agree with what you are saying and thanks for taking the time to point that out. Also, please note that I posted a follow up post (66) where I pulled my head out of my ass and realized that I was viewing all of this through a very selfish lens.
@59 Anthony K
I must admit that I chuckled at that. Well played.
Jeff S @116:
See, this is why I posted those two links for you. There is a problem with sexism and misogyny in the atheist movement. Many of the “tenants” of the atheist movement are sexist assholes. Yes, what you’re doing is minimizing the extent of the problem. That’s bc you’re speaking from a place of ignorance. YOU don’t see the problem, but that’s your failing. It’s there and has been for some time. If you click links and listen to what people are telling you, you’d see that.
@ intron and the rest of his dudebrokynd
The first time someone suggested that as a woman, I should just grin and bear up under the being treated like a second class citizen, I patiently explained why that was acceptable.
The second time I was told I didn’t deserve the right to my own body, I patiently explained why that was unacceptable.
The third time I was talked over and dismissed simply because I was a woman, I gently but firmly stated that was not polite behavior.
The fourth time I was told that because I was a woman in a ‘man’s territory’ I should just accept harassment and sexual assault as ‘boys will be boys’, I tried to civilly explain that was wrong and just as degrading towards men.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The 300th time I was told it was my responsibility to avoid rape rather than the rapist’s responsibility not to rape, I got a little heated and curt
.
.
.
.
.
.
The 5000th time I was told to get back in the kitchen, I gritted my teeth and said that wasn’t cool
.
.
.
.
.
.
The 100000th time I was called upon to justify my credentials and right to be something other than a mother / sex object, I got a little curt
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The 99999999th time I was told that I wasn’t welcome in a venue / genre because I happen to have boobs, I expressed myself in an angry tone
.
.
..
.
.
The 83432834235th time I was told I didn’t have a right to be angry or even care about street harassment and other behavior, I got confrontational in my explanation for why the behavior shouldn’t be tolerated or accepted.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It is now time 23925293523795723. Fuck off.
re: Ally Fogg
He claimed that women are the instigators of domestic abuse, actively dismisses the lived experiences of survivors, and even tells us that we were at fault because, you know, “women are the instigators”.
He makes me wish we had Thunderf00t back, because at least he had the intestinal fortitude to be honest instead of hiding behind this “speaking up for the real victims” schtick.
@Jeff S
Even if the atheist community were “average” as far as sexim and misogyny goes (no more than any other random collection of people); so what. Shouldn’t we want to join groups only if they have *far less* sexism then the average (preferably, little to none, otherwise, why bother to begin with, “average” isn’t good enough).
And it might well be much worse than that. For example, I’d venture it pretty uncontroversial that the “gaming community” is probably more sexist than average, and has been for a long time. But, by your argument, it shouldn’t be, because there should be nothing intrinsically sexist about playing videogames, so why should the community have become horrible? Well… it has (and was).
Sorry, Intron, I missed you walking it back or I wouldn’t have called you out.
@withinthismind, #133/23925293523795723:
Pure gold. This in a nutshell.
@jadehawk, #115 IIRC
Re: ACT UP:
Act up sure as hell affected the queer marriage issue. While there was the effect that Nerd described without elaboration – queers visible and radical in the media made it possible for cousin Alex to come out, throw ACT UP under the bus (at least to Alex’s family/co-workers) and be accepted as at least relatively normal. The outsiders/ agitators make it safer for the moderates to express opinions or even give voice to facts that were otherwise intolerable to a power-majority.
But also, and I wasn’t involved in ACT UP, so I’m unable to say how much work they actually did on this, ACT UP did call attention to the inability to marry insofar as that barred many POZ queers from health insurance they might otherwise have had.
That more moderate people went the, “Yeah, I should be able to get married!” direction with that conversation after ACT UP threw in their initial comments is entirely predictable…even if ACT UP might have preferred the “Universal healthcare for all. Spousal healthcare is a demeaning limit that, at its worst, coerces prostitution,” framing.
