Over and over and over again, we’ve heard that the Atheism Plus is driving divisiveness, is tribalistic, and is just like a religion. I’m not really sure how to answer that last one, except to point out that if we didn’t have a point when we say “hey, we have an adoption problem, people are being turned off of atheism by all the douchebags that have entrenched themselves in it”, we wouldn’t be fomenting so much hate from those same self-identified douchebags, would we?
Movement atheism largely organizes and self-arranges via the internet. The internet is a subset of reality — for the most part, the large majority of the content you see, even from trolls, originates directly from a human’s mind. Very little of that content is program-generated, though in many cases the attacks on X idea could be as easily generated by script for its repetitiveness and the patterns by which pushback is developed. For simplicity, we’ll assume that all these trolls are real human beings, and that each instance of a troll actually represents a unique human being rather than multiple sockpuppets employed to “pad out” their side of the argument. If these people are genuine, then they represent some odious philosophies that do need to be expunged from the discourse at hand.
The people are welcome to stay, but the ideas must be repudiated. Ideas like that giving offense to people is its own intrinsic good, and that you should freely talk about everyone and everything you don’t like using as vilifying terms as you can at every turn. Now, I’m not talking about calling individuals asshats or douchebags — some folks think that ANY dip into the language of vilification is awful, and I won’t argue those points of view except to note that I don’t share them. No, I’m talking about those folks who demand the right to come into your space and say terrible things about whole groups of people, either directly or by extension from the slurs they choose to use. Calling women “cunts” and “bitches” and gaslighting them and doubting their every word just because they’re women, calling trans folks “traps” or “trannies”, calling calling gays “homo” or “fag”, using “that’s gay” as an epithet. The war on racist language is largely won, where you rarely hear someone call blacks “niggers”, though ask Crommunist what kinds of coded racist language you see since direct racism is so thoroughly stigmatized! So, at the same time as I’m talking about slurs, I’m also talking about those people who can raze the earth and damage whole classes of folks without using a single uncivil syllable. The important thing to challenge is the ideas that lead to these behaviours. These ideas contribute more to a culture of hatred than individual insults ever could.
And that culture of hatred derives from a culture of privilege. The loudmouth and the bigoted subsets of movement atheism are largely populated by young, white, libertarian males. There are older folks, there are non-whites, there are non-males, but the largest and most vocal defenders of privilege are and will likely always be libertarians. Not economic libertarians or civil libertarians, no — the folks who have internalized Atlas Shrugged and Rand’s atheism and demand that classism and wealth privileges be held sacrosanct. They also hold that privilege on every other axis be upheld, largely because the adherents to this philosophy benefit from those privileges heavily. They are the folks who believe that any attempt to curtail their privileges by leveling the playing field is “fascism” or “socialism” or “naziism” or some other ahistorical use of a political twitch-word. You’d think privilege as a concept wouldn’t be so difficult to grasp, given that they are underprivileged as concerns their religious views, the hatred they get for it, and the theistic stranglehold on government that many countries endure. But apparently recognizing privilege other than religion is “fascist”.
Yes, this sort of Randian libertarianism is a minority, but just being a minority isn’t enough to warrant special protection — the 1% who own 90% of the power and wealth on our continent are a numeric minority but are not an underclass like the 99% who share 10% of the wealth and power. And yes, we’re telling you that parroting the “bitches lie amirite?” attitude is just the sort of institutionalized oppression that has resulted in so many women leaving the movement. And yes, telling you this is actually suggesting that maybe you shouldn’t do that if the end goal is to bring atheism to everyone — especially if you’re telling women that we’re better for them than religion.
The people who balk at the notion that these memes might drive people out are largely the sort of libertarian that thinks THEIR privilege is good, and simultaneously ALL privilege is mythical. They believe that might makes right. That identifying behaviours that do real damage to the movement is equivalent to “drumming them out” — SPECIFICALLY them, even. They decry the divisiveness, the “deep rifts” that we’ve created. Never mind that these rifts have existed since atheism self-arranged around the idea that there are no gods, where this hardly a coherent community makes, and that people differ on all manner of other axes and we can’t all be right about all of them. These same people would prefer to drum US out, but since that’s the sort of thing we’re fighting against, the exclusionism and tribalism that creates factions and rifts and real pain to underprivileged classes, they perform their very best judo on us. They do whatever they can to make the rifts our fault. Because we pointed them out. They’ve fully internalized the Kindergarten meme of “who smelt it, dealt it”.
Since we’re all atheists, and the worst thing in the world is religion, they attack the thing that directly confronts their views of the primacy of their privileged position as “religious”, even though the people who identify as “atheist plus” are generally the following:
1) a subset of movement atheism who therefore also explicitly reject dogmatic religion;
2) a subset specifically made up of people who also hold humanist ideals and want to discuss social justice issues (primarily, at the moment, feminism);
3) consider those humanist and social justice ideals as being informed by their atheism;
4) question behaviours by so-called “leaders” of movement atheism that conflict with their philosophies about humanism and social justice;
5) have no leaders or accepted dogma, given the range of opinions WITHIN the label that conflict with one another;
6) have already had folks cleaning house within the label by demanding changes to behaviours identified as harmful from its own members;
7) have shown themselves open to social justice issues that aren’t necessarily their “pet” issue.
Atheism Plus is a nascent movement, and it’s not a movement at all. It is the result of Jen McCreight managing to light the tinderbox whose flint a number of us, myself included, have been trying to strike for years, by calling for a third wave of atheism where “New Atheism” hasn’t been entirely successful on many fronts as concerns internal coherence. A+ is the inevitable end result of the realization that movement atheism is very largely populated by people who insist that the fact that we have no religion means we must never curtail behaviours no matter how antisocial or harmful. This is, of course, both incorrect as a rule for building cohesive social structures, and as a characterization of the actual purpose and effects of A+.
