I’m back! Women in Secularism was excellent. I’m catching up on everything I left alone while I was gone and have a bigger post in the works, so you’ll have to forgive me for the short summary and links.

Liveblogs:

Opening Remarks
Faith-Based Pseudoscience. [Another from Jason]
Amanda Marcotte [Jason]
Rebecca Goldstein [Jason]
Women Leaving Religion
Gender Equality in the Secular Movement
Susan Jacoby [Jason]
How Women’s Concerns Can Best Be Advanced within the Context of a Secular Agenda [Jason]
Jennifer Michael Hecht [Jason]
Maryam Namazie [Jason]
What the Secular Movement Can Learn from Other Social Movements [Jason]
Who Speaks for Feminism?

If you haven’t actually heard or read the original talk by Ron Lindsay, I strongly suggest you read the transcript first.
…and follow that with Lindsay’s second post, where he responds to calls for examples.
Rebecca responded briefly.
Ron Lindsay…appears to have forgotten that he co-wrote this letter, and writes this.
PZ : People are not pleased. (I particularly appreciate how charitable and even-handed PZ was here–I’d be quaking in my boots right now.)

Digital Cuttlefish has a poem.
Ashley has some thoughts.
So does Amanda Marcotte.
Adam has some remarks.
Secular Woman has a statement.
PZ would like to remind everyone of the excellent work done by CFI’s Michael De Dora. Though I haven’t met Michael, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the interactions I’ve had with CFI staff. In particular, it was wonderful to meet Sarah Kaiser of CFI On Campus.

I want to emphasize that I had fun at WiS and lots of it. The conference was impeccably organized, the people were friendly and positive and gave excellent hugs, and I was happy to be there. I’m mightily sorry that the other employees are dealing with the conflict as a result of Dr. Lindsay’s opening remarks. At the same time, I’m okay with the growing pains and the ways the community has reacted to this. We can do better, and constructive criticism is part of this.

Second to last thing! Elisabeth Cornwell will be speaking about who speaks for feminism. This could be….interesting? I’m not sure where it’s going.

11:08

Here we go! Elisabeth is thanking everyone in the CFI staff. They’re pretty freaking great.

Elisabeth learned a great deal this weekend, and talks about how important it is that we can talk about these things and disagree about them in a place free of recrimination. There’s people here that she deeply respects but disagrees with them. Having discussions about it doesn’t change her respect for them.

One of the reasons Elisabeth doesn’t like debates very well is that she likes to take time to process and think about how the opposing side has defended their position. Also important to remember that it’s often true that as you have more and more agreement, can be harder to argue about the details.

The first wave of feminism was about getting the rights that we now consider unthinkable (in the West) to lack. Susan Jacoby reminded us that even old white Repulican males can speak for feminism. Would Robert Ingersoll be welcome at this conference. Would he have been told that because he’s not a woman he can’t be here? [Me: WHAT. One audience member: YES! Rest of audience: NO!!]

11:15

Panel on women leaving religion was heartbreaking. We often can’t imagine how it is to worry about losing our lives for our principles. Maryam Namazie doesn’t want our sympathy…she wants our activism. To avoid speaking out because we fear being called racist or Islamaphobic is not okay–we need to speak out. Being polite is not acceptable anymore–if we don’t speak up, we leave that fight to the radical right. We must speak out. We aren’t risking much–risking being called a bigot. Elisabeth has been called worse. After all, we’re called atheists; can it get much worse than that. [Me: er…what?]

11:20

Women are often the ones responsible for pulling it all together. (Should have clarified–w/r/t family, etc.)

There’s a cultural shift that has snuck in through pop psych, reality TV, Oprah…the elevation of victimhood. [Me: uh oh] This is often present in Christianity. Prayer as the the most obvious example. Elisabeth wants to scream at people to get off their knees and do something. Of course there are some victims, and that is recognized, and what’s faced by women who are victimized under Islam is not the same as the discomfort of some sexist remark. We, of course, need to keep working on pay gaps, gender equality. We should gain strength from women fighting from oppression abroad.