Moreover, ACT UP was a movement that encouraged (demanded!) queers come out, and ACT UP often overlapped with those people who supported or even performed forced outings of public figures. Without a sizable base of visible folks actually out, there’s no way that the marriage bit would get off the ground. Without the forced outings (and I’m not saying I endorsed them, just that this was one effect) it would have taken longer to get conversations about queerness into otherwise conservative institutions – where marriage is lauded in a way that queers embracing those institutions might envy (or just value).
ACT UP was highly influential in the sense that at a time when people didn’t want the conversation, the conversation was forced upon them – both straights and queers. While I don’t remember them ever advocating for marriage (and that’s rather antithetical to the ACT UP values as I remember them), it’s hard to imagine **any** queer or trans struggle in the US in 2014 that isn’t affected in some way by them. Of course you can go back further and say something similar about the role played by the Daughters of Bilitis, etc. But that the DoB or the MS played important roles in their times which affected later times…including ACT UP’s time…is not a negation of the role of ACT UP itself.
He is, and his fans are much more emphatically, very attached to various surveys and researchers using the Conflict Tactics Scale. Which is all very well if IPV was about conflict – but a lot of it isn’t. It’s about bullying – power and control.
We’ve just had an outstanding example of how inappropriate the CTS is when talking about violence between men and women. If you watch the Ray Rice incident with your CTS actions clicker in your hand, you’d count 2 or more ineffectual flailing actions on the part of the woman involved and 1 massive punch knocking her out cold on the part of the man. Using CTS criteria, she’s more violent than him. It’s sort of useful if you’ve already identified a relationship as being about conflict. Using it to assess violence that has other functions or intentions is worse than useless.
I’ve been trying to be reasonable in that environment. My patience has worn pretty thin.
irisvanderpluym @14
My pleasure! It was difficult for me, too, because ladybrainz.
Gregory Greenwood @ 16
Eeep! Hadn’t even thought of that. Not that I think of ‘pitters at all except when I’m reading here or about Dawkins’s fanboys elsewhere.
consciousness razor @19
Thank you! I am sorta kinda totally-unaffiliated-theist, but at any rate not atheist. I didn’t really want to say more, ‘cos it’d read far too much like coming in to a specifically atheist space and saying Waaaah! but you’ve described it very well. Merci beaucoup! :)
Gregory Greenwood @35
Aww! ::blushes:: No probs though, I didn’t take your first comment in any bad way at all – just the opposite.
jrfdeux, mode d’emploi @39
Works for me, too. I’m trying to remember how the heck I first came upon Pharyngula, but can’t. I’m pretty sure it would have been via links or Googling, rather than someone saying how Horrid and Evil it was.
Anthony K @59 – ::standing ovation::
Ally Fogg, ugh. He really should just fuck off to the Good Men Project or some other MRA site.
On Ally Fogg, see also: https://proxy.freethought.online/hetpat/2014/08/10/me-and-my-maletears-facing-the-consequences-of-ironic-hatred/
It seems like he tries really really really hard to both come off as a feminist while making sure to jab feminists. Tries really really really hard to make sure everyone knows he is not saying “WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!!?”, but still…”what about the mens?”.
Maybe this is me just continuing to not “get” Ally Fogg. Or maybe my hunch is right, and his tactic of choice is pulling the “I’m a feminist, but…” card.
Jadehawk:
Online, we’re invisible pixels. Offline, still invisible.
Jeff S:
Oh for fuck’s sake, would you please buy a clue? The online commenters within the atheist movement are excellent examples of what constitutes mainstream atheist opinions on feminism. That done, please define atheist movement and mainstream atheist. Actual definitions, no weasel words. You are so damn desperate to handwave this all away, that now you’re pretending that atheists speaking out online are not…true [mainstream] atheists. Way to fallacy, dude.