I’ve said this before — I consider the “atheism plus” label a mere shorthand. It is an optional label that one can employ of you want to indicate to people that not only are you an atheist, but you also care about other things which are informed by your atheism. It means you have had it with those movement atheists who would prefer to keep acting exactly how they’re acting, even if it means trans folk and women generally — the two largest groups presently put off by their bigotries — get marginalized or ostracised, either by design or by accident. Misogyny, cissexism and other forms of overlapping gender-based discrimination are our best-represented, most visible bigotries in our movement. That’s not to discount other problems like ableism, or those hideous “race realists” who mangle science to prove racism, mind you — those must be challenged as well. Adopting the A+ shorthand is a signal that you won’t stand for any of that. It means you are willing to build a safe space where those anti-egalitarian and misanthropic ideas are dismissed for the bigoted and often religiously-derived prejudice that they are.
But while there’s a few people willing to turn this into a “with us (against prejudice) or against us (and for prejudice)”, I’m not.
With every person who by their behaviour embraces bigotry and prejudice whether they’re conscious of it or not, I’d rather tell them the effects of their behaviour, and convince them that to be a better person they need to change their behaviour, because some of these people are simply unaware. If they refuse, then I distance myself from them. If they’re stubborn and intractable and have been uncivil for any length of time, if they show no signs of abating, if they go on the attack, then I distance myself from them. Not “we”. Not unless you choose to judge these people by their behaviours the way I do. And they’re still free to keep acting like the douchenozzles they are — just as I’m free to associate with them or disengage as I see fit. It impinges not one whit on their ability to keep saying ridiculous nasty things about people, that I’ve said “not here”.
Meanwhile, even when they refuse to be corrected on those shitty behaviours, I still have a lot of respect for some of them. Say, for instance, Richard Dawkins’ work on popularizing atheism. And his works on scientific matters are unparalleled. I do think some of his ideas about feminism and social justice are muddled and fuzzy and in some very specific cases completely incorrect and damaging, and he’s said some absolutely terrible things to some people that are damaging to the brand of atheism altogether, so he does not represent me on any label other than “atheist” and “science-booster”.
I have strongly chastised DJ Grothe for some terrible anti-woman and anti-feminist messaging that has tangibly harmed the TAM brand and harmed movement skepticism, and his handling of the idea of implementing harassment policies that are less of a policy and more like a secret police force that nobody knew about until it swung into action and treated harassment into “protect the victim from physical assault” when no assault was in the making. He does not represent my views on feminism, on harassment, or on tribalism, given his “this is our tribe” speech at this last TAM. But he is an unparalleled skeptic in traditional skeptical matters like homeopathy, ghosts, UFOs and other matters. While I wish he would examine the sociological concept of privilege and how his repeated poor messaging has actually hurt his causes, I have immense respect for the man’s scholarship in those other matters.
But that’s not to say that those behaviours are acceptable by virtue of the good they’ve done — you don’t get a free pass for murder by doing charity work for thirty years. Nor is it to say that atheists need a set of laws or moral precepts to follow for adoption of the label “atheist”. You’re an atheist by merely denying the existence of a god or gods… but that’s not enough to build a coherent society around. If you want to build a movement that is accepting of more than cis-gendered men — accepting of any underprivileged person on any axis, in fact — then you need to acknowledge that these people deserve respect. And respecting them means not condoning trollish behaviour that explicitly denigrates the personhood or value of those several underprivileged classes.
So, we’ve taken the advice of those folks who demand that atheists stop talking about feminism by saying “well, we’re not JUST atheists, we give a shit about this other stuff too”. We’re tired of being told we’re splitting up the movement by those tribalists who really would like us to leave the movement altogether, so we’re modifying the label to fit us better. It is only divisive if you find being explicitly told a person’s views on other topics somehow damning of your own views.
It also indicates that when we are told we’ve done something that plays into a privilege that harms a subset of society, we are open to correcting that privilege in ourselves. I often forget to include alt tags or descriptions on my images for the blind or vision-impaired, because I’m fully sighted (though I require corrective lenses). I almost never think to include descriptions of videos or provide transcripts even though they’re available, because I’m not hard of hearing. Well, I suspect I have some hearing loss from my time working through school at a lead refinery, but it’s not enough that turning up the volume a little or asking someone to repeat from time to time doesn’t solve. It very often never occurs to me to do these things until someone corrects me on my privilege. Not once have I said “oh come on, I really doubt anyone who’s in X group really cares enough to know what I’m talking about here”, because at least one person just did so. And if there’s one, there’s more than one.
So, I do my damnedest to include alt tags on images, though I often only remember after publication. And wherever there’s a transcript available for a video, like the recent Google Hangout that Ophelia, Stephanie, Alex, Debbie and I had on A+ that was kindly transcribed by A+ Scribe, I will gladly include it in the post not only because it benefits the hard-of-hearing community, but also the folks who might want to reference a specific section of the video in a post of their own. Not only are we aiding an underprivileged group in enjoying the same content we do, but our community is stronger and better for it.
I am hard pressed to think of a single vector for which correcting our privilege as a community wouldn’t strengthen it, and that includes putting down the kinds of targeted vitriol that women and feminists endure on a daily basis. Privilege as a sociological concept is a powerful one, for its explanatory power and the mountain of evidence that it exists and that we all benefit from fixing the structures that lead to and support it. And whether you want to use the label as a shorthand, or you’re on board with all of the ideals the label is intended to represent and would rather eschew the label, either way’s fine with me. The words used to represent the idea matter less than the actions taken to realize the idea.
Those people who are pushing back against being told that their behaviours are harmful to our movement keep claiming that this is like a religion. What they’re really telling you is that they’d rather never be told to stop doing shitty things to good people. What they’re saying is that only religions tell you what is helpful or harmful, even if the people claiming it are able to provide evidence of harm where religion never does.
That’s a truth claim about the world that I think we can all agree — well, all of us but those privileged jackholes, anyway — is bullshit.
Evidence, please?
This is the point that, more than anything else, I despair trying to get certain people to understand.