We need to keep fighting until we have subdued religion to the form of Quakers and Unitarians. Elisabeth loves the UU’s. [Audience light laughter.]

This is where it’s important to know history. Young women and men are often annoying in their pushes and fail to recognize history.  [Me: Wow, this talk makes me feel super welcome.] Good to recognize strengths and weaknesses of mvmts before us. One big failure of previous mvmts is diversity. Groups have had to regroup after. Take civil rights. Atheists and socialists were told to sit down and shut up. Maybe was right decision. Sometimes you have to give things up to make the gains you need. But atheists and socialists have been written out of history. Women too.

11:30 

Feminism has had their troubles as well–first wave neglected everyone outside upper class white, second wave left out many of same. Hard for women of color to identify with Gloria Steinem.

We must work with other groups–not necessarily ones we agree with w/r/t supernatural.

One place we can step in to work on: battered women. Something churches do–a place for us to get involved as well. Also helping women looking for jobs. It’s not just women who can mentor women, men can mentor women. Elisabeth’s best mentors were often men. Male boss saw inequities helped her at previous job.

Women are particularly good at reading faces! Audience gives dead stare. Elisabeth: My bad–apologizes.

Acceptance and support that Teresa got should be rule.

We began con with white male Republican, Elisabeth wants to end it with one. Does so–I didn’t recognize source, she didn’t say. [Me: I dunno, didn’t go so well when we started with one.

Audience questions:

Are there any dealbreakers?

E: don’t think so. Makes analogy to Israel-Palestine. (Honestly didn’t catch it all, was too flabbergasted.)

Are there any secular feminists who actually make the argument that the opression of Western women is the same as that of women under Islamist rule?

E: Well, I’m not going to say that there are, but I disagree with that argument. Makes argument about how we know they’re different. [Me: Yes, we know. That wasn’t the question. You implied that secular feminists equate the two. Someone is trying to call you on it.]

Slight diversion of story to how women can help other women. Employee of E’s was groped by another staffer who was high money-making. One staffer went to support women. E called groping employee into office. “If you ever go near X staffer at all, I will have your balls on my desk. Don’t think I can’t, I work with cattle.” Elisabeth said don’t you say another word. Not another word. [Audience member: You told him to shut up and listen? Laughter.] She went to boss, said “You’ll have my back on this, right?” He said yes. Elisabeth repeats importance of mentoring people.

Importance of remembering that what one person may be insulted by isn’t what other person will be. Must remember we think differently.

What about rapists or those who threaten rape? [In response to first question]

E: No, absolutely not. [Audience: …wait, but you said there ISN’t a line?] E: No, that is criminal behavior. I thought we were talking about conversations that can be had. We *can* have conversations with these people, but should be with someone trained, like clinical psychologist. On our website, it’s our home. We don’t tolerate bullying, this behavior. We ‘smite’ them. Let’s not conflate criminal behavior discussion with conversations about feminism. Didn’t mean to imply otherwise in answer to first question–if you want to call me on that, you can.

Internet is place where people don’t have to claim who they are. For instance, if in car and someone cuts you off, you might…react with a signal or finger. If someone cuts you off while walking, you see them as a real person and don’t do the same thing. Face to face community is so important. We lose that on the internet. For heaven’s sake, don’t try to be cynical or ironic on the internet. It doesn’t work.

Elisabeth understands where Greta is coming from and doesn’t want to minimize it, but maybe…doesn’t want to use another word liek ignoring…but maybe having a shield of armor so these things can bounce off?

Maybe some people can do it and some can’t. Community as a whole has a right to stand up and say these need to stop.

Question about experience of living in small town with bad discrimination, cannot quit job, is withdrawing from life. What resources?

Elisabeth: hasn’t had experience, etc.

