Month: January 2013

Friday Cat Blogging: Failed Attempts at Discipline

Greta Christina21 Comments

So there’s a basic problem I have with disciplining Comet.

When she’s into stuff she shouldn’t be into, or doing stuff she shouldn’t be doing, the SPCA guidelines on play-aggressive cats are very clear: I’m supposed to scold her in a deep, loud voice, and stop her from doing it.

But half the time, instead I end up cracking up with laughter, and running to get the camera. Not exactly a disincentive.

As I did the other day, when she was “helping” me clean the pantry.

Comet in pantry 1

Comet in pantry 2

Comet in pantry 3

Comet in pantry 4

I especially love the third one. That is such a Comet expression. Here she is, she’s successfully gotten up onto a brand new high place where she’s never been before… and she’s already looking up, seeing if she can get higher up and into more trouble. Alexander, looking for new worlds to conquer. That’s my girl. (Of course, the second one where she’s trying to bite into the bag of sugar is pretty funny, too…)

Friday Cat Blogging: Failed Attempts at Discipline
{advertisement}

Atheists of Color List Updated!

Greta Christina7 Comments

The Atheists of Color list has been updated! Thanks so much to everyone who posted suggestions for new inclusions, and provided updated information on the existing list.

Quick update for those who aren’t familiar: A couple of years ago, I compiled a list of prominent atheists of color, and organizations of atheists of color, here on this blog. I did this for a number of reasons: mostly so that conference organizers, event organizers for local and student groups, anthology editors, bloggers, journalists, and people who are simply participants in the atheist community could easily be made familiar with the work of a wider range of atheists… a range that’s more diverse, and more reflective of the actual makeup of the atheist community. (tl;dr: Conference organizers, you no longer have an excuse. 🙂 ) And hopefully, atheists of color who see the list will feel less isolated, and will be better able to find resources and community.

The list had gotten somewhat out of date, so I asked readers to comment with suggestions for additions to the list, updated info, etc. Readers came through, and the list is now all shiny and new.

If anyone knows of any other additions or changes, please suggest them at any time. And thanks again to everyone for making this happen!

Atheists of Color List Updated!

Shoes for Social Justice! UPDATED

Greta Christina28 Comments

So if you were following the absurd manufactured shoe controversy, and you were feeling irritated or frustrated about it (or just baffled by how unbelievably dumb it was), and you felt inspired to do something about it — here’s something you can do.

In response to the stupid non-controversy, several readers made new donations to my blog, and specifically requested that I do something frivolous with the money. I’m deeply touched and grateful by the sentiment… and I’m on it. I already have the frivolous shoes picked out. 🙂 But some people on Atheism+ have been organizing an interesting response to the non-troversy that’s caught my imagination, and I wanted to spread the word.

There’s a charity I didn’t even know about until the last couple of days: a not-for-profit organization called Dress For Success. Their mission is to promote the economic independence of disadvantaged women by providing professional attire, as well as a network of support and career development tools. So on Atheism+, some of my readers and supporters have begun a fundraising campaign to donate money to the organization in my honor.

I think this organization’s mission is an excellent one. As someone who cares passionately about both clothing and social justice, it’s definitely in my wheelhouse. And given that so much of this non-troversy is focusing on the question of “how could someone dare to seek help from supporters and then spend some money on dressy, comfortable shoes, suitable for a professional work environment and well-made enough to last for years”… it seems like a perfect fit. Here’s what one commenter on Atheism+ had to say about her experience with the organization:

I have personally benefitted from this charity.

They take clothing donations, but they are very label conscious when it comes to what they accept. They’re only looking for business and work appropriate attire, and they’re deathly picky about shoes in particular, amusingly enough. Fluevog was about the lowest quality they had. roll that around in your brain for a little while. I went home with three pairs of shoes and not a one of them retailed for less than $250.

That said, the main thing a personal shopper does is gently try to explain to you that it’s all right to take so much stuff, that’s what it’s there for, and you’re not cheating anyone else, and you deserve to have the clothes you’re getting. It wasn’t just me. There were four of us in with appointments at the same time, and every single one of us said the same thing: “You can’t give me all this stuff, I don’t deserve it.”

They didn’t let me out until I had a bit over a full week’s worth of work clothes, and I had a second appointment in six months to do it AGAIN for the other season. It kind of blew my mind.

So if your response to this non-troversy is irritation, frustration, or bafflement — or if you just think this is a good organization and you want to support them — please participate in this fundraising campaign, and donate to Dress For Success. Mention that it’s in my honor if you feel inspired to do so.

Oh, FYI: You know that offer I made in response to the non-troversy, to refund any donations made during my cancer fundraiser to anyone who wasn’t happy with how I’ve been spending my money? As of this writing, the number of people who have taken me up on that offer: Exactly zero. Just thought you’d like to know.

*****

UPDATE: Dress for Success has posted the following comment, clarifying some details about their program:

Hello, all!

I haven’t followed the “non-troversy” mentioned, but we always appreicate folks spreading word about our orgaization and, of course, clothing donations!

I just want to clarify something mentioned in the post about, we are NOT label conscious when it comes to the clothing that we accept. We are more than happy to accept any brand of clothing as long as it’s clean, has been taken care of (no holes or stains, etc.) and is, of course, appropriate for an office environment. Since our women are applying and being accepted into an array of career fields, we accept everything from suits to sweaters to scarves– as long as they are professional in nature!

I hope this clears things up! Please feel free to donate away! The women of Dress for Success can’t thank you enough!

Shoes for Social Justice! UPDATED

Feline Paralysis: "I Can't Help Fix Dinner, I've a Cat on My Lap!"

Greta Christina34 Comments

Comet and Talisker on Ingrid's lap
Feline paralysis (n.) The condition in which a person is unable to move due to the presence of a cat on her or his lap. (See also “pussy whipped.”)

“No, honey, I’m sorry. I can’t help you with the dishes. I have a cat on my lap.”

Non-cat owners are baffled by it. Almost every cat lover I’ve known has completely and implicitly understood it, and accepted it without question. The details and specifics may vary from cat lover to cat lover and from home to home … but almost every cat household I’ve known has some version of it.

If you have a cat on your lap, you get to keep sitting down. In fact, you’re obligated to.

In our home, we call it “feline paralysis.” Or “FP” for short. And it dominates our daily household arrangements to a degree that even we recognize is absurd. The encatted person gets waited on hand and foot: food and drink are brought, dishes are carried away, electronic communication/entertainment devices are fetched. The disencatted person gets stuck with any and all household tasks that demand immediate attention.

We do realize that, from the non-cat-lover’s perspective, this behavior might seem a bit … extreme. Deranged, one might even say. We’ve blown off plans we’ve made for the evening, because we both had cats on our laps. (Not really important plans — but still.) Yes, we arrange our lives around our cats’ pleasure to an absurdly high degree. On the other hand … we get to have cats on our laps. So there’s that.

Like so many fundamentals of human virtue, this simple principle becomes more complicated when it plays out in the real world. As any philosopher will tell you, ethical questions become most interesting when fundamental and deeply held values collide. And so it is with feline paralysis: The simple and fundamental value of cats sitting on laps can become deeply complicated when it conflicts with the values of keeping commitments, fairness in allocation of household duties, or really needing to pee.

So here are the rules of feline paralysis, as we have fleshed them out in our household.

*****

Thus begins my latest piece for Catster, Feline Paralysis: “I Can’t Help Fix Dinner, I’ve a Cat on My Lap!” To read more, read the rest of the piece. (Lots of pictures.) Enjoy!

Feline Paralysis: "I Can't Help Fix Dinner, I've a Cat on My Lap!"

Rape Prevention Aimed At Rapists Does Work: The "Don't Be That Guy" Campaign

Greta Christina194 Comments

Content alert (obviously): rape, rape apology, victim-blaming

“Sure, in a perfect world, you could aim rape prevention efforts at potential rapists. But that’s never going to work. Rapists are sociopaths, beyond the reach of persuasion or reason. You’re never going to convince them. So it’s totally reasonable to aim rape prevention efforts at potential rape victims, and teaching them how not to be raped.”

Every time a discussion of rape happens, it’s a sure bet that the conversation will eventually turn to what the victim could have done differently. Even when the specific topic at hand is rape culture, and the ways that sexism and misogyny and sexual shame and entitlement and attitudes about masculinity and other toxic elements of the culture can make rape more likely and less likely to be punished… the conversation will eventually get turned to “what should rape victims do to keep from being raped.” Even when the topic at hand is ways that rape victims routinely get blamed for their rapes, the conversation will still eventually get turned to “what should rape victims to to keep from being raped.” And when this happens, and when people speak out against it, it’s almost certain that someone will say, “But that’s not part of rape culture! That’s just practical common sense! We want people to not get raped — and telling likely targets of rape how to keep themselves safe is the only effective way to do that!” (As happened in this comment thread. [UPDATE: Forgot to include the link. Here it is.])

I don’t ever want to hear this again. Not just because it’s part of the exact victim-blaming rape culture we’re talking about. Not just because this business of rapists being just a handful of sociopaths — as opposed to active members of society who you might know — is bullshit. I don’t want to hear it again… because it’s just flatly not true.

just because she isn't saying no anti-rape poster
Have you heard about the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign in Edmonton?

The “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign is a public service rape prevention campaign launched in Edmonton in 2010, and adopted by other cities in Canada, which took the radical step of aiming its message, not at potential rape victims, but at potential rapists. It took the radical step of educating potential rapists about what rape actually is. It recognized the role that alcohol commonly plays in rape — and it educates potential rapists that having sex with someone who doesn’t consent, or who is too drunk to consent, or who is passed out and therefore unable to consent, is rape.

The campaign didn’t target the stereotypical media image of rapists, the drooling psychopaths springing on suspects in a dark alley with a knife. It targeted ordinary folks, frat boys and partiers and bar-hoppers and folks who just like to toss a few back now and then… who have been brought up in a culture that teaches that drunkenness equals consent. It was influenced by a study out of the U.K. showing that 48 percent of men ages 18 to 25 did not consider it rape if the women was too drunk to know it was happening. And it teaches them that no: drunkenness does not equal consent, being stoned does not equal consent, being passed out does not equal consent. It had slogans like, “Just because she isn’t saying no… doesn’t mean she’s saying yes.” “Just because you help her home… doesn’t mean you get to help yourself.” “Just because she’s drunk doesn’t mean she wants to f**k.” It had slogans on every poster saying, “Sex without consent = sexual assault.”

just because you help her home anti-rape poster
And the campaign has been so successful, the number of reported sexual assaults in Vancouver fell by 10 per cent.

I’m going to say that again, since it’s the big take-home message from this piece: A rape prevention campaign targeted at potential rapists rather than potential victims was launched… and the number of reported sexual assaults fell by 10 per cent.

Yes, I know. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. But this is a dramatic drop in a very short time, with no other obvious causative factors. The Edmonton police are so convinced of the campaign’s effectiveness that they’re bringing it back, with new posters (one of which focuses on male victims of same-sex rape)… and other cities around Canada want in on the action.

just because she's drunk anti-rape poster
I would like to point something out: This wasn’t a years-long or decades-long effort to radically change the culture’s attitudes about sexual consent. This wasn’t a years-long or decades-long effort to radically change the culture’s attitudes about sexism and misogyny and sexual shame and entitlement and attitudes about masculinity and so on. This was a one-shot public service campaign: a series of posters distributed in bars, nightclubs, transit stations and campus facilities. And it still had the apparent result of reducing the rate of rape by 10%.

Think of what we could do if we did more than just launch a public service campaign.

Think of what we could do if we did take part in a years-long or decades-long effort to radically change the culture’s attitudes about sexual consent.