I’ve seen too many comments saying “you guys have usurped the word ‘atheism’ and now what can I call my disbelief in gods?” These folks glom on the word “atheism” and completely ignore the “plus” following right after it. It’s frustrating explaining for the bazillionth time “atheism plus” is more than just atheism, that’s what the plus denotes.
is just like a religion. I’m not really sure how to answer that last one
In the sense that it’s about social control, and in-group/out-group identification, that’s true. And, so what?
Very good. I’ve tried to argue as much with Carrier and a few others around FTB, but they just insist that people need to be outcasted, shamed, have their characters assassinated, etc. It’s pretty ridiculous really. I mean, how can a minority outcast people? Isn’t that what Joseph Smith did by moving to Utah (for example)? I mean, doesn’t that just amount to outcasting themselves? And how can one atheist outcast another atheist? Pretty silly. So, yes, the emphasis should be on the “plus,” on the “optional” component of it, and always upon winning hearts and changing minds, not drawing lines in the sand and talking tough (over the internet, no less, lol). If atheism+ is really what you describe above, count me in. If it’s a way to streamline everyone’s beliefs, create an official dogma, and start outcasting and insulting anyone that has questions about it, then count me out.
That being said, isn’t misandry something that feminists should seek to disassociate from? Aren’t we pushing for equality, to redefining “gender roles” to not be based upon gender, but upon personal choice and mutual respect? Does my belief in equal pay for equal work, and that this should entail women doing half of the truly odious underpaid labor jobs in our society make me unacceptable to atheism+? That may seem like an anti-feminist quip. It is not. I’m serious about this equal rights thing, and I have seen the resentment “equal rights” stirs in people that have to eat the shit of society (often it really is those frustrated lower class males who are guilty of much of the misogyny) on a regular basis. So should we have a feminism+? One that excludes those who think chivalry is totally awesome, that selective service should not be expanded to women (so long as we have something like that begin with– which I would rather we didn’t), that coal miners and roofers and “garbage men” should just be mostly men, or that only a woman should have a dignified choice about staying home with the kids, but think that no company should ever pay a female less than a male, or hand out the prestigious jobs to primarily males? Shouldn’t we be equal about our push for greater equality? Maybe I seem like an idiot. Be patient with me. These are honest concerns. I believe that female exceptionalism is one of the greatest obstacles to the goals of feminism, just like I also believe that the Cult of Ayn Rand is one great obstacle to humanistic atheism. Thoughts?
Corey, I don’t agree that men are worse off than women job wise. Women do the bulk of unpaid awful jobs, and most of the caring jobs that involve literally dealing with shit. Men at least tend to get their work valued.
The jobs you name were forbidden to women for a long time; you can’t expect that to change overnight. Nor is it reasonable to blame women that they are not in these jobs. There aren’t many women in STEM jobs, for the same reason.
Where do you see misandry in A+? Heck, where do you see misandry in feminism?
corey: Feminists do in fact discuss and debate those honest concerns, but generally they manage to do it without year-long harassment campaigns or ostracizing each other. Feminism even has subsets that disagree with each other.
The main problem with strict equality-based treatment is that it fails to account for unconscious and systemic bias. For instance it’s not workable to say women and men have overtly equal career opportunities on paper when women disproportionately get punished for having children, unsupportive spouses, or just for being women.
There are reasons why the underpaid dangerous shit job of coal mining’s mostly done by men, while the underpaid dangerous shit job of nursing’s mostly done by women, and it’s not because of uppity feminists.
corey, for your consideration:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/03/31/psychological-innovation-to-improve-oil-rig-safety/
Seconding Pteryxx, corey. The misandry that I’ve noticed in feminism comes largely from the same quarters as transphobia, and there are in fact people who have internalized every “straw feminist” argument from television and movies. And not just antifeminists — people claiming to be feminist.
As for what you’re talking about with regard to jobs, check out my essay The Disadvantages of Being a Man for some research.
nohellbelowus: isn’t it enough to recognize that every time we bring up a feminist topic, we get largely booed by even big names in the movement? Seriously. If you want a peer-reviewed study of the exact size of the group adhering to problematic ideas, you’re welcome to do it — but don’t tell me they don’t exist.
“Atheism Plus is just like a religion”
This is my argument. I ask you to assume goodwill.
I perceive Atheism+ as saying it is a triangle whose legs are Atheism, Skepticism, and Feminism.
Personally, I am Skeptic first, and from there derives Atheism, Humanism, and a bunch of other stuff.
As a Skeptic, I assume I can be Skeptical of Atheism ad ask questions what is atheism, what is its boundaries, what is the proof an atheistic view of the world is better than a theistic view.
I am not sure that within Atheism+, I can be skeptical of contemporary feminism.
I am Skeptical that the Patriarchy is the dominant factor in the construction and rule of society that contemporary feminism claims it to be.
The Feminism 101 faq (linked to from the Pharyngula wiki) defines sexism as:
I am skeptical of that definition. Skeptical that is a useful definition. Skeptical that definition isn’t divisive, and “convenient”. Skeptical that definition wasn’t created for political reasons to enable the dismissing of valid and important points of view in an argument.
I am skeptical of the movement that would create such a definition and defend it.
Can I be Skeptical of Patriarchy Theory or Sexism requires power or Contemporary Feminism and be a member of Atheism+ supportive of atheism, skepticism and social justice?
If there are basic axioms, principles that cannot be questioned, is the movement really Skeptical?
If we have to take such axioms on faith, is it really an atheism movement?
From what I’ve seen Atheism+ is a branch of Feminism and is coopting the Atheism name. Arguably, it is a political, unwanted, intentional cooption of Atheism.
Of course, if one can be a member of Atheism+ and be openly skeptical of contemporary feminist theory, then I would my perception of Atheism+ would be very mistaken.
Of course they exist. But is the atheist movement “very largely populated” by individuals of this kind?
It isn’t my claim, it’s yours. You bear the burden of proof. Or, you could simply edit such inflammatory rhetoric.