Fucking awesome audience member stands up, says has had similar experience, invites questioner to contact her. [Loud applause]

Elisabeth talks about not considering herself a racist but having learned how she hasn’t been viewing situations as well as she could be.

Ends with something about how white and black people can come together and chat with each other and say we’re black and you’re white and let’s go from here.

Update: comment from Elisabeth Cornwell.

Here we go!

Panelists: Soraya Chemaly, Susan Jacoby, Amanda Marcotte, Katha Pollitt

Moderator: Jamila Bey

2:43

Jamila: So. Personhood. (She said a longer thing, but I was busy collecting my sanity.)

Amanda: Personhood is the idea of giving a fetus more rights than human beings (because humans can’t feed off of each other to survive right now). This would have had more repercussions than it sounds like–problem of criminalizing miscarriages, still births.

Susan: Also, class issues. Would have prevented in vitro fertilizations–something mainly available to upper class.

Soraya: Paul Ryan said “rape is another method of conception”. Not probably as bad as intended, but what norms does it represent? Reflects the subjugation of women–an approach taken by an entire party that’s well supported in this party. Rape and personhood conversations are connected. These disproportionately affect women who are poor, of color.

2:50

Katha: Want to point out that all of those statements didn’t work out so well for the men who said them. But….they haven’t really changed their tune. Democracy is supposed to involve rethinking unpopular strategies….problem of them not being able to just ‘give up’ the bad ideas that lose them support…because religion! Can’t just be “oh well, let’s change course!” Personhood is a religious concept. A fertilized egg doesn’t have anything that you need to be a person. Like feelings, personality…a head! But it has a soul–a religious concept.

Amanda: Also creepy because what does that even mean. Sperm as injecting souls into eggs?

Jamila: Okay, want to talk about the religion part. With respect to equal marriage, we’re seeing some GOP people moving over to more equality. Is that something we’ll see for women too?

Katha: Well, yes, but less so. GOP base is all about anti-abortion. It’s an argument about MURDER, not one of ‘mere perversion’. And let’s remember that not too many have endorsed equal marriage.

Soraya: And let’s remember, marriage is a conservative point/act.

2:55

Susan: Tells story–Catholic church against condoms. Priests used to tell people that it was okay to use condoms if holes pricked in them, because while it would still prevent pregnancy a little bit…possibility of conception still there. [Audience: UH SAY WHAT?]

Amanda: In the 70’s, used to have huge debates within fundamentalists about whether or not they even should be in politics. Now, they’re involved deeply as a result of abortion politics. Hard for GOP to change positions on abortion because they could also lose half of voting base.

Soraya: It’s important to remember that men can’t have abortions, but they can get married. [Me: hrmph, trans* men? They also exist.] Ties abortion to ‘just war’ debate. We have this idea that women are supposed to sacrifice, and that innocent souls are deserving of life at all costs. We see fetus being sanctified.

3:00

Katha: we should remember that not all religions are anti-abortion! See parts of Judaism, progressive sects of Christianity, etc. The thing you see happening with Beatriz in El Salvador is not something you would see in the most othodox forms of Judaism.

Jamila: give us a line on Beatriz.

Katha: She’s a young woman (not her real name) who is 23 weeks pregnant with an anecephalic baby. (Meaning will not live–no brain) She has kidney disease and lupus and in El Salvador abortions are all illegal. She’s petitioning for an abortion, but the courts are delaying and delaying.

3:05

Amanda: You’re hearing stories over and over like this. One of the problems is evangelical Christians gaining ground with believers in South America, and you’re seeing the Catholic church trying to compete with them by being more and more hard line.

Jamila: Let’s talk about other issues that compel American women to vote, and how secularism can get involved with this. Example of Obama signing the Ledbetter Free Pay Act. Brings up economic issues. How can secularism help us plead our case?