As was pointed out in the recent conversation here (can’t find the exact comment, sorry): It’s completely reasonable to think that culture has an effect on rates of rape. Rates of rape are different in different cultures. Why is it so irrational to think that changing the culture might reduce the rates of rape?

People changed their culture’s attitudes about slavery. About lynching. About women’s right to vote. About the Ku Klux Klan. About same-sex marriage.

Why is it so irrational to think that we could change our culture’s attitudes about rape?

Rape Prevention Aimed At Rapists Does Work: The "Don't Be That Guy" Campaign

6 Outrageous Incidents of Discrimination Against Nonbelievers

Greta Christina9 Comments

This piece was originally published on AlterNet.

Atheists are often seen as crying wolf when they speak about bigotry. But discrimination against atheists around the world is real — and in some cases, it’s severe.

“Oh, you atheists are always whining about how put-upon you are. You don’t experience real discrimination: not like African-Americans, or gays, or women, or immigrants. So knock it off with the pity party.”

You may have heard this refrain. You may have even sung it yourself. So let’s look at this question for a moment: Are atheists subjected to real discrimination?

It’s certainly true that, in the United States, while atheists do experience real discrimination, it’s typically not as severe as, say, racism or misogyny. Or rather, since I don’t think comparing discriminations is usually all that useful: Anti-atheist discrimination takes different forms. It’s not like the systematic economic apartheid experienced by African-Americans, or the systematic enforcement of rigid gender roles experienced by women. It takes other forms: such as social ostracism; bullying in schools; public schools denying atheist students the right to form clubs; religious proselytizing promoted by the government; widespread perceptions of atheists as untrustworthy; businesses denying equal access to atheists and atheist organizations; government promotion of religion in social service programs; government promotion of religion in the military. And it’s true that atheists have significant legal protection in the United States: people sometimes break those laws, and those laws aren’t always enforced, but we do have these laws, and they do help.

But the United States isn’t the whole world.

International Humanist and Ethical Union logo
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a world umbrella group bringing together more than a hundred humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, and freethought organizations from 40 countries, has just produced the first ever report focusing on how countries around the world discriminate against non-religious people. Published on December 10 to mark Human Rights Day, the Freedom of Thought 2012: A Global Report on Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-religious:

…covers laws affecting freedom of conscience in 60 countries and lists numerous individual cases where atheists have been prosecuted for their beliefs in 2012. It reports on laws that deny atheists’ right to exist, curtail their freedom of belief and expression, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prohibit them from holding public office, prevent them from working for the state, criminalize their criticism of religion, and execute them for leaving the religion of their parents.

And the results are appalling.

There are two big take-home messages from this report. One: This is a world-wide issue. Examples of anti-atheist discrimination have been reported in 60 countries, from Algeria to Zambia; including the Bahamas, Brazil, Bahrain, and Belize; Italy, India, Israel, Iceland; the United Kingdom and the United States. It’s been reported in brutal theocracies notorious for their human rights violations, like Pakistan and Iran — and it’s been reported in supposed secular paradises, like Sweden and France. It’s worse in some countries than others, obviously… but this is a global problem.

Two: In some countries, this anti-atheist discrimination is severe. It doesn’t take the form of government proselytizing or being denied the right to organize clubs. It takes the form of being arrested. It takes the form of being imprisoned, for years. It takes the form of being targeted by a mob screaming for your blood… and when the police who should be there to protect you show up, instead they throw you in jail. Where another mob forms up, screaming for your blood.

Don’t believe me? Here are six outrageous examples of discrimination against non-believers. Continue reading “6 Outrageous Incidents of Discrimination Against Nonbelievers” →

6 Outrageous Incidents of Discrimination Against Nonbelievers

The Absurd Manufactured Shoe Controversy: A Brief Response

Greta Christina204 Comments

So here’s the first thing I’ll say about this absurd manufactured mini-controversy:

If you donated money to me during my recent cancer fundraiser, and you’re not happy with the fact that I recently spent some money on a somewhat-more-expensive-than-usual pair of dressy comfortable shoes bought largely to be worn in professional settings, I will refund your donation. Email me at greta (at) gretachristina (dot) com, with the email address you used for PayPal and the amount you donated, or with the check number and the amount you donated. When I confirm that you did in fact make a donation, I will refund your money.

I don’t actually think that this controversy has any merit, and I don’t think I have any moral obligation whatsoever to do this. But I also don’t want anyone who donated money during my fundraiser to be unhappy about that donation. So if you made a donation and you now want it refunded, let me know, and I will refund it.

Now, a few brief words about this absurd manufactured mini-controversy.

To fill you in, in case you’re wondering what the hell I’m talking about: A few months ago, when I was diagnosed with endometrial cancer, I did a fundraiser on this blog to cover my expenses while I was recovering from the surgery. (Since I’m now a full-time freelancer, the months that I couldn’t work meant months with significantly reduced income, and since I don’t have a day job, I don’t have disability insurance.) The fundraiser exceeded my wildest expectations: after about a day, I had raised enough money to cover my expenses for several months and then some, and in fact I pulled the plug on the fundraiser the day after I began it, redirecting people instead to donate to Camp Quest or the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Light the Night Walk via the Foundation Beyond Belief.

Last Friday, I posted a Fashion Friday piece, in which I discussed a pair of shoes I had recently bought: a pair of dressy comfortable shoes that are somewhat more expensive than most people typically spend on shoes. Some people have taken exception to this (yes, it’s the usual gang of haters), and are expressing their objections on Twitter and elsewhere.

Stephanie Zvan and her commenters have already covered most of the reasons why this is ridiculous. The high points: 1: A pair of well-made comfortable shoes that will last for years, bought largely to be worn in professional settings, is not an extravagant expenditure. 2: Many people who donated said specifically that they wanted me to use some of the money in fun ways that would give me pleasure. 3: In any case, when you donate money to someone, you don’t get to dictate how they spend it. 4: When men spend money on clothing, it’s seen as a legitimate expense; when women spend money on clothing, it’s seen as frivolous fashion.

I just have one important point to add to what she said.

Given that I am now working again, and am earning my own income again… at what point is it okay for me to start spending my money the way I want to?

I am now working again, and making my own income again. I was bringing in a small amount of income even when I was sick, mostly from book royalties, and I am now working again and earning income again (although not as much as I was before the surgery).

At what point is it okay for me to spend that money as I choose?

Does the fact that, in October of 2012, I did a fundraiser to help cover lost income during recovery from cancer surgery mean that I should never, ever spend any money that I earn on anything that a handful of haters on the Internet deem frivolous? Should I post in advance about what restaurants I’m going to, what clothing I plan to buy, where I plan to travel, what holiday gifts I buy for my friends and family, and get approval before I make these expenditures? And for how long? Do I have to wait six months? A year? Five years? Or am I never allowed to do this ever again?

In case anyone was wondering: I spent the overwhelming majority of the donations from that fundraiser paying my mortgage several months in advance: something which relieved me of an enormous amount of stress and worry, and enabled me to focus my energy on my recovery. Most of the rest got set aside for taxes — I do, in fact, have to pay taxes on donations — and most of the leftover from that went to bills, groceries, paying off debt, etc. I do still plan to make a healthy donation to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Foundation through the Foundation Beyond Belief: when I first proposed doing this, several commenters advised me to wait until my health had returned, but now that my health has largely returned and I feel confident about eventually recovering completely, I think it’s okay to do this, and it will make me happy. And yes, I spent some of the money on things that I didn’t absolutely need and would not die without. Which, as many commenters on Stephanie’s post pointed out, several of my donators specifically said I should do. And now that I’m earning income again, I am spending some of that income on things that I don’t absolutely need and will not die without.

At what point is it okay for me to do that?

This is a bullshit controversy, manufactured by the usual gang of people who hate Freethought Blogs and are always looking for a reason to snipe at us. But I will say once again: I don’t want anyone who donated money during this fundraiser to be unhappy about it. So I will say again: If you donated money to me during my recent fundraiser, and you’re not happy with the fact that I recently spent some money on shoes, I will refund your donation. Email me at greta (at) gretachristina (dot) com, with the email address you used for PayPal and the amount you donated, or with the check number and the amount you donated. (If you’re someone who I requested to never contact me again because your private correspondence to me was borderline threatening, I will rescind that request for this purpose only.) When I confirm that you did in fact make a donation, I will refund your money. Thank you.

The Absurd Manufactured Shoe Controversy: A Brief Response

Greta Speaking in San Francisco Sun. 1/13

Greta Christina1 Comment

Hi, all! If you’re going to be in the San Francisco area on Sunday January 13, come hear me speak! It’ll be from 3:00 to 5:00 pm in the Women’s Building (near BART), hosted by Atheist Advocates of San Francisco. The topic: “Resistance Is Not Futile: Is Arguing About Religion Worth It?”

Here are more details:

CITY: San Francisco, CA
DATE: Sunday, January 13
TIME: 3:00 – 5:00 PM
LOCATION: Audre Lorde Room (Upstairs), Women’s Building, 3543 18th (at Valencia), San Francisco. (Three blocks from the Mission and 16th St. BART station; there’s also a nearby parking garage at 3255 21st Street at Lexington.)
HOSTS: Atheist Advocates of San Francisco
TOPIC: Resistance Is Not Futile: Is Arguing About Religion Worth It?
SUMMARY: Many atheists think that trying to persuade people out of religion never works, and simply alienates people. But debating believers about their beliefs can be effective — in changing people’s minds about religion, as well as in achieving other goals of the atheist community. When does it makes sense to debate about religion? How should we go about it? And what should our expectations be for what these debates can accomplish?

In this talk, Greta will discuss: why arguing about religion is effective; why many people assume that it isn’t effective; who it is and isn’t worth arguing about religion with; what expectations to have when arguing about religion; when — or with whom — you might decide not to engage in these arguments; and what goals arguing about religion can help us accomplish.
COST: $6 donation to cover the cost of renting the space.

Hope to see you there!

Greta Speaking in San Francisco Sun. 1/13

Fashion Friday: Dressy Comfortable Shoes, and Thinking Outside the Box

Greta Christina39 Comments

So I recently solved a fashion conundrum that’s been seriously bugging me for some time. I solved it by having to radically re-think what I’d consider to be an acceptable solution. I had to let go of some preconceptions; I had to think outside the box. And I thought I’d share with the rest of the class.

For months — years, actually — I’ve been on a quest for shoes that are both dressy and comfortable. I had high standards in both departments: I needed the shoes to be dressy enough to look good with dresses and skirts in a professional setting… and I needed them to be comfortable enough to walk in for miles, comfortable enough that I could be on my feet all day in them. And this being me, I was picky about how they looked. I wanted them to be comfortable — but I didn’t want them to look frumpy or boring. I wanted them to be stylish and expressive and interesting.

Ballerina flats
Before you chime in: Do not tell me about ballerina flats. Ballerina flats have been nothing but a bitter disappointment. I must have weird feet or something: I have bought more pairs of ballerina flats than I care to remember, and not one of them has given me more than three days of wear before I gave up in disgust. (And yes, I’ve gotten good-quality ballerina flats from good manufacturers.) They don’t give me enough support — I have mildly crappy feet, and need a certain amount of support — and after wearing them for more than an hour, my feet ache like crazy. And they chew up the backs of my ankles into the bargain. My four-inch stilettos are more comfortable.

I’ve spent more time than was probably necessary pondering this conundrum, and trying to figure out why it was so hard to solve. I think the basic problem is this: In the current language of women’s shoe fashion, “dressy” tends to mean “high-heeled.” And “dressy” combined with “stylish” strongly tends to mean “high-heeled.” You can find low-heeled or flat shoes that are stylish — but they tend to be fairly sporty or casual. You can find low-heeled or flat shoes that are dressy — but they tend to be fairly plain. In the same way that it’s hard to find clothing to express “sexy woman over fifty” because our culture considers the concept “sexy woman over fifty” to be nonsense, it’s hard to find dressy, stylish flat shoes for women… because in the language of fashion, the very concept is something of a contradiction.

On a day-to-day basis, my usual answer to this conundrum has been boots. About which I have already waxed poetic. But boots have a certain sporty, rakish vibe, and in many situations they’re just not right. They’re not dressy enough for many professional settings; they’re often not dressy enough for evening. And they’re definitely not okay when it’s stinking hot.

So I’ve been searching, and searching, and searching. Every time I went into a shoe store, I kept an eye out for dressy, comfortable shoes that didn’t make me feel like I’d taken a sleeping pill. Every time I looked, I was disappointed.

Pilgrims by John Fluevog
And then I came across these.

And I found myself having to think outside the box.

I freaking love these shoes. I fell in love with them pretty much at first sight. But before I could commit, I had to seriously re-think what I was willing to consider an acceptable solution to my little conundrum.

The shoes are enormously comfortable. John Fluevog knows what he’s doing: the heels I have from him are easily the most comfortable heels I own, and these new babies are almost like sneakers. And they’re definitely stylish. Again — John Fluevog knows what he’s doing.

But they’re also very quirky. They’re stylish and expressive, but they’re not conventionally pretty. They’re more than a little bit nerdy, and way more than a little old-fashioned. The very name of the shoe is “Pilgrim” — not exactly the apotheosis of feminine grace and sophistication. They carry strong overtones of “Wicked Witch of the West.”

And I realized: Maybe that’s exactly what I needed to break this conundrum.

Maybe, if I want dressy, stylish, comfortable women’s shoes, I need to re-define what I mean by “stylish.” Maybe I need to let go of “conventionally pretty.” Maybe I need to let go of conventional femininity. Maybe I need to let myself be a little old-fashioned. Maybe I need to let my stylishness be quirky, nerdy, witchy.

(I also maybe need to spend somewhat more than I normally do on shoes. That’s something Ingrid kept reminding me of when I was griping about my conundrum: more-expensive, higher-quality shoes tend to be more comfortable, and longer-lasting, as well as prettier. But when I think of how many pairs of useless ballerina flats I’ve bought in my life — and the amount of money I’ve wasted on them — the math on this totally adds up.)

Pilgrims by John Fluevog
If I’m going to reject the notion that women have to wear heels if we’re going to be dressy and snazzy — and I do reject it, I love my heels but I hate the pressure to wear them — then that’s an unconventional stance. It’s a quirky stance. It’s a stance that rejects conventional notions of beauty and femininity. It’s a stance that embraces the fundamental concepts of beauty and femininity, and rejects the notion that women have to cripple ourselves to participate in them. It’s a stance that reclaims female nerdiness, and demands that it be seen as professional and urbane and creative. It’s a stance that thinks the Wicked Witch of the West got a bad rap.

And I’m okay with that.

Fashion Friday: Dressy Comfortable Shoes, and Thinking Outside the Box

Atheists of Color: Updating the List

Greta Christina23 Comments

Please note: This post has a different comment policy than my standard one. Please read the entire piece to the end before commenting. It’s not that long.

A couple of years ago, I compiled a list of prominent atheists of color, and organizations of atheists of color, here on this blog. I did this for a number of reasons: mostly so that conference organizers, event organizers for local and student groups, anthology editors, bloggers, journalists, and people who are simply participants in the atheist community could easily be made familiar with the work of a wider range of atheists… a range that’s more diverse, and more reflective of the actual makeup of the atheist community. (tl;dr: Conference organizers, you no longer have an excuse. 🙂 )

The list is now somewhat out of date, and I’d like to update it. Please let me know in the comments if you know any of the following:

People/ organizations who should be on the list but aren’t. IMPORTANT: Please don’t just list their name! I need their name, the URL for their blog/ website if they have one, and a SHORT list of credentials: books, blogs, publications they write for, achievements, etc. Compiling and updating this list is enough work without having to do a ton of Googling.
Also important: Please DO NOT hesitate to nominate yourself for this list! If you’re an atheist of color and you’re any sort of public figure, either within the atheist community or outside of it — blogger, community organizer, scholar, scientist, author, artist, musician, activist, whatever — please let me know. Again, please provide your name, URL for your blog/ website if you have one, and a SHORT list of your credentials. And if you’re already on the list, but your information is incorrect or incomplete, please let me know.
People/ organizations who are on the list but shouldn’t be. If there’s anyone on this list who isn’t actually an atheist, or has stopped identifying as an atheist since this list was first created, or is no longer a public figure and has dropped off the radar, please let me know. Also, if anyone on this list is now dead, please let me know: this is meant to be a list of atheists of color who are alive and active now. And if any of the organizations on the list have since folded, please let me know.
NOTE ABOUT BLOGGERS: If a blogger hasn’t updated their blog in six months, and hasn’t stated on their blog that they’re taking a hiatus and plan to return, I’m going to drop them from the list, unless someone gives me a strong argument for keeping them on.
Up to date credentials/ biographical info. If the credentials/ biographical info for anyone on this list is out of date — if people have new books, new blogs, new positions at their organizations, if they’re working for different organizations, etc. — please let me know.
Up to date URLs. If you know the URLs for any of the people on this list who don’t have URLs listed? If there are URLs on this list that are out of date, and you know the current URL? Please let me know.

Once again, here’s a link to the original list.

A couple of notes on what I’m looking for here:

First: This is not intended to be a list of famous atheists of color throughout history. That would certainly be an awesomely useful project (and if anyone knows of this project existing, please speak up!) — but it’s not this project. This is meant to be a list af atheists of color who are alive and active now.

Second, and very importantly: I do not want to get into an argument here about why we need this list, or how we should just be color blind and ignore race altogether. In a perfect world, maybe we wouldn’t need it. We don’t live in a perfect world. Among other things, well- meaning people can unconsciously perpetuate racial bias without intending to… and we need to take conscious action to counter this unconscious tendency. If you think the atheist movement doesn’t need to make a conscious effort to be more inclusive, then please read these pieces:

Getting It Right Early: Why Atheists Need to Act Now on Gender and Race
Race, Gender, and Atheism, Part 2: What We Need To Do — And Why

And if, after reading those pieces — not skimming them or reading the titles, but actually reading them — you still think we don’t need to make a conscious effort to be more inclusive of people of color, then please make your arguments ON THOSE POSTS. Not here. Comments here arguing that we don’t need this list will be disemvoweled or deleted. This post is for people who will find this list useful and informative, and/or who want to make suggestions about keeping it accurate and up to date.

I do welcome some degree of debate here about whether a particular person should or should not be included: are they really an atheist, are they prominent enough (although I’ll tend to err on the side of inclusion there), etc. But I do not welcome debate here about whether this list should exist. Thank you.

Third: Please make your suggestions here, in comments on this blog. Please do not email them to me. I do want there to be an opportunity for public discussion about additions, deletions, or other changes. (And I’m somewhat concerned about assholes trying to troll the list: that’ll be less easy to do if there are eyes on the process other than mine.) Also, it’s easier for me to manage this if all the revisions are in one place. Thanks!

Note: I know that there are problems/ issues with the phrase “people of color” (among other things, it lumps together people from widely divergent cultural backgrounds as if not being white was the same experience for everyone). In general, I’m trying to step away from using it. In this case, though, I’m going to stick with the phrase, imperfect though it is: brevity is key here, and anyway this list has a lot of people linking to it and citing it and searching for it, and I don’t want to screw that up.

Oh, and in case you’re not already aware of it: here, in a similar vein, is a large list of awesome female atheists, compiled by Jen McCreight at BlagHag.)

Thanks for your help!

Atheists of Color: Updating the List