By the way, when I started to make this argument in Stephanie Zvan’s blog, she banned me from the blog claiming I was derailing.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/08/29/legitimate-differences-of-opinion
She didn’t ban others who were also, equally, if not more so, off topic.
It’s this sort of behavior that leads me to believe it is safe to question atheism, safe to question skepticism, and not safe to question contemporary feminism, and hence, not an atheistic nor skeptical movement at all.
Should anyone care, Zvan may claim I am only in moderation, but in fact I’ve three comments there that have now been in moderation for over 48 hours, and she has certainly attended her blog in the meantime.
Jacques, quick point, your use of blockquotes could be seen as deceptive. You have to be clear and format it well, or else it seems like what you have there is what you’re saying exists on the link, which is false, at least not in the form you present it in.
When eliding large sections of text, you need to use ellipsis, and also use ellipsis when eliding sections of sentences. Anything else is deceptive, and thus, immoral.
trinioler,
“Jacques, quick point, your use of blockquotes could be seen as deceptive.”
YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, I did that poorly. Thank you for bringing that up.
It should’ve been more like:
The Feminism 101 faq (linked to from the Pharyngula wiki) defines sexism as:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/
And so, dis-empowered groups cannot be sexist.
It’s been a long time since I had a course in English, but I don’t think ellipses are required here, for instance, Grammar Girl says:
And I don’t think I am being deceptive, here is another quote from the same page.
Further elucidation:
The problem is, yeah sure, you can be skeptical. But you offer no evidence otherwise. No reasoning, no explanation why you are skeptical.
The thing is, the patriarchy is a power structure, which biases things in favor of men. This doesn’t mean all men have it easy, and in fact, there is a well-known facet that Patriarchy Hurts Men Too.
The problem is, as an informal system, its very difficult to point to any one thing and say, “That is the patriarchy”, because its a diffuse set of biases, privileges, rules, and structures.
What we can do is to see the effects of these biases, privileges, and rules.
So, in short:
* Gender wage gap
* Pregnant women are significantly more at risk of dying to violence via their partners than any other means in First World countries.
* Women are lacking in the power structures of society, everywhere from professional societies, to running companies, to academia, to political power.
* “Women’s work” is unpaid and unappreciated
* Jobs that are considered feminine are paid less than similar jobs that are considered masculine: doctor vs nurse. Doctors have been suffering a wage drop as more women become doctors, while nurses’ pay has increased as more men become nurses.
* Men who do not support these rules and privileges end up harmed and ostracized themselves. Studies found that men that stood up for women’s rights and against harassment in workplaces consequently suffer a lack of promotions and raises.
* Women are exploited for their bodies worldwide. Sex trafficking is a billion dollar illegal industry, that results in the abuse and eventual murder of millions of women in extremely terrible conditions. Men do not suffer this industry.
* Street harassment is a problem that disproportionately affects women: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/
Still want to be skeptical of the patriarchy? Offer some reasoning, some evidence, something.
Wrong. Gay men are known to sometimes be sexist to women.
Here’s the point you missed, its men being sexist to women. Women can also be sexist to women. Its impossible for women to be sexist in the same way to men. They do not have the enforcement structures or the same privileges men do.
trinolier,
The problem is, yeah sure, you can be skeptical. But you offer no evidence otherwise. No reasoning, no explanation why you are skeptical.
I don’t believe the question at the moment is “why”, and while each/most of your further points showing evidence of patriarchy can be debated, I don’t think that is the topic of this thread or my comment and would be a hijack.
My question is not “why”, but “if”, or “how”.
So far the observational evidence I’ve seen in the discussions of Atheism+ and in the comment threads, the banning, the put downs, the “offensive” language insults, the denials, indicate to me that one cannot be Skeptical of contemporary feminism while identifying as Atheism+.
(Re: ” Pregnant women are significantly more at risk of dying to violence via their partners than any other means in First World countries.” This is ambiguous, but I believe in the US, the #1 cause of death in pregnant women is pregnancy at roughly 12 per 100,000 live births (support choice), the #2 cause is car accidents, and the #3 cause is sadly, murder. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45626-2005Feb22.html)
But again, the question is, does Atheism+ support Skepticism of Contemporary Feminism? Not to debate here in this thread Contemporary Feminism itself.
You do seem to agree that
sexism = prejudice + power
Here’s the point you missed, its men being sexist to women. Women can also be sexist to women. Its impossible for women to be sexist in the same way to men.
Thank you for the correction.
Can I exist within Atheism+ and be skeptical of your beliefs (bolded)?
Again, should it matter, re: pregnant women:
http://barrydeutsch.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/homicide-is-not-the-leading-cause-of-death-among-pregnant-women/
Ampersand says:
@nohellbelowus
Nope, you don’t get to pull that shit here. You don’t get to seize on vague language and derail the conversation into navel-gazing about what the definition of “is” is.
The words “very largely” have such an insignificant effect on the topics being presented that you may as well pretend they don’t exist. If Jason edited them out, the meanings and implications of a single other word would not be affected.
You wouldn’t even be able to tell me whether “very largely” means “a majority”, “a significant minority”, “20%”, “40%”, whatever. The words are that effectively meaningless.
They’re tertiary, insignificant, and unworthy of debate. So please, stay on topic.
For simplicity?… The difference between the two options makes a world of difference regarding the assumptions made to substantiate many of claims made by some Atheism+’s proponents. Of course you know that.
I think it’s safe to say that the word feminism can mean a number of different ideas to a number of different people. It would be awesome if someone could be more specific about what type of feminism being defended here.
What does atheism mean in the above statement? What does informed by mean in the above statement? (I just wanna make sure I’m not misunderstanding the above statement as non sequitur)
Would it be possible for you to give us a ballpark percentage the two adverbs very largely are expressing in the above statement?
All in all, I don’t disagree with your broad stated goals, how could I. I only disagree with some argumentation and declarations made by some individuals spearheading this movement, which I consider antithetical to the rigor with which we scrutinize religious ones (I am not comparing A+ with a religion here, no misunderstandings there I hope). But as long as you guys allow for honest assessment of the validity of such declarations, then it’s possible I might run out of things to be opposed regarding A+.