Jacoby: There are plenty of (mostly-white) men who are atheists who come from a social Darwinism tradition and worship the market.

Amanda: Women more likely to see importance of social safety net. Religion seen as support system in similar way. Hard to make secular argument in this economic climate.

3:10

Susan: Among proselytizing religions, you can see them gaining most ground in poor areas.

Soraya: useful to invert the question that Jamila asked: What does secularism have to gain from a feminist agenda? Example of TV program that said “Mankind. It’s the history of us all.” Nope, it’s not all of us.

Katha: Going back to conversation about why there are more men in atheism/secularism: one answer is that women have a movement already! It’s feminism.

[applause]

Susan: and that’s why there’s religious feminists. Which there are! Although opponents of feminism called it anti-religious. And I think they were right, that feminism by nature will be against religion. And like progressive religious adapted to Darwin, religious progressives adapted to ideas of feminism.

Soraya: It’s hard without homogenizing people’s experiences, to talk about things that connect us all.

Most ageless denialism is the denialism of women’s humanity. We should focus on all kinds of denialism…including this!

Katha: ( to twitter user who criticized modernization theory) Within the young people, you see much more support for progressive causes. They’re pro-marriage equality, anti-war, pro-abortion (not as pro-abortion as they should be, given how many abortions are had within that demographic!)

3:22

Susan: Unsure how we change this structure of old white men who hold power. The struggle for social progress is long, and requires people showing up for it all. And the young don’t often show up to things like midterm elections. Also, issue of the Nones. Sometimes just denotes disinterest in being activists.

Amanda: Idea of using the skeptical side of secularism. If the young want to be apolitical, talk about how this is just the solution based on evidence, rather than a political thing.

Soraya: Talks about the ‘safety gap’. Men and women were asked questions like “How safe do you feel walking alone at night?”

[brain was dead, spaced for a second]

Soraya: We…need to take over the Texas State Board of Education. We’re failing in terms of education. 80% of textbooks are derived from what the BOE does. [Me: YES THIS. It’s because we require Texas Editions. So most textbook manufacturers are based in TX and make one Texas edition, slightly edited for the rest of the country. Easier for them, screws over children.]

Soraya: spent a month trying to only consume conservative media. Set up lunches with people who completely disagreed w/ progressive politics, where they try to convince each other. Many said of her claims about results of personhood amendments “oh, that will never happen!” When provided w/ proof, often backed away from conversation. It matters what information you’re given.

Panelist closing remarks:

Katha: Allying with good causes is ALWAYS good for secularism. We need to do that. And feminism is a good cause.

Soraya: All voices count. We need to pay attention to those around the world. Feminism changes lives, and we need to support one another. The internet is a good way to do that.

Amanda: Advancing your agenda is about having good friends. Feminists are good friends. We get stuff done. Grabbing on to that as a secular movement would be a good idea.

Susan: We have got to become more active. Ignorance is the worst enemy.

Second panel of the day! I just got here…and left my phone in the hotel. Womp womp.

Also, there’s a whole tub of hummus next to the projector. CAN I HAZ?

On the panel: Stephanie Zvan, Debbie Goddard, Ophelia Benson, Elizabeth Cornwell.

Moderator: Greta Christina

Stephanie introduces herself as perhaps most known for suggesting anti-harassment policies. Audience cheers.

Greta: First question–what does success in terms of gender equality in the secular movement look like? What are you goals?

Stephanie says that it’s more than numbers. When we have gender equality in the movement, we’d have a conference where we didn’t start out with an opening statement encouraging us to not take it too far. Where we can screw up and not have it hanging over our heads for years. Where we can be just as cranky as the men. (Seriously, you could hear a pin drop during this.) ALL THE APPLAUSE.

Ophelia: to not have to start out from a basis of having to argue about whether or not we need gender equality. To have conferences that fold in the parts of this conference because they matter.

Elisabeth: Deferring to Martin Luther King: it’s not just women, it;s all of us. We heard earlier about the struggles of women in religion. It’s not just women who are oppressed by religion, men are oppressed too. (You could hear a pin drop during this, too. Probably for different reasons.)

Debbie: I’ve been asking lots of other people this this weekend. (She asked me! My answer sounded like asd;lkfjsldjfao. It was late! I was tired!) Nobody has answered. Part of the problem is that we don’t have a larger culture that looks like gender equality. So how do we conceptualize it?

11:15

Debbie: We have certain kinds of demographics that we do include! Like, when was the last time you heard someone be all “The gays, I dunno about them”? And when people do say that, we shun them. I think success could look like this.

Greta: Debbie was the first person to talk about numbers. How do you think this plays in? Should we be looking for 50/50?

11;20

Stephanie: You can’t go after numbers just to solve the problem. I’d still like to see conferences that have speakers representative of the population of the secular or atheist movement. And then we also try to improve that population.

Ophelia: I think numbers are an important metric. I mean, you can’t expect there to be constantly exactly equal gender ratios at everything. That’s irrational. But when you see a big gender gap and you do some digging…then you see hey, there’s things influencing it.

Elisabeth: There’s definitely been a shift. In at least the last ten years, in terms of both women and young people. In terms of race and economic backgrounds, etc. Whether it’s PC or not, we tend to be the ones who take care of family. We are the caretakers. Those are issues we don’t talk about. In the last two years, she’s had more and more people say that we need to do more to take care of women and families. She’s given evo psych talks about why women tend to be more religious. It’s not because they’re less intelligent…it has to do with family.

In places with high governmental support, you see much less religion. We are a volunteer nation in the US, and here, we see churches doing the volunteering.

11:25

Debbie….has briefly forgotten the question. Science has been a word that’s been used a lot. We can research things. Our brains are dummmmmmb. Especially in this movement, we like to pretend that we make rational decisions. “My music is OBJECTIVELY better than yours!”

We have a movement here–we’re just not talking about an idealistic world. We want to change the world! The numbers, the faces on our programs, they matter.

Greta: Intersectionality! Let’s talk about it. What about the inclusion of blue collar women, women of color, trans* women. Not a question…but let’s talk about it!

11:30

Debbie: talked to Krysti of Humanists of Norway. Tiny country…biggest humanist organization in the world! They provide secular christening and confirmations and stuff! More women involved than men! Humanists in Scotland highly involved in education. (We have Scottish humanists at Teen Skepchick and School of Doubt!)

Ophelia: Loves international humanists–you don’t have to write in a different language. Also, in orgs Debbie mentioned, gov sponsors them in the same way religious orgs get benefits.

Stephanie: Let’s talk about internationality and headscarves. So. Headscarves. Some women want to wear them. And we often like to talk about how women don’t ever “choose” to wear them. We need to talk about it in a way that talks about women’s autonomy. If we want to talk about more than just..walking away from a fundamentalist church, then we need to wrap our heads around talking about that in a way that is nuanced.

11:35

Greta: What do you think we have been doing right, that has helped us move towards our goals?

Elisabeth: We have seen improvement, but that’s also something we’re seeing in the general population as well. We’re trying to keep just ahead of that. Has (except for Teresa MacBain) never met atheist woman partnered with religious man. Only the opposite.  It’s, in the greater world, much more accepted for a man to be an atheist.

We need to let women know that they can be rational.

Greta: question repeat

11:40

Well, doing what Elisabeth is encouraging can be seen as a “guy thing”. It’s having a “fight with God” (what?). Women are not seen as strong enough, belligerent enough, dedicated enough, pugnacious enough. (Ack, thesauruses!) There is a strong–not necessarily conscious–belief that atheism is more of a guy thing, and less of a girl thing. The more you chip away at these buried ideas, the more you see a diverse audience.