All the sexist shit seen on blogs, forums, and other social media? Well, it doesn’t go away when people are AFK. It’s not pretend, and anonymity doesn’t have jack shit to do with anything, and seeing people attempting to use that as an argument makes me intensely twitchy these days. Sexism – you’re swimming in it, and so is everyone else. Did you completely ignore my earlier response to you? Because entrenched, systemic sexism has been explained to you, time and time and time again, by a variety of people, and yet, every time there’s a thread about sexism, you bring up the same old, tired shit, again. Stop it.
Anteprepro @ 140:
Nope. I clicked the first time today, and I will not do it again.
Thanks for the detailed answer, Crip Dyke. I kinda figured the indirect connection because of the way ACT UP blew the doors wide open for gender/sexual minority rights activism, but I didn’t know they had made the marriage-health insurance connection. That makes sense.
I was primarily asking because the way Nerd phrased it, it looked as if ACT UP had been the aggressive wing of the gay-marriage movement, and that didn’t seem right.
WRT to atheism and a correlated propensity towards sexism or not-sexism – I’d urge folks to give a listen to Lindsay Bayerstein’s interview of Mark Oppenheimer on the article he recently did, which PZ has linked in another post. He actually delves into this a bit (shortly after the 20 minute mark, IIRC–I listened to it last night) and basically says that there definitely IS a subculture within atheism that is not just male-dominated, but heavily male-dominated, and actively hostile to women. That would be the libertarian atheist subculture that adopts a pseudo-anti-authoritarian posture, with large overlaps with the skeptic movement, JREF, and all the rest.
I’m not doing it justice.
But the point is–Jeff S, that there really is a strong correlation with active, hostile misogyny and one specific atheist subculture. That subculture is coming into conflict with another atheist subculture, one which we’re all part of–the one that associates strongly with the political left, freethinkers, traces back to Ingersoll and Wollstonecraft, allied with progressive theists to fight against racism, sexism, etc.
You’re missing the point when you’re talking about “tarring an ideology.” Atheism isn’t an ideology, it’s a belief (or lack of a belief, yes, we know, shut up already, pedantic dictionary atheists). What you’re seeing is a conflict between two subcultures which both identify atheism as a core belief but have very different ideologies.
@Jadehawk
and for good reason. That wouldn’t be right. No wonder you were confused.
re SallyStrange #144 – Patrick G kindly transcribed Beyerstein’s interview in the other thread: (link to comment)
—
and Libby Anne has a further response to Sam Harris: On Sam Harris, Pregnancy, and Sacrifices
Thanks Pteryxx. I misremembered the timestamp. But here’s the bit I was thinking of:
Yes, please.
intron @66 – I’m sorry for what happened to you. Thanks for explicating your views and reevaluating.
Jeff S – I can tell you as an actual outsider to atheism, what I’ve known about the movement over the last 5 years boils down to this:
A female blogger I read regularly talked several times about feeling unwelcome in atheist spaces because she’s female.
A female atheist made a fairly benign “don’t be that guy” observation and was hounded and threatened violently and extensively by other (white, male) atheists.
A group of female atheists attempted to start a more inclusive community and couldn’t get anywhere because of interference from other (white, male) atheists.
Two of the major authors whose names I know but work I have not read (Dawkins and Hitchens) evidenced blatant, cruel misogyny toward women multiple times. Now I learn several other major writers in the movement are either also misogynists or outright rapists.
I would suggest that since you have invested so heavily in atheist as an identity and are in the middle of the community, you may not be in a good position to judge the wider perception of the community to the rest of the world. A fish doesn’t have much of an objective perspective on the ocean.
Anteprepro:
Yes! This is how I felt from the very beginning of his time at FTB, but when I brought it up years ago, someone here blasted me for not allowing men to have their own space. That commenter was a regular at the time . . . don’t think ze is still here . . . but I got scared to comment here for quite a while after that.