Jacques, when its done well, without being sexist, with evidence, yeah.
People will criticize you, but so what? Just because someone says you’re wrong isn’t the same as someone banning you from the internet.
The issue though is that these are 101 level discussions, which are often derails for conversations.
Someone going, “You’re a sexist idiot” isn’t the same as not being allowed to do it. Its fucking criticism.
Jacques — I may be wrong on this, but I strongly believe Stephanie Zvan put you in moderation because you repeatedly refused to answer the “why” question. The question here is not “why”. Nor “how”. It is, “don’t we deserve better voices and better representation?”
Because like it or not (and this is partly to nohellbelowus), there is a perception of this community — both from within and without — that those loudmouths, those disproportionately volumed trolls and actual misogynists and actual antifeminists — make up the bulk of the movement. Just try espousing feminist values online sometime and you’ll see exactly how many random people attack you. Not because you attacked them, but because you spoke up.
“hey, we have an adoption problem, people are being turned off of atheism by all the douchebags that have entrenched themselves in it”
Can you cite some stats for this adoption problem? Or is it based on anecdotes.
Also what % of people are being turned off atheism because of all the douchebags and what % are turned off by other factors?
Yeah, you can be skeptical of it, just like a creationist can be skeptical of evolution…however, the freedom to question something does not guarantee that you will be able to question it successfully, and people are going to tell you your objections are wrong when you aren’t familiar with lots of basic evidence. Telling you your attempt at questioning is wrong is not silencing you, it’s just responding to (or being unimpressed with) your points.
So, YOU don’t think patriarchy is a dominant force in our culture? Well, maybe that’s because it doesn’t seem dominant TO YOU. That’s how privilege works–there are advantages you get in life that make your life just a little bit easier, of which you are completely unaware. Go read the Pharyngula wiki to realize how thoroughly gendered expectations affect women (and men), and how pervasive these assumptions are and how strongly they affect individuals, our economy, our education, and our politics. For goodness’ sake, a major political party has as its main galvanizing force trying to ban abortion–and yet you don’t appreciate the power that patriarchal thinking has on our culture?
Also, there’s a difference between patriarchy being THE dominant force in culture, as opposed to A dominant force in culture. As PZ has already said:
Moreover, discussions of patriarchy are about cultural narratives and implicit attitudes and the way hierarchies are assumed in our society. It is NOT about people consciously conspiring to keep women down or having an end goal of creating a male-dominated society on purpose, any more than evolution posits that all mutations are beneficial. To question along these lines shows that you just don’t understand the concepts yet.
Yes, sexism is prejudice plus power. And evolution is a theory. Learning what words mean and how they apply in an academic context is an important part of education. The fact that someone doesn’t understand the use of words doesn’t mean the school of thought is wrong, it means the person needs to educate themselves some more.
Sexism is the SYSTEMIC attitudes that women are inferior to men, and involves the perpetuation of these attitudes among multiple levels of interaction. Sexism is not just one person being mean to another person on the basis of sex (any more than evolution is “just a theory”); sexism is supporting the notion that women as a class are less deserving of social, legal, and political equality, and it affects their ability to get elected to public office, to receive reproductive health care, to get fair pay in jobs, to have juries take seriously the circumstances under which they were raped, to have their competence be assessed free from assessments of their appearance, etc.
And individual can be prejudiced, or mean, or douchebaggy to another individual for another reason, but being racist or sexist is a reflection of supporting broader social processes. The random political lesbian separatist in some vegan bar in Seattle who hates men (I’m sure these creatures exist, but in very small numbers, and really the VAST majority of claims of hating men are the result of conflating criticizing socially-constructed male privilege with criticizing men themselves) may very well be an asshole, but is not creating any systemic oppression–she is not tapping into any narratives that prevent men as a class from being elected, from getting health care, from getting paid equally, etc. Now, just like “theory” can mean different things in different contexts, there will be some variation in how “sexist” is used in certain contexts, but in that case you can clarify the meaning in that particular context, instead of projecting what you think it means.
Again, we are not saying YOU CAN’T BE SKEPTICAL OF THIS!!eleventy!1! We’re saying your objection is based on not understanding the meaning of the terms you’re using, and the solution to that is to learn more.
I think you’re confusing “skepticism” with “poisoning the well” and “spreading completely unsourced allegations.” Moreover, where are these valid and important points of view? For this claim to have any weight, you’ll have to provide something that was dismissed, and provide an argument as to why it was valid and important. Without that, it just sounds like sour grapes.
No you don’t. We provided you with a wiki with extensive documentation of the underpinnings of our views and the data behind them, and I gave another 12 peer-reviewed studies at comment #147 on Stephanie’s post. To date, you have provided no actual argument against these claims or our evidence, just speculation as to why you don’t like it. If you disagree with something we say, make a coherent argument against it but don’t whine that you have to take this on faith when you simply refuse to engage in meaningful debate.
And, yes, you were derailing on Stephanie’s blog DISGRACEFULLY. You were asked multiple times to provide evidence for your assertions, and were given multiple opportunities to define your views as you saw fit. You provided NOTHING. and then, you post this question there even though it has nothing to do with the question at hand, and you’re *surprised* that you got sent into moderation? Your whining about how we should simultaneously expect less evidence from you and be more skeptical was pretty hilarious, though. And no, you were by far the most off-topic one there, and PERSISTENTLY so.
#21 is what you get when ‘unique human beings’ (who totally aren’t trolls) derail and obfuscate and then say ‘O:) Y U mad? What’d I do? trolololol’ – they just have to use $5 words to make it look real smart and polite.
#11 and 12 – you were put in moderation for derailing, and then derail here to talk about your unjust imprisonment for derailing.