Stephanie: We have made lots of progress. We’re complaining. (laughter) Bernice Sandler gave great talk last year: pointing things out often is the first way to change things. The immediate response isn’t necessarily the result…it’s just what you hear first. Women have been promoting each other. We have women in leadership suggesting other women. And that makes a difference. Being obnoxious about it can be okay–it works! We’re making progress by doing the things we’re told not to do.

Elisabeth: I want to talk about something we’ve done wrong. And it’s something I did. Mentions 4 Horseman DVD. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was invited to participate…and as a result, wasn’t one of the horsemen. Few people know that, but she was supposed to be a horse(…person?)

11:47

Debbie: Let’s talk about….The Amazing Meeting. Ignoring last year, for reasons obvious, let’s talk about how they did make a large change after hearing feedback about how there were no women being invited. In the past, we drew mostly from philosophers, professors, best-selling authors. That gives you a very specific pool from which to draw. One of the shifts seen at regional and student cons (as well as national) is that you see more educators, bloggers, activists, organizers.

11:50

Greta: We’re talking about something like an “affirmative action” policy. We hear about how that’s ‘lowering standards’. Can you speak to this idea?

Stephanie: [shameless plug] MN Atheists is putting on a conference soon. They almost accidentally ended up with a roster of speakers who were all women. Didn’t quite happen….they had a guy they really wanted. Lots of those people are new speakers. The fact that people are making an effort to get new speakers out there is a big deal. It makes a difference.

Ophelia: If you only invite the stars you know, you get the same soundbites. The problem of the availability bias….people become famous and invited often because they were invited previously. (Me: YAY PSYCHOLOGY)

Elisabeth: Cannot ignore the issue of people relying on Famous Speakers(tm) to provide bodies at cons to pay for cost of cons. It’s a real problem. As the base of people interested gets bigger, you have to have women rising in the ranks too. She’s thankful to the ‘bitches’ who came before her and made her path easier. We have to also be mentors to women.

12:00

Debbie: So how do you get more people than the like…twenty women you see at meetings already. You have to reach out. Example of meeting where people say “Well, it’s really sad there weren’t more black students here!” Debbie: “Well, uh, did you reach out to the black students union?” Them: “Er. Well. Uhhh.”

Also, importance of artists! Art is a way to bring people in! See: webcomics. [Me: Debbie is so badass.]

Greta: American Atheists 50th anniversary con had lots of African American participants–far and above most cons. Someone asked Amanda Knief why that was. Her answer “We asked them.” Next question: what are the consequence of not having gender equality?

Stephanie: I’ve lived through them. When you’re not represented well..when you’re one woman in a group of guys and someone comes up and says something like “Hey, here with your boyfriend?” or “Women can’t think.” or “That guy just agreed with you cuz you’re sleeping with him.” And you look around…and there’s nobody else to talk to about the experience. One of the wonderful things about this year has been making those problems visible. Being a part of a large group helps when you run into those (rare) individuals who are jerks based on your gender.  Importance of having people who have your back. Lets you take more risks in voicing your opinion. Get support when you have good ideas! And all of that makes a huge difference. There are a lot of strong women here. But we shouldn’t all have to be that strong. When we get good representation, we’re all that much more supported. And that makes a *big* difference.

Ophelia: Going to be a Debbie Downer. [womp womp]. We’re a python with an undigested meal…on the upward hill of his issue. [analogy say what?!] We still have to be aware that we’re still having to be the face that suffers backlash.

Elisabeth: If we don’t get equality, we lose. We lose, our grandchildren lose, everyone loses.

12:10

Debbie: Diversity doesn’t just mean “having more black people show up”. People don’t understand the lived experiences of others. One of the benefits of different people in our movement means learning new things. And this movement LIKES learning new things. We like collected knowledge! Moving to Buffalo meant learning about Canada! [Me: elbows Jason as audience laughed] People teach you new things! And that’s why it’s importance to shut up and listen. [Roaring audience applause.]

