Further reading on The Nexus of Skepticism and Boobies

There is a great deal more worthwhile discussion (and excoriation of those damnable harlot Skepchicks in the comments) at Greg Laden’s, where the whole powderkeg was originally set ablaze by Skeptifem the other day.

Also a fascinating read: Skeptic Catfight: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Update: Hell, I was totally going to include Carr2d2’s latest post on the topic, [un]Becoming the Borg but somehow completely forgot before posting.

The whole mess comes down to a purity movement within the feminist community, which is neither helpful nor appropriate. Fractious in-fighting between feminists who want to be who they are, and feminists who think those other women are damaging the cause of feminism by having fun and/or being sexy, amounts to little better than a train wreck that I can’t help following.

Further reading on The Nexus of Skepticism and Boobies

4 thoughts on “Further reading on The Nexus of Skepticism and Boobies

  1. 1

    I don’t like the shaming aspect of people deciding how other skeptics “should” or should not be. Why do atheists do that to each other; is it in emulation of the religions that they are trying to get away from.

    Dig carr2d2’s response at Skepchick.

  2. 2

    “The whole mess comes down to a purity movement within the feminist community, which is neither helpful nor appropriate. ”

    No. I’m sorry, it isn’t. It’s nothing more different than women from both sides (and I stress, both sides) of the argument bullying, acting hypocritically, trying to silence discussion and stemming from long-term prejudice and cliques. There have been people who have been seriously hurt, snubbed, and even stalked because of unquestioning attitudes.

    This has actually gone on for years behind the scenes and it’s just the first time a few people (in fact, even a few men have voiced their support) have found a situation where they have ended up talking about it. Unfortunately, people are trying to dismiss it as you seem to be doing, by labeling it as ‘prudery’.

    I suggest more conversation with the women who are NOT skepchicks and ask them why not?

    Arguably, perhaps how it has eventuated right now is not done in the best way, but neither is dismissing this as ‘oh, it’s just prudes’.
    For example:

  3. 3

    Um, thank you for the link, “A commentator”, however that’s exactly identical to the second link on my original post, only hosted on Facebook.

    I would suggest that the women who are not Skepchicks are not Skepchicks because they weren’t invited by Rebecca Watson to be bloggers at skepchick.org. Skepchicks as a term for “sexy skeptical women” is not only blatantly wrong, it diminishes what the Skepchicks are — which is to say, women who blog at skepchick.org and have a generally healthy attitude about sex and sexuality.

    You should probably read Carr2D2’s post, if you haven’t already. It kind of seems like you haven’t, if you’re making those kinds of mistakes.

    I call this a purity movement specifically because the feminists who feel that women should not be making any display of sexuality whatsoever (you know, “kowtowing to the male patriarchal image of women as sexual objects”) are upset that these women are also calling themselves feminists. Also, there is a lot of pissing and complaining about the call for donations wherein they proclaimed themselves as giving “bitchin’ parties” as a good reason to donate — not that the donations would go toward this bitchin’ party directly, but that it would go toward renting rooms and providing travel for their special guests.

    Additionally, the “displays of sexuality” that are being shouted down are laughable at best. See here for one of the most frequently cited examples.

  4. 4

    Wow, I really appreciate being informed that a discussion I have been involved with since long before the blogosphere made it much larger, has some history – who’d of thunk?

    I think calling it a purity movement gives it far more credit than it deserves. Nor do I think it is a good idea to merely dismiss it as prudish. What we are seeing happening in this discussion, is nothing less than women trying to put other women in their place. Worse still, it is nothing less than using the tactics of the religious right in an attempt to put them in their place.

    This is not a situation of wrong versus wrong or direct opposition. Sex-positive feminists are not telling anyone to loosen up or quit being prudes. There are sex-positive feminists who are not any more sexually expressive than the radical “feminists.” Sex positive feminists are only saying, “let us be who we are, express ourselves the way we want.” Note which group is trying to control anyone else’s behavior – it is not the sex-positive folks.

Comments are closed.