Jason, I believe I was trying to show Stephanie that the answer to her question was mu. That her question was poorly framed and could not be answered in the way she requested. It is 48 – 72 hours later and no one has answered her in the manner she demands. Does that mean she was correct that there is no data to support equity feminism? Or could it be as I discussed, the premises of her question were erroneous?
Regardless,
trinolier,
The Finally Feminism 101 FAQ for sexism that I quoted is a definition.
They describe it as a notion (not trying to be pejorative)
I don’t believe there is evidence for a definition, or notion, or axiom, of the type you demand in order for a Skeptic to discuss contemporary feminism.
Jacques, when its done well, without being sexist, with evidence, yeah.
And clearly, this is a circular argument. I ask can I be skeptical of the contemporary feminist definition of sexism and you respond, without being sexist … year
My observational evidence, going on what I’ve seen in the discussions at FtB, what I’ve witnessed over the past year in the skeptosphere, leads me to believe that one cannot be skeptical of contemporary feminism and be within the bounds of Atheism+.
Thank you for taking the time to address that complicated and emotional topic.
@Jacques, #27:
But you were given multiple opportunities to state your beliefs and why you thought them, and you refused and derailed. Just to say that something is a moral issue and then apparently free of needing data is absurd–doesn’t evidence of unfairness lead to some strong moral implications? Isn’t the fact of suffering a moral concern to those who aren’t sociopaths?
The libertarians there just insisted that they couldn’t possibly offer data, because “you can’t get an ought from an is” and other such bromides. They also failed to note that she was addressing people who claimed to be for social justice but thought their branch of “equity feminism” promoted that goal. What she got were answers from people who actually questioned the whole moral value of social justice at all and said they couldn’t be morally certain that discrimination was really a big enough deal to act on, thus clearly showing they were NOT trying to be pro-social justice but disagreeing about the means, and thus not the people Stephanie was addressing (if indeed the people making those claims actually hold them, or rather retreat to “you can’t get an ought from an is!” when called on their claims that libertarianism promotes social justice).
And, frankly, I agree with Stephanie that if you can’t pony up some data that even indirectly supports your worldview, you aren’t really be a skeptic.
People will criticize you, but so what? Just because someone says you’re wrong isn’t the same as someone banning you from the internet.
The issue though is that these are 101 level discussions, which are often derails for conversations.
Someone going, “You’re a sexist idiot” isn’t the same as not being allowed to do it. Its fucking criticism.
We’re I to comment with my real name, and I said something that I felt was reasonable, but other people in Atheism+ felt was “sexist” or out of bounds, it’s clear that the level of vitriol and nastiness from Atheism+ bloggers and commenters can be extremely high.
Assuming one could be skeptical of contemporary feminism within Atheism+, there is almost no reward for that, and extremely high punishments, including being called out by name for being a sexist, misogynist, or more by some very leading names on the Internet.
I guess because of Google, that’s what so what.
So I remain skeptical of contemporary feminism (CF) skeptical of the CF definition of sexism, and very skeptical that Atheism+ is a movement of Atheism and not a cooption by feminists.
Again, Jacques, one can absolutely be skeptical of feminism within the Atheist Plus community just as one can be skeptical of evolution or the germ theory of disease and be in the atheist community. The question is whether that skepticism is warranted, or a holdover from previous memetic programming from prior to your adopting the label. If you’re “for social justice and humanism” by self-identification, but hold views that hinder the social justice cause of stamping out (as the two major and overlapping examples I gave) misogyny and transphobia, then you don’t represent me or the ideals of the “atheist plus” label. And since misogyny and transphobia are both rooted in privilege and feminism (all but the most radical schools of it anyway) fight both misogyny and transphobia with the side-goal of egalitarianism that ends what little misandry (the “patriarchy hurts men too” thing) there is, then “contemporary feminism” is decidedly in line with atheism plus. What you need to do is show how it is not, in fact, in line with atheism plus. You need to overturn a lot of sociological data showing that there are inequalities supporting let’s call it Privilege Theory (as LeftSidePositive helpfully provided you a list over at that thread where you were moderated from derailing, but not from reading!).
Be skeptical of the germ theory of disease, too, while you’re at it. But there’s a mountain of evidence for that as well. Us telling you you’re wrong does not prevent you from being wrong, only from representing us.
And since misogyny and transphobia are both rooted in privilege and feminism
Many real world people are actually against bigotry in all of its forms without requiring a need to believe in either privilege or feminism.
Or, you know, maybe you could be a mature adult and try to understand the reason for their criticism? Are you actually so childish that you think that just because you feel something is reasonable that it actually must be (particularly when making statements about the experiences of marginalized groups of which you are not a part)? Do you actually think that being told you’re doing something sexist is necessarily “vitriolic” or rather an assessment of the underlying assumptions of what you said? Do you really think that you can just declare yourself a good person with magical intent so nothing you say could possibly be sexist?
And, for my part, I’ll get pretty damned vitriolic with you when you fail to substantiate your viewpoint multiple times over and when asked repeatedly. This is not the behavior of a reasonable person. Issuing blanket denials on a subject on which you are transparently uneducated and ignoring numerous provided reference materials is not the behavior of a reasonable person.
And what is up with these people who pat themselves on the back for using their real name?! I will never understand that…
Aaawwww, did we forget to give you your cookie?
No, sorry, but being criticized and being held accountable for your statements is not an “extremely high punishment.” Acting like being called out on bad behavior is cause for more concern that PERPETRATING bad behavior is entitled, callous, and incredibly demeaning.
Guess what? Some people are sexist. Calling them out on that is completely appropriate and necessary to address the problems sexism causes in our society. Issuing blanket denials of abundant evidence of sexism in our society and calling your denialism “skepticism” is a self-serving defense of your privilege, and as such is sexist behavior. If you don’t want to be called out on your sexist behavior, why don’t you try to have a little empathy and understand WHY people are calling you out? You know, you could learn something! Furthermore, you are conflating having someone criticize your behavior with someone labeling the entirety of your person, i.e. “a sexist.”