Example of listening to Sarah Moglia talking about how she’s harassed when she tables for SSA. Debbie asked lots of questions and learned about experience of tabling in a different body.

Without exposure to diverse perspectives, we’re ignorant.

Audience questions:

How much of gender equality is due to financial inequality? Poverty is often invisible–how do we address it?

Elisabeth: Economic issues are obviously a problem. Childcare is a big issue, something we try to address, but it often takes money. It costs a lot to come to these conferences.
Stephanie: And it’s not just *conference* expenditures. If all of your meetings are big meetings in one place, that’s a problem. Even if it’s a central location. Gas is expensive, y’all. This is why meetup is important. Have to have diversity of events and event locations.

Are women more religious as a result of having a less precarious position in society? More stable societies are less religious?

Stephanie: Yes.

Elisabeth: Social aspect has been long ignored by this movement.

Ophelia: It’s like Stockholm Syndrom [Me: not a fan of this analogy, myself.]

Greta: Should we focus on removing the binary?

Debbie: Yes. Feminism has been a pretty good source of that–we can benefit from following their lead. We need to talk about fuzzy boundaries of boxes.

Stephanie: we talk about the binary lots more when we’re on the defensive. And we do that when we are citing research…and research uses the binary a lot. That’s because they often need to have strict operational definitions.

I’m going to be liveblogging Amanda Marcotte’s talk, How Feminism Makes Better Skeptics: The Role Rationality Plays in Ending Sexism in just a little bit! You can follow other tweets at #wiscfi, and me at @donovanable.

3:42 In terms of the amount of time that anti-secularists spend on arguing….gender related issues are some of the biggest topics. (and evolution is the tiny slice of the pie remaining).

Feminism was an idea that came out of the enlightenment. Mary Wollstonecraft!

The Declaration of Sentiments in 1848 was one of the ways feminism really stepped into public.

3:45 Strong endorsement for The Second Sex.  Amanda talks about how we often don’t discuss the anti-theist sentiments of the early 20th century feminists.

Experts agree: feminism can really help everyone. The millenium development goals of the UN have 8 goals specifically focused on women, including combating child mortality, the environment, etc.

Wait, the environment?

Yep, one way to ease overpopulation is to give women the ability to choose how many children they have! (Hint: providing access to contraception does this) Women who have reproductive choices will have fewer children.

Who’s to blame, asks Marcotte…then puts up slide of the Pope. Audience applauds.

3:50 Health care! Marcotte says that things like heart disease, etc are obviously not gender issues. I completely disagree–the signs we tell people to look for to know they’re having a heart attack? Those are the signs for men, not women. (Women experience pain in jaw, not chest/shoulder) That’s a problem.

With skepticism we can fight climate change, sexual repression…people who are jerks towards “fake geek girls”.

We talk about the Duggars. Blargh, I seriously hate that “Your vagina is not a clown car” meme directed at Duggars.

3:55 Plan B. Let’s talk about this.

It was invented to replace docs who were already prescribing high dosage birth control pills for the same reason. Got political in Bush administration. Sex based cults using Plan B! (Srsly, someone said this.)

Judgmental pharmacists try to prevent women from buying Plan B. Also, the “Good Boyfriend” problem, where men try to buy their partners the Plan B…and are denied. Ughhhhh. No.

4:00  2011: in which we have to talk about whether or not teenage girls are capable of figuring out how to take a pill that you put in your mouth and then swallow.

Sidebar: We talk about how Plan B works. One, it’s not an abortion. Two, no, it doesn’t make you suddenly promiscuous. (Would anyone like to offer a coherent argument about why [safe] promiscuity is wrong?)

Obama basically make realpolitik decision to try to prevent Religious Right from having a ‘loaded weapon’ when he decided to keep high age limit on Plan B.

4:05 This entire debate (Plan B) has been between irrational arguments and skeptical arguments backed by research. And we’ve been gaining ground.