My take is that he’s one of those bloggers who wants to be liked by “both sides” and so equivocates constantly. He takes pride out of saying that he’s been called a “mangina” AND an anti-feminist, as if it’s badge of honor to be so well-balanced in his opinions.
Like Nugent . . . .
Why one would want to be friends with many of the commenters at Ally’s site is beyond me. I’ve seen too many slymey types.
That’s my major problem with Ally’s blog. He doesn’t moderate, lets people express the most vile misogynist sentiments as long as they’re civil while they do it and, completely unsurprisingly, his regular commentariat is a who’s who of people who’ve been banned elsewhere at FTB.
High five to the people who have been over there attempting to explain the difference between “I’m going to do X” and “I’m not going to do Y.”
My objection to Ally Fogg’s problem with Emma Watson’s speech is that his “five little words” objection reads too much like those ol’ “four little words”: “What about The Menz?”
Won’t somebody think of The Menz?
*wringing of hands*
Ah. Not just me, then. Tethys said it more thoroughly.
–
What omnicrom said:
–
intron @130:
I do—belatedly, this morning—note your follow-up at 66; I’m sorry if it seemed I was piling-on after you’d already posted that. In these days when it’s only a matter of time before Shockwave Failure brings my browser crashing down in flames, I’m afraid that—since it is inadvisable to keep my usual number of windows open—I check back on threads less often than I would prefer, and tend to rush to post anything if it is long.
Before the computer eateds it.
–
re: Ally Fogg,
I’m all in favor of using feminist tools to address men’s issues (and I have some choice words to say about male on male sexual assault), and I just assumed, without looking into it, that Ally Fogg’s blog was along those lines. But I would have thought that the whole project requires *not* taking issue with feminism’s frequent focus on women. I agree with SallyStrange that the whole thing seems petty, and it undermines my previous wishful view of HetPat.
I don’t really want to go back to Ally Fogg’s blog, but I seem to recall him writing, not just once, that feminism is a women’s issue, that should be headed by women and one that men shouldn’t undertake as allies without invitation… And yet here he is, ignoring that invitation.
Weird, that. :P
Ally should probably have started his post with ‘Dear Muslima,’……
I want to quote comments 105–107 and 133 for truth.
It’s a perfectly logical idea. But, you see, in theory, theory and practice are the same – in practice they’re not!
That’s where the whole comes from!
It’s also why philosophy isn’t enough and science is necessary. You can’t figure out the world by just thinking about it.
*epic headdesk*
Rather than , it’s the one little word that wasn’t there that’s betraying him.
He somehow managed to read “only” into the first space of “faced by women and girls”.
It’s not there!!!
I hate when people do that.
It seems… highly probable to me that a point of her speech was that focusing “on discrimination against women and girls” will contribute to doing something against patriarchal discrimination and violence against men and boys, because it’s caused by the exact same cultural attitudes (see comment 118). Fogg seems not to have noticed.
…I’ve had that experience several times, actually.
The Stupid Neutral trope comes to mind. Do you think that’s it?
Can you imagine if Ally Fogg applied this principle of communication in all interactions?
Person X: “I had lunch today.”
Ally Fogg: “Goodness! Don’t you know it’s unhealthy not to eat three square meals a day?”
Person Y: “I plan on sending my daughter to college.”
Ally Fogg: “What if she wants to get her Master’s or her PhD? Don’t you value higher education? How is she going to get in without a high school degree?”
Person A: “I enjoyed reading the steampunk novel, The Discontinued Man,* by Mark Hodder.”
Ally Fogg: “I don’t know how you could possibly have a proper appreciation of it, since it’s the 5th book in the ‘Burton and Swinburne’ series. Also, you should really try reading some nonfiction sometime. Or historical fiction.”
Person B: “I love my husband.”
Ally Fogg: “What kind of monster doesn’t love her own children?!”
*9/10, would recommend
SallyStrange, it’s so manospherian, isn’t it? “I love my partner” “Y U NO GIVE POOR NICE GUYS A CHANCE?”
^ Makes sense.