Just like Ben Stein is “skeptical” of evolution. Just like Penn Jillette is “skeptical” of global warming. You can’t just claim yourself to be skeptical of something and expect us to take it seriously. Would you like to actually provide a coherent argument about any of the things you’re “skeptical” of?
Imagine a comma here in “privilege, and feminism” if it’s that difficult to parse thanks to the parentheses immediately after it.
Yeah, and many Miss America contestants are for “World Peace.” Just saying you agree with the simple statement of a noble end goal does not mean you understand anything about actually achieving that goal, or about how you might inadvertently be impeding progress to that goal.
If you were actually against bigotry, I would think you would actually make an effort to learn about models describing bigotry and predicting the patterns of bigotry and its defenses, and would not just declare yourself “skeptical” of something when new ideas apparently made you uncomfortable.
By the way, feminism is defined as “the position that women deserve full legal, political, and social equality to men.” If you don’t believe that, you are by definition bigoted against women.
The “patriarchy hurts men too” (TPHMT) is basically a circular argument used to dismiss, ignore, and silence disagreement.
We postulate a theory of Patriarchy that oppresses women and corrupts society and when someone questions it by pointing out the ills they perceive men face within society, they are shouted down with a dismissive TPHMT.
On the one hand it can be made consistent with Patriarchy Theory (PT), on the other hand to do so, the Finally Feminism 101 FAQ had to specifically exclude most men in society from the Patriarchy
while continuing to state all men are capable of sexism and women are not.
Maybe I have this mistaken. Perhaps it means as a commenter at a blog in Atheism+ where I have no power and am continually belittled and yelled at, it means I cannot be sexist, and so since I cannot be sexist, it is safe for me to be skeptical of contemporary feminism.
??
punchdrunk @26
I’ll be as clear and simple as possible from now on.
Shorter Jacques: BUT WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS????
Jacques–you are mistaken. Badly, badly mistaken. You need to take some time to educate yourself and ask honest questions and not just try to find flaws in something you don’t like.
There is nothing inconsistent with Patriarchy overwhelmingly disadvantaging women, while having lesser disadvantages to most men. Women are at much greater risk of being raped, do not have their labor compensated as much as a man would, are perceived as less competent than an equally-competent man, have their sexuality judged, have their value as human beings assessed based on their appearance, and are shamed into adopting a very strict stance of gender performance. Men, on the whole, get more money, political power, and social status RELATIVE TO WOMEN simply by being men, but this comes at a price to them, like they have to behave in a certain way to gain the respect of their peers, the culture that gives them social power glorifies violence and thus endangers them, etc., etc.
Imagine it thus, in a comically simplified way:
In a perfect society, everyone gets 10 Social Value Points(TM)
In a patriarchy, some men get 20 Social Value Points(TM), most men get 8 Social Value Points(TM), and most women get 4 Social Value Points(TM).
For example, the “patriarchs” get the advantage of an economic system that prioritizes their needs while distracting everybody over abortion, can take advantage of the economic dependence of women to get them to be their trophy wives, etc. Meanwhile, most men have okay wages (but not as high as they would be if the rich patriarchs didn’t use religious sex prudery to get elected and then distract people as they concentrated wealth into the hands of the top 1%), they have the respect of their peers but are constantly in fear of losing it and sometimes have to endanger themselves to maintain it (and as decent people, feel hurt when the women in their lives are hurt). Finally, women are expected to conform to very narrow beauty standards, suffer high rates of rape and abuse and a criminal justice system that does not rigorously enforce laws against these, have reproductive decisions made for them at the state level, get paid less than men, have jobs that they gravitate to become less respected, are treated as contemptible by much of society, especially when they speak up, and are expected to do most childcare and housework unpaid, etc., etc.
So, while a man may be disempowered in absolute terms by patriarchy, he still has power RELATIVE TO WOMEN. Moreover, sexist behavior is about enforcing the disempowerment of the recipient of your sexism (hence why women can be sexist against other women), so even if someone has relatively little power themselves, if they act in a way as to reinforce broader social power structures that disadvantage women, they are being sexist.
Also, power exists on many axes and shifts in different contexts, you can’t just make a blanket statement that you either have it or you don’t.
(Small pet peeve: being criticized does not mean you don’t have power. Barack Obama gets criticized fairly frequently–I’d say he still has power!)
Jason,
If you’re “for social justice and humanism” by self-identification, but hold views that hinder the social justice cause of stamping out (as the two major and overlapping examples I gave) misogyny and transphobia, then you don’t represent me or the ideals of the “atheist plus” label.
Considering contemporary feminism’s long rich history of anti-gay views and transphobia, I think many of us in LGBTQ community think of contemporary feminists as johnny come late-lies to the social justice movement.
I would posit once more that many people throughout the ages have fought against bigotry in all forms without knowing a bit of contemporary feminist theory.
For me, it comes from two propositions:
P: I think, therefore I am.
Q: All people are created equal.
I don’t believe the views I hold hinder any social justice movement — quite the opposite in fact — I believe that views like sexism = prejudice + power are the views that hinder social justice. This is why I am skeptical of those movements that adhere to those views and demand fealty.
Source please.
Anyhow, if this is true, I see this as a positive social justice trend. More women are adopting a male-dominated profession and a female-dominated profession is getting a pay raise 🙂
What exactly do you mean by “contemporary”? 1970?! By the way, feminism is not a monolith, so why are you so intent on tarring us with views that we expressly repudiate?
But you are not engaging in any self-skepticism about whether or not your beliefs about the effects of your views are actually true. If anyone communicates to you how you are hindering social justice movements (for instance, by blatant denialism of the claims of social justice advocates), you just get offended and act upset instead of educating yourself to MAKE SURE that your views don’t hinder any social justice movements.
WHY??!?!?!??!! You have made no argument to support this claim. You haven’t even given any indication that you UNDERSTAND what the statement even means!
You can’t just say the word “skeptical” and have your denialism count as anything other than denialism. Skepticism implies reasoned examination of evidence, and having good reasons to accept or reject something.
But they DON’T demand fealty. They just demand that you provide reasonable evidentiary and argumentative support for your claims, which you have CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO DO.
@Oppi, #40:
This is some of the most unbelievably boneheaded bullshit I’ve seen in a long time. And it isn’t funny, and it isn’t clever. And it sure as fuck isn’t social justice. The fact that some women in nursing get a pay raise from added male involvement DOES NOT change the fact that women’s labor is still devalued, and their advancement is solely dependent on men’s actions (NOT exactly a feminist ideal!). And women who have worked their asses off to become doctors are finding that the rewards they were promised for their considerable efforts are evaporating because now the profession they worked so hard to achieve is seen as something even a woman can do. Fuck that, man, fuck that.
Look, if you want to say nurses deserve a pay raise because of the good they do to society, great. But don’t be glib about systemic misogyny, ‘kay?
corey @ # 4 – Joseph Smith never moved to Utah, nor sfaik even considered that. His successors after he was killed by a lynch mob made that decision, in large part for self-defense.
And you really should read up more on feminism before flinging such uninformed poop at it.
For me, it comes from two propositions:
P: I think, therefore I am.
Q: All people are created equal.
You do realize that philosophy has evolved since the 17th century, right? Why the hell are you taking anything a pre-enlightment philosopher has said seriously? This guy, Descartes, also present ontological arguments for the existence of God, which start with your P. Pretty much the only thing you can definitively say is “there are thoughts”, you cannot assign person-hood to these thoughts.
All people are not created equal. That’s a fiction. There’s no evidence for it. There is inequality in the world, people are created unequally. The just world hypothesis is a myth, not based on the evidence. What we do have evidence of is that merit does not necessarily correspond with wealth. There are a lot of cases where someone is wealthy due to circumstance (rich parents/ancestors), or exploitation of others (slavery, theft of land, resources, etc.).
The humans that are in poverty are not as a result of sin or bad behavior or their actions in a past life, but rather because they have been exploited by others. You speak English? Chances are, you’re living in a place that was built on the ruins of someone who was exploited. Don’t pretend that everyone has a fair chance at life currently. They sure as hell don’t. Why people talk about “achieving equality” in past tense, as though injustice and inequality ended long ago, is ridiculous.
What should be said is that “All people are created unequal, and the haves must share with the have-nots in order to correct this inequality, because the rich are not more entitled to life than the poor”. Feminism didn’t end with all of its goals accomplished when women got the right to vote. That’s when it began. Antiracism didn’t end with all of its goals accomplished when the slaves were freed. That’s when it began. As for LGBT social movements, they haven’t even really begun yet. We don’t even have marriage equality across the United States, we still have homophobic and transphobic laws on the books. We’re making progress on all of these fronts but it’s not mission accomplished yet.
And that’s just the United States. How about the rest of the world? Who is fighting for LGBT rights in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, China, Korea, Japan? Or fighting for women’s rights? Or the rights of immigrants? The fight isn’t over, it’s never been over, we don’t have equality in this world.
Jason, I don’t think the just world hypothesis is the issue, nor is whether philosophy has developed since the 17th century.
The issue is if one needs to believe in feminism in order to promote social justice.
It is clear there have been hundreds, thousands, … of people who clearly have sought and promoted social justice without being feminists.
It is just as clear that on many occasions the person standing in the way of social justice was a feminist.
I find your disdain for “all people are created equal” amusing. Enlightening?? Maybe in a scary way.
Anyway, thank you for your brief on why Atheism+ does not consider “all men are created equal” to be relevant or accurate and how that helps justify Atheism+ and Current Feminism’s oft mistreatment of others.
It’s this sort of grab that one can only promote social justice IF one is a contemporary feminist, or that contemporary feminists have a monopoly on social justice that justifiably amuses many people with a longer understanding of history.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Oops, that Oliver Crangle guy was me, needed so I could comment at Pharyngula. I much prefer the commenting policy here, but I can understand that PZ Myers needs a bit more robustness due to traffic.
You keep claiming people are saying things that they are not saying, and when they point out that they are not saying this, you ignore them and repeat the claim that they are saying it.
You state what something is based on your beliefs about it that are shown to be uninformed. When people point this out, you ignore the information they point you toward and then repeat your claim.
You are not approaching this honestly, or at least appear have little to no interest in what anyone but yourself has to say.
Why are you bothering? Nobody is making you sign a pledge.
You keep claiming people are saying things that they are not saying, and when they point out that they are not saying this, you ignore them and repeat the claim that they are saying it.
I apologize but that seems precisely the correct interpretation of the many things said in this thread and other Atheism+ threads.
And it’s not just me saying that, but clearly many people are saying that which is why there have been so many threads in the past days to address this.
You state what something is based on your beliefs about it that are shown to be uninformed. When people point this out, you ignore the information they point you toward and then repeat your claim.
You are not approaching this honestly, or at least appear have little to no interest in what anyone but yourself has to say.
Perhaps this is true, but perhaps because so many people have made an issue over this, it is not I that is uninformed, or ignoring others, or approaching it dishonestly, but perhaps it is … who?
In fact, I believe I have responded to everyone in this thread who has addressed me with the exception of LSP who couldn’t do anything other than scream at me in other threads at other blogs and so I have told LSP that I will no longer respond to his or her comments. Frankly since I told this to LSP, I find it creepy that LSP continues to stalk me and try to gain my attention. I find it almost threatening. I do not want LSP’s anger or attentions directed at me and I have made that abundantly clear. Anyway, other than that I believe I have tried to carefully read through to the other points of view and responded on topic (and politely and respectfully).
So many people making an issue of it? You mean so many people objecting to the idea of atheism+?
I have seen much more support for the idea than objection to it. Of those objecting, some just make their position known and realize (correctly) that they can simply not identify themselves that way, and will not.
Those vociferously objecting and not simply opting to not use the term themselves but objecting to OTHERS doing so? A small but persistent number of people.
At least two of whom appear to be you.
So let’s talk more about honesty.