A quick word on anti-feminist skeptics from Amanda
[Real talk: SOMEONE FIND ME THAT GIF SHE’S USING]

Update: SallyStrange is the best:

Straw feminists are being tilted at. It’s silly! Staaaahp! Also, don’t let the haters get you down, skeptic feminists! [insert gif parade]

Questions:

Why do you call them women’s issues? Men are impacted too.
Answer: Because it’s easier to stay away from the f-word when trying to discuss these things.

Someone asked a thing about marriage. I was inserting gifs!
Answer: Nonmarriage radical feminist speaking! Points out that she’s avoided using word ‘privilege’ in this talk.

[didn’t catch all questions, everyone talked soooo fast. phew.]

Fat-shaming gets me on a gut level. I hate it, I’d like it to go away, and the recent statements of CEO of clothing store Abercrombie & Fitch, which included this little gem:

In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he told the site. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

…get to me. Which is to say, I really don’t like A&F.

And this doesn’t seem to be an unpopular opinion. Obviously I carefully cultivate the people I interact with, but the scandal has been scorching the internet.

General social justice conclusion? Refusing to sell your clothes in plus-sizes because you think it’s bad for business is a jerk move.

Ooookay, abrupt topic shift.

Remember that time some MIT students set up hobojacket.com, this hilllllarious site where you could pay to give homeless people a sweatshirt from a rival college? And then lots of people said “Hey! Maybe using people as props in an argument that doesn’t involve them is a terrible move that we want to discourage!” …and then hobojacket.com stopped existing and the creator apologized? Man, that was a nice day for internet activism.

Keeping that in mind, let’s talk about Abercrombie & Fitch and this video. In it, the narrator hands out A&F clothing to the homeless.

At first, they seemed reluctant to accept the clothing. Perhaps they were concerned about being percieved as narcissistic date rapists?
[…]
Together, we can make Abercrombie & Fitch the world’s number one brand of homeless apparel!

See! Get it! Because homeless people are uncool icky and it’s like, revenge, to give them clothes from a company that wants cool people! /sarcasm

Would someone like to explain how this is better than the MIT students ‘prank? It’s not because you’re fighting against a fat-shaming company. You’re still ignoring the humanity of a whole sector of people who won’t see any benefit from A&F suddenly selling hundred dollar artfully distressed jeans in XXL.Stop pretending like it’s a big win for equality when you’re stepping on people to make a point.

A little light on the links (and very late) for this one–I ran a fever for a few days and haven’t been much caught up on the blogosphere.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t include this gem about depression and coping from Hyperbole and a Half.

But people want to help. So they try harder to make you feel hopeful and positive about the situation. You explain it again, hoping they’ll try a less hope-centric approach, but re-explaining your total inability to experience joy inevitably sounds kind of negative; like maybe you WANT to be depressed. The positivity starts coming out in a spray — a giant, desperate happiness sprinkler pointed directly at your face. And it keeps going like that until you’re having this weird argument where you’re trying to convince the person that you are far too hopeless for hope just so they’ll give up on their optimism crusade and let you go back to feeling bored and lonely by yourself.

Ray Comfort isn’t the affable creationist we like to paint him as.

How do we research disability? Is it the right way?

Every year, hundreds of studies involving disabilities take place in the US, like wide-sweeping lookbacks into cases of autism and research into multiple sclerosis. The majority of these studies, though, focus on viewing disability from a medical perspective, which is not surprising, since they are run by doctors and they occur in a nation which evaluates disability through a medicalised framework. As such, these studies are about identifying the why of disability with an eye to finding a cure, rather than to the how of disability, and the daily life of disability.

Ania wrote a thing and I’m in it!

…yeah, this is a really short links piece.

Tomorrow: Look for the write up of the…museum with the creationists over at Friendly Atheist!

Are you going to Women in Secularism? Will I get to meet you? Let me know in the comments!