Today’s dumbass quote of the day comes from W.F. Price, writing at something called The Spearhead about what he calls the “inherent conflict between atheism and feminism.” In explaining why there are more more male atheists in our communities than female ones, he proposes that it’s because women are just so damn irrational:
However, I do think Atheism tends to be a more masculine mode of thought, because men do not have rationalization hamsters that are as powerful as women’s. Men are more apt to believe it when they see it, while women like to believe in socially approved stories, or “pretty lies” as Heartiste calls them (not to say they are necessarily lies, of course, but you get the idea).
So there you go. It’s all explained. But there’s more:
However, there’s another issue here that is being ignored. Atheism is the rejection of religious fictions, but the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.
Try asking someone to defend equality in rational terms, and watch them stump themselves. There is simply nothing about the idea that makes sense from a rational perspective. In fact, equal only makes sense in math, because no two things are truly the same. Although both are athletes, is a baseball player equal to a football player? Is a german shepherd equal to a poodle? These questions don’t really make any sense, because the idea of equality is a human creation to describe some quality that can’t actually be defined.
No, those questions don’t make any sense because they are being used to build a rather absurd straw man. Equality does not mean that two things are the same in every way; only a moron would think such a thing. In the context of feminism and social justice, equality simply means being treated equally under the law. This isn’t really such a difficult concept to grasp, is it?
31 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
tubi
September 28, 2012 at 10:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And equal access to opportunity to pursue their desires, without the constraint of externally imposed rules and order and hierarchy.
anteprepro
September 28, 2012 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ironically, it is a damn good thing that he fails so abysmally when he explains why he believes this. If this was just left on its own, without him going out of his way to show that he doesn’t even understand what he’s fucking talking about, it would seem like the man was an amoral monster. This isn’t just an argument for sexism, after all: Arguing that “equality” isn’t a thing is an argument for every kind of bigotry under the sun.
Also:
Ahahahahaha!
[Citation: MRAs]
Artor
September 28, 2012 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have a vision of Price driving a chariot pulled by a team of “rationalization hamsters.” He’s cracking his whip & hollering “Hyaaa! Gidyup!” to drive them faster in order to write this drivel.
rabbitscribe
September 28, 2012 at 10:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What the hell is a “rationalization hamster?”
Come to think of it, I don’t want to know.
Gretchen
September 28, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Speaking of socially approved stories and pretty lies…this bloke doesn’t seem to have any problems swallowing them hook, line, and sinker.
Even if equality was a fiction, it wouldn’t necessarily be a religious fiction. Quite to the contrary, religion is generally hierarchical, and hierarchical in a way that almost inevitably places men above women. Which is, funnily enough, a reason that feminists often reject at least organized religion if not religion in general. So right there you have a damn good reason why feminism and atheism are not only compatible but complementary.
Subtract Hominem
September 28, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I heard that there are rationalization hamsters crawling through Rebecca Watson’s feminist hair.
Chiroptera
September 28, 2012 at 10:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Although both are athletes, is a baseball player equal to a football player?
Well, the Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. Even with the sexist reading, if one would accept the basic foundational principles the US was based on, he should answer his question, “yes.”
Perhaps, the reference to a “religious fiction” discredits one of the US’s founding documents?
‘Course, maybe Mr. Price isn’t American, and perhaps he’s increasingly dissatisfied living in any of the world’s liberal democracies.
illdoittomorrow
September 28, 2012 at 10:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Given that every major religion I can think of was founded by (and for!) men, and dominated by men, I’d say men can get those “rationalization hamsters” going pretty good, too. I think W. F. Price’s hamsters are subsisting on an IV drip of steroids and methamphetamine to crank out this crap.
matty1
September 28, 2012 at 10:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not sure that’s enough, is a situation where the law applies the same to men and women but employers choose to pay women less for the same work acceptable from a feminist perspective?
The kind of equality I care about is what I call moral equality, people are not equal in wealth, intelligence or height but they are equal in value as human beings.
Gretchen
September 28, 2012 at 10:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe he means that he can’t see why feminists would want to be atheists given his own apparent desire for men to dominate atheism, and feminists, desiring equality, would want none of that.
In which case he has somewhat of a point– we want none of him and people like him. But fortunately atheism and anti-feminism are not identical.
machintelligence
September 28, 2012 at 10:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Of course, some athletes are both, and can use this to their advantage.
iknklast
September 28, 2012 at 10:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Although both are athletes, is a baseball player equal to a football player?”
Equal in what way? For a baseball lover who doesn’t like football, (s)he would answer this no, baseball players are superior athletes, and would be able to give all the ways that baseball is a superior sport to football. For a football lover who doesn’t like baseball, reverse that.
After all, asking that question is to answer it – equality isn’t about saying baseball players and football players are exact equivalents, but that one isn’t treated in a superior manner to the others.
And I’m wondering – which one has more rationalization hamsters? Baseball players? or Football players?
Nepenthe
September 28, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ftr, The Spearhead:women::Stormfront:racial minorities
slc1
September 28, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually, in terms of sheer athleticism, basketball players are more athletic than either baseball or football players.
reverendrodney
September 28, 2012 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“…the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.”
In what religion are men and women equal?
ArtK
September 28, 2012 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Empirical evidence suggest that the answer to your question is “yes.”
I would agree with matty1 above that equality under the law is necessary but not sufficient for social justice. Ask any American with brown skin — they may be equal under the law (and even privileged in some cases), but they are rarely treated equally in society. The same applies to women and will, sadly, apply to GBLT even after we achieve the legal equality.
There are days when I really regret being a human being.
Kilian Hekhuis
September 28, 2012 at 11:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Strange, I’ve always thought the exact opposite. Equality is the 0-hypothesis (Occam’s and all that), it taking explicit proof why a certain form of inequality should be warrented.
Akira MacKenzie
September 28, 2012 at 11:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Spearhead? Ohhhhhhhkay… Paging Dr. Freud.
What is it with reactionary assholes and classifying any ideology or social movement they oppose as a “religion?” Feminism is a religion, science is a religion, environmentalism is a religion, atheism is a religion…
Confidence in one’s beliefs is not “dogma.”
Raging Bee
September 28, 2012 at 11:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…men do not have rationalization hamsters that are as powerful as women’s.
Their hamsters may be more powerful…but ours are BIGGER!! So there.
…but the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.
It’s only “fiction” to people who can take it for granted to the point where they never have to think about it, or think about not having it.
Where do they get these idiots?
Captain Mike
September 28, 2012 at 11:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 15: Sufism. Or so I’ve heard.
His confusion over the difference between social equality and mathematical equality reminds me of times people point out a technicality and think they’ve demolished you with superior logic:
“Women aren’t a minority, actually.”
“Muslism aren’t a race, actually.”
Yes, you’re very clever. NOW RESPOND TO THE ACTUAL POINT OR I WILL CUT YOU.
anteprepro
September 28, 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Feminism, of course. Like, duh. It’s the most religiony of religions that ever religioned. Now excuse me. I’m late for Friday service at the Temple of the Holy Vagina, where we read passages from the Book of Basic Human Decency, and pray to Goddess that men will start treating women like people.
vmanis1
September 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
1. Religion founded by a woman: Christian Science, founded by (or at least inspired by) Mary Baker Eddy. (And, yes, I find much about this religion silly, not least of which is its name.) Disclaimer: I once lived in a building round the cornder from the Christian Science Mother Church, in Boston, and which I believe was owned by said church.
2. Religions claiming equality for men and women. Too many to list, but one would include the Quakers, the Unitarians, and Reform Jews on such a list; I believe the Baha’i would also qualify, but don’t know enough about them. And yes, gender equality may still be imperfect in these denominations, but it is imperfect everywhere. Watching the Church of England, which already ordains women as priests, struggle with the issue of whether bishops are or are not required to have a penis, is perhaps entertaining, but many religious people have had little or no trouble with the concept.
timgueguen
September 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tenrikyo is another religion founded by a woman, Miki Nakayama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenrikyo
I find the idea men are more rational than women amusing. The guy must have a very strong perscription on his reality denial goggles.
Nepenthe
September 28, 2012 at 1:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This fellow knows that in Animal Farm the pigs, who used this precise line of reasoning, were the villains, right?
Nepenthe
September 28, 2012 at 1:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Or was that 1984? Regardless.
Gretchen
September 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I define feminism as a stance which does not just hold that men and women should be treated equally under the law, but that a person’s individuality comes before his or her gender. So women exist for themselves first, before they exist for anyone else including men.
An anti-feminist would be a person who thinks that women exist for his or her own interests. So, for example, a man who thinks that the most important thing about a woman is whether she is sexually attractive to him. Or a woman who thinks that it’s her business to tell other women how to act and how to dress. Since each woman has her own interests, and they may differ from those other women, I think feminism has to be about empowering individual women to make their own choices for themselves. You could call that individualist feminism or libertarian feminism, but I just call it feminism.
And I see no conflict whatsoever with believing that, and not believing in any gods.
anteprepro
September 28, 2012 at 1:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There were talking pigs in 1984 ? That one must have slipped down the memory hole :P
fastlane
September 28, 2012 at 2:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sometimes, I think (wish) that all these morons are simply pulling a Sokal on the MRAs. Then I realize they really are that stupid.
leni
September 28, 2012 at 5:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Gretchen, I think that is an interesting and useful way of looking at it.
But I can hear your hamster wheel and my girl brain can’t think about more than two things at once (unless they are directly related to babies or shoes or perhaps smell like money) so I totally forgot what I was gonna say.
I think my hamster is defective :/
Pieter B, FCD
September 28, 2012 at 5:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ reverendrodney and Captain Mike
Sikhism regards women as equal to men, although the language of the declaration has a bit of a paternalistic tinge.
thomasmorris
September 28, 2012 at 8:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Holy shit, the comments at that link are dumb. Like “feminists really just want to be men” and “men need to step up and accept their natural roles as leaders” dumb. “Feminism will lead to Nazism” dumb: