It’s been five years now since I first became involved with the atheist and skeptic movements. And for most of those five years, I felt like I belonged. When I started the Society of Non-Theists at Purdue University, I was relieved to know I wasn’t the only atheist on my campus. So when I realized there was an even greater national movement, I was elated to become a part of it. I had finally found people who shared my passion and values. I was welcomed with open arms.
Until I started talking about feminism.
You see, my previous atheist activism wasn’t sullied by the f-word. People applauded me for starting an atheist group on a conservative college campus. For blogging about our events and getting local media attention. For volunteering as a board member of the Secular Student Alliance. And most of all, for creating Boobquake.
I’ve always considered myself a feminist, but I used to be one of those teenagers who assumed the awesome ladies before me had solved everything. But Boobquake made me wake up. What I originally envisioned as an empowering event about supporting women’s freedoms and calling out dangerous superstitious thinking devolved into “Show us your tits!” I received sexual invitations from strangers around the country. When I appeared or spoke at atheist events, there was always a flood of comments about my chest and appearance. I’ve been repeatedly told I can never speak out against people objectifying or sexually harassing me because a joke about my boobs was eternal “consent.”
So I started speaking up about dirty issues like feminism and diversity and social justice because I thought messages like “please stop sexually harassing me” would be simple for skeptics and rationalists. But I was naive. Like clockwork, every post on feminism devolved into hundreds of comments accusing me being a man-hating, castrating, humorless, ugly, overreacting harpy. Despite the crap I received, I continued to publicly support these movements and stress that the haters were just a tiny minority. I thought this flood of sexism I had never experienced before was just a consequence of me growing up and heading out into the real world, and had nothing to do with these movements in particular. I can’t count how many times I publicly stressed that the atheist/skeptical movement, while not perfect, is still a safer place for women and other minorities.
But now I recognize that I was trying to convince myself that this is true.
I don’t feel safe as a woman in this community – and I feel less safe than I do as a woman in science, or a woman in gaming, or hell, as a woman walking down the fucking sidewalk. People shat themselves with rage at the suggestion that cons should have anti-sexual harassment policies. DJ Grothe, president of JREF, blamed those evil feminist bloggers for TAM’s female attendance problem instead of trying to fix what’s scaring women away (and then blocked me on Twitter and unfriended me on Facebook for good measure). A 15 year old girl posted a photo of herself holding a Carl Sagan book to r/atheism and got a flood of rape jokes in return. The Amazing Atheist purposefully tried to trigger a rape survivor. Paula Kirby decided we’re all feminazis and femistasis. I’ve become used to being called a cunt or having people threaten to contact my employers because a feminist can’t be a good scientist. Rebecca Watson is still receiving constant rape and death threats a year after she said “Guys, don’t do that.” And mentioning her name is a Beetlejuice-like trigger for a new torrent of hate mail.
Groups of people are obsessively devoted to slandering Freethought Blogs as a whole because many of us have feminist leanings. They photoshop things to try to humiliate us, they gain unauthorized access to our private email listserv. And anyone associated with us feminists are fair game. People have tried to destroy Surly Amy’s business, and Justin Vacula has publicly posted her home address with a photo. One blogger who describes their blog as “rejecting the watson/myers doctrine” ridiculed skeptical teen activist (and feminist ally) Rhys Morgan for flunking his exams because he had severe physical and mental illnesses.
I now realize I was never truly welcome in this movement. I just managed to unwittingly sneak in before I opened my big fat feminist mouth.
I was exactly what a Boy’s Club wanted. I was a young, not-hideous woman who passionately supported their cause. I made them look diverse without them having to address their minority-repelling privilege. They liked that I joked about sex and boobs not because it was empowering for me, but because they saw it as a pass to oggle and objectify. But the Boy’s Club rescinds its invitation once they realize you’re a rabble-rousing feminist. I was welcome at TAM when I was talking about a boob joke, but now I’m persona non grata for caring about sexual harassment. I used to receive numerous comments about how hot and attractive I was, but when I politely asked for people to keep the discussion professional, the comments morphed into how I was an ugly cunt. I was once considered an up-and-coming student leader, but now I’m accused of destroying the movement.
Well, that last bit is partially true. I want to destroy the part of the movement that has privilege as its foundation, as Natalie Reed perfectly describes:
The creepy thought that the reason a lot of outspoken, committed, passionate atheists are choosing this as their arena is because they’re too selfish, too entitled, or too sheltered, to allow any other issues to really matter to them. That they choose this ONE civil rights issue to dedicate themselves to, because it’s the ONLY legitimate civil rights issue that actually affects them, secure in their absence of ovaries, melanin, exogenous hormones, medical devices/supports, welfare checks, track scars and rainbow flags.
[…]It seems that there’s some kind of weird psychological need that a lot of people, perhaps in response to feelings that their belief of their privileges being earned is under threat, valorize and mythologize themselves as valiant Robin Hoods who dare to speak truth to power and stand up for the little guy against the tyrannical… …. Jews? Blacks? Trans people? Atheists? Women? The theme is always the same, however.
And what I worry is how much Atheism might be offering a similar sort of feeling without requiring the same levels of divorcing oneself from reality and diving into some kind of Bizarro World inversion of actual social dynamics. That what atheism is offering so many middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men is the capacity to see themselves as these savvy, smart, daring, controversial rogues who are standing up against an oppressive dogma in order to liberate the deluded sheeple. They’re, like, totally against swallowing the blue pill, dude. And so they get to be the heroes of their own narratives, instead of a passive passenger adrift on social forces more or less beyond their control… social forces that happened to guide them into a relatively safe and comfy position.
No matter how limited your views, no matter how much privilege you have, when you prop yourself up against Christianity, you get to be clever, and you get to be the rebel.
I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift. I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement. I want the misogynists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and downright trolls out of the movement for the same reason I wouldn’t invite them over for dinner or to play Mario Kart: because they’re not good people. We throw up billboards claiming we’re Good Without God, but how are we proving that as a movement? Litter clean-ups and blood drives can only say so much when you’re simultaneously threatening your fellow activists with rape and death.*
It’s time for a new wave of atheism, just like there were different waves of feminism. I’d argue that it’s already happened before. The “first wave” of atheism were the traditional philosophers, freethinkers, and academics. Then came the second wave of “New Atheists” like Dawkins and Hitchens, whose trademark was their unabashed public criticism of religion. Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists. It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime. We can criticize religion and irrational thinking just as unabashedly and just as publicly, but we need to stop exempting ourselves from that criticism.
Changing a movement seems like a mighty task (especially when you lack a witty name – the Newer Atheists doesn’t have a great ring to it). But the reason I’m not throwing my hands up in the air and screaming “I quit” is because we’re already winning. It’s an uphill battle, for sure – in case you’ve forgotten, scroll up and reread this post. But change is coming. Some national organizations accepted anti-harassment policies with no fuss at all. A lot of local or student groups are fabulous when it comes to issues of diversity and social justice. A number of prominent male leaders have begun speaking out against this surge of hate directed at women. I’m working with others to hopefully start an atheist/skeptical organization specifically focused on issues of equality. And although the response from the haters is getting louder and viler, they’re now vastly outnumbered by supportive comments (which wasn’t always true). This surge of hate is nothing more than the last gasp of a faction that has reached its end.
There will inevitably be people who use this post as evidence of some gynocratic conspiracy and will hunker down even more (for examples, check the comment section in a couple of hours – odds are good you’ll find some). There will be organizations, conferences, communities, and individuals that will never care about diversity or equality or social justice. There will be some that continue to devote their free time to harassing and threatening the rest of us instead of going outside for a walk or reading a book. Though these people claim to love reason, no amount of reason will ever get them to admit that they’re wrong. So to them, all I have to say is have fun as you circle jerk into oblivion. Keep unintentionally or intentionally excluding women, minorities, and progressives while cluelessly wondering why you’re losing members, money, and clout. The rest of us will be moving on.
If you’re ready for this new wave of atheism, now is the time to speak up. Say that you’re ready. Vocally support organizations and individuals that are already doing it right. Vocally criticize the inappropriate and hateful behavior so the victims of such actions know you’re on their side. Demand that your organizations and clubs evolve, or start your own if they refuse.
The Boy’s Club may have historically ruled the movement, but they don’t own it. We can.
*EDIT: I want to clarify that I did not mean the people and organizations involved with the official “Good without God” campaigns are the ones behind the rape and death threats. My intent was to show that if we’re publicly promoting atheists as good people, we need to deal with the not-so-good stuff that’s happening behind the scenes. I chatted with Greg Epstein specifically and he’s super supportive of the mission of A+.
*standing ovs*
Third Wave atheism might be a bit confusing while simultaneously talking about feminism… how about ‘inclusive atheism’ ? That’s the best I’ve been able to think of so far.
ooh, and the logo could be A+ !
I still like my “Atheism Mk II” nickname. ;D
Isn’t the targeting of Rhys just beyond belief?
Great post.
Awesomesauce.
Fuck yeah! Exactly this.
*applause*
This is one brilliant rant and a call for a revolution.
Thank you for speaking up.
I agree, and have been trying to be part of a new movement for some time now. Whether its atheism, secularism or humanism, these movements are undergoing a shift, and call me the eternal optimist, I think it is for the better. I don’t want to get involved in the “sides” which have arisen, but I do feel compelled to speak up when I see posts like this. It is time to move forward. It is time to create a new movement which focuses not just on religion and skepticism, but a humanism which embraces diversity and the differences within the movement. I have always hoped that these movements could stand as an example for the wider community, and I still think they can, but not without a little introspection and honesty about how we conduct ourselves in our interpersonal discourses.
Hurrah!
“If you’re ready for this new wave of atheism, now is the time to speak up. Say that you’re ready. Vocally support organizations and individuals that are already doing it right. Vocally criticize the inappropriate and hateful behavior so the victims of such actions know you’re on their side. Demand that your organizations and clubs evolve, or start your own if they refuse.”
We’re ready!
This will resonate with many; people will empathize with your experience, either because they know people who had a similar experience, or have had a similar experience themselves.
Reforming the atheist movement is vital to its long term success, and to enabling women to break free from religion.
*applauds*
This particularly stuck with me:
I am absolutely with you on this.
I’ve felt disaffected with the atheist community for a long while now. Tired of the sexism, the bullshit infighting, the sexism, the fact that many prominent atheists are flat-out assholes, and the sexism. A little over a year ago I pretty much gave up on atheism as a movement.
I won’t say I always agree with prominent feminists either. I’ve made a conscious decision not to refer to myself as one. But my nitpicks with feminism are molehills compared to the veritable mountain of bullshit which is mainstream sexist atheism.
You’ve opened a lot of door for me, Jen. It was through your blog that I first discovered concepts like privilege, and the subtle way sexism still controls our society. It was through you that I decided I was comfortable using the word “Atheist” rather than simply “Agnostic who actively disbelieves in any commonly accepted notion of divinity.”
I want to see Newer Atheism happen. I want to see atheists become the morally upstanding, ethical people that I used to think we were.
EPIC WIN!
And Pteryxx has maybe the right idea with “A+” because it can be positive atheism and “atheism plus”… “plus” social justice and all the rest. Certainly, the loud angry bigots are going the way of the dodo in the grand scheme of things. And with the good folks here and over at Skepchick and other places in leadership positions, those bigots won’t be allowed to hang back and tag along and sabotage future progress.
Again Jen, well fucking done.
I want those guys out too. I cannot understand what the hell is wrong with them! I’m a straight white cis guy, and it doesn’t seem to have stopped me noticing that women are people.
Great post, Jen. Thank you.
All I have to say is: Count me in! Count me in!
Alot of the men in the atheist/skeptical movement love the feeling it gives them of specialness, that they’re so much smarter and more enlightened than the religious or spiritual people they mock. Think about it, who is more smug and self satisfied than Richard Dawkins? That’s the attitude so many of these men have. They’re exactly like the Galt-wannabe guys who discover Ayn Rand in college in that they feel very superior to others and can’t tolerate challenges to their superiority.
Makes me proud I’m not part of their movement.
Speaking as a middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied man, I applaud your stance against the misogynists who refuse to accept anyone but themselves and their clones into their club.
*applause*
Sign me up to ride the third wave.
Spot on!
A thousand times “yes!”
I’m really happy to see your enthusiasm, because it’s something I no longer have. I have never been subjected to sexual harassment as an adult, because as a child I ate myself out of the category of sexually attractive women. I do get a lot of fat shaming. It’s one of the ways I know that the person I’m talking with has no valid counterarguments.
My desk faces a bookshelf, and not five feet from me is Susan Faludi’s Backlash, 21 years old now. I don’t see much changing in those two decades, except that if anything it’s gotten more vicious and vitriolic. Blonde jokes are nothing compared to the repeated refrain to “get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich” or the constant reference to rape or why sexual harassment is natural for men.
I used to belong to an organization dedicated to inspiring young people in space and science education. All of the members had dreamed of being astronauts but would never meet the physical and mental requirements of a space program that launched maybe a dozen people a year. Still, we committed to making each generation have easier access to space. Right now, the fact that I spent decades of hard physical labor (you try wearing 60 pounds of suit and gear in the desert for five hours with only a fan blowing air in your face to fool your body into believing you are cool) doing this seems pitiable. And I wonder what gains have been made by decades of feminist writings and lives devoted to struggle.
I keep going because there is no alternative, but I no longer believe I’m accomplishing anything.
Great post!!! Love everything you do. You are an inspiration to me. Keep it up!
I’m with you on “third wave atheism”, it includes “third wave feminism” and can’t stand “third wave misogyny”. Makes perfect sense to me :)
Fantastic post! *applauds*
Absolutely.
I don’t know who originally said it, but I’ll paraphrase. Any Deep Rifts® that get between me and a bunch of misogynist assholes is welcome and invited. I’m done with them, I don’t want any more to do with them, I’m tired of arguing with them, I’m tired of the abuse and the threats. If you are so committed to treating other human beings like shit that you would rather turn your guns on your allies than give it up, then we don’t need you as allies.
Get ye gone!
I agree, I just don’t want to be part of the atheist movement now, you try and mention feminism or or stuff like that and watch all the haters come out of the wood work. I have been threatened, my children threatened, so I will not involve myself with it any more. Good on you despite all the crap that has happened
@Joe: Atheism+ is called Humanism.
Righteous rant, Jen! I say the house is rotten, tear the damn thing down. We’ll build a better house, one with a solid foundation.
*fistbump*
Well said.
And my axe!! I mean, you have my support too!! Let’s be skeptical of everything!
A+ is GENIUS!! Says it all in 2 glyphs. Brilliant!
Where do I sign up?
It’s entirely unsurprising for me to say “I’m with you”, but I’ll start with that. You are right, you are brave, and you are awesome, and I’m with you all the way.
But an aside…
I can’t tell you how many fights I have had over your blog. In fact, my ex felt you had “infected” me with crazy feminist ideas. And I’m so glad. Standing up for my stance on your ideas was a big part of me learning to stand up for myself. And I know that is a little quirk of my own life, and that you had nothing to do with it, but…
You got so much pushback, and yet you kept going. And I looked at that and said, if she can keep going in the face of that, I can stand up to my one asshole.
So thanks for being awesome. You have done and will do huge things for this movement. And the people in it.
Awesome post, Jen! How anyone who claims to take a skeptical attitude towards truth claims could argue against what you are saying is mind-boggling.
*applause*
Lets see….
Next Gen Atheism?
Freethougth Atheism?
PanAtheism?
New2 Atheism….doh…
Novas (latin new) Atheism?
We could also hijack the “New Atheism” title. I don’t think the boy’s club reign has lasted long enough to be it’s own reign. Merely being loud and vocal against atheism (what used to define “new atheist”) has partially backfired with the loud, vocal minority oppressing social minorities. What you consider first and second wave atheism is merely a product of more christian media attention trying to turn us into the boogyman, not an actual new wave.
Bravo, bravo, bravo! Awesome post! As someone who is often far too quiet and far too reserved about this issues, let me say that I support you 100%. The truth is that you, Ophelia Benson, Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson and countless others have made such an impact in this community, opened so many eyes to their privilege, and made so many people challenge most if not all of their wrong headed beliefs.
It certainly did with me. I was once someone with fuzzy ideas about equality yet still held toxic views that reeked of privilege. Thanks to those poeple listed above I know understamd how wrong those ideas were and how far short of my ideals I really was. Whilst I’m far from perfect and still have first responses (which I then brutally beat down) that I know are wrong, I’ve come so far and learnt so much that I really am a different person. One day I hope that I will have shed all remnants of my privilege and will finally manage to live up to my ideals. If not I will be damn close, I assure you of that.
This is a fight that must be fought, not just for the good of the atheist comunity but for society in general. It may be that the fight won’t be won by this generation or indeed the one after but one day it will be won and the world will owe it to people like yourself (and the others that I’ve mentioned) for the victory and your sacrifices will be celebrated like so many who have fought for similar causes in the past.
As for the trolls and scumbags who stand against us, I’m not sure what to say. Their ideas are so alien to those I hold that I struggle to understand them. Hopefully, one day they will finally start to understand why their ideas are so wrong. If not then not just the atheist movement but all of society would be a better place without them and hopefully, in time, their ideas will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Hear, hear!
Great post! I hope our children start right from the new wave already. Sadly, I speak from a country where a first wave is yet to come or has been *very* weak so far.
Excellent!!
I’ve been thinking about names, too especially last couple weeks. Life long atheist, but my motivator is skepticism bc to me it is all about critical thinking and applying that same critique to one’s self, society, not just at the easy stuff. I wondered about “pan-skepticism” or what about “progressive skepticism”?
Totally on board sick of the damn hero of their own narrative and circle jerking bullshit. And sad thing is, I actually *do* enjoy and find value in learning about cryptozoology, paranormal, etc. But not to make fun of people. To learn about how people think, how to analyze info, and they are a great way to introduce newbies to skepticism. And you can learn a lot about biology, anthropology, psychology, etc. from actually learning about the whats and hows of these topics. Not just going, “You believe in ghosts, derp your’e STUPID!!!! Give me cookie.” So many atheists/skeptics, so little humility.
But yes, there must be room for more, too. Shit that matters to diverse people who suffer due to real crap in our society. Can’t say religion is bad because it’s sexist and homophobic and racist and then refuse to look for the dirt under your own nails.
I’m in. I hope.
I didn’t realize atheism was some kind of group.
Fantastic and necessary post. This is the kind of movement I’d be proud to be a member of. Include me in.
Progressive skepticism, or pro-skepticism, works too IMHO… it’s been banging around my head as an alternative to “hobby skepticism” that goes around debunking people’s hobbies. Sheesh…
Hell yes.
Gonna pray for ya Dennis. I believe in something more powerful, and you believe in nothing at all but you. Such a strong mind and you can’t see past your nose. I say this with all respect, so please don’t be offended.
*fistbump*
*golfclap*
I do like A+ but no matter the name, count me in.
Jen, you are my hero! You give me hope that world my now 2 year old daughter is going to grow up is going to be better than what we have now! (yes I am a white male, but it shouldn’t matter, this is an issue we all have to support and change for the better)
*applause*
–
Beautiful <3
A+? Third wave? Time for a battle of the hashtags!
What?
I think A+ is a great idea. Who’s going to design a logo?
Might want to run it by the talent at Mad Art Lab.
I’m with Jen and Gordon on this one. This talk of feminazis and femistazi is just ridiculous. The level of hate directed at Rebecca and Jen and now Surly Amy is appalling.
I’ve been an atheist for over 30 years now but identified as a skeptic for only 2-3. In that time I’ve come to realise that skepticism as a process and the scientific method are really central to figuring out what’s true, and therefore acting on a rational basis. Atheism is the result of applying skepticism to religion. Humanism is the result of applying skepticism to social issues.
Skeptics who say that the skeptical movement shouldn’t touch religion are guilty of being selectively skeptical. Most people who are not idiots know there’s no Bigfoot. I can’t say the same thing about Jesus Christ. Debunking Bigfoot causes little controversy, and perhaps that’s what these people want, but is it effective at encouraging people to be skeptical? By reaching the same conclusion they already reached for irrational reasons? Sometimes you have to shake the tree to get the good fruit.
The skeptical movement needs feminism applied to it. I haven’t been around long enough to witness the “old cis white dude” effect, but that wasn’t necessary – observing the level of hate directed at people who speak out in support of diversity and gender equality is enough.
I was once that privileged young white dude. I got schooled by a feminist. I didn’t like being “that guy”. Instead of doubling down on the stupid, I shut up and listened – for a year or more. I’m still doing it, doing far more listening than talking. I hope when I’m an old cis white dude, I won’t also be an asshole.
Agree 100%.
You, Rebecca Watson, PZ, Greg Laden, and the rest of FreethoughtBlogs have done an absolutely fantastic job in opening the movement’s eyes to the problem of privilege. I was never someone who would have done anything extreme (like a death threat, wtf?), and always believed in equality (duh, how could you not?), and would have even labeled myself a (weak) feminist despite being male, but the whole issue of privilege was something I had heard very little about until… Elevatorgate, probably. Now I’m fully aware of it (or I try to be anyway) and that’s definitely thanks to you and the rest named above. I didn’t even need convincing – it’s so frickin’ obvious. It’s just mind-boggling how this is even still an issue.
So when you say you believe you’re already winning, I think so too. Keep up the great work and let us know what we can do to help. Hopefully it’s just a matter of time before the atheist movement emerges as the most progressive group in the nation (and more than just a group that also happens to support same-sex marriage and abortion rights, but also supports full equality and other social justice issues).
P.S. I also like Pteryxx’s idea of A+ as a symbol.
Bravo! It’s definitely time for more a more progressive atheism.
You’re right, Jen. And you’re making me think I should stop being a lurker. I’ve been reading for years now, but I already had sexism fatigue even then… so, hi, nice to meetcha.
And so the troops are being rallied for a final push against inequality within a movement that by its very nature should be promoting the greater good.
I applaud, and look forward to seeing the banner of victory, followed by moving on to face the forces that keep society from being the utopia it should be.
For any one person to be at their best, ALL people need to be at their best, for the most any one person can have is achieved through to collective potential of the entire human race united as one.
I am completely for all of this.
I used to be a libertarian/randroid complementarian christian, and a lot of that stayed the same after I became an atheist. It’s only because of groups like the skepchicks and bloggers like you, Natalie, and Greta that I’ve given up the Randroid BS and have become more of an ally toward lgbt and feminist causes. The atheist community really helped educate me. Keep doing what you’re doing, Jen.
I think you hit it exactly right, Jen.
Have some guy, unsure facing the world, suddenly he makes a comment about how some bookum is bookum… and is suddenly a superhero. They start a blog or something decrying pyramid power or magnets or homeopathy and people flock to them. Until they make that one little comment, probably in joke. Now, the little pedestal they found themselves on is threatened. So they get defensive and worried. They get their gender and race called out, which is something uncomfortable (I once heard a teacher of mine say “Being white means that you don’t have to think about being white.”)
Jen, I think you’ve achieved fractally right with this one.
I do think that “A+” rather smacks of gloating self-satisfaction though, shades of “Brights”.
I am for the A+ name as well. I’m going to start a Skeptics+ in the Pub in my local area. We have a nasty infestation of MRAs and other intolerable bigots.
Not gonna lie, it’s becoming a brutal fight. The best we can really hope to do is to keep pushing back against the evo psych garbage and the general attitude that prevents people from examining their own prejudices. Unfortunately, it looks like we’ll be stuck burning the motherfucker down and rebuilding.
And… somehow that ended up as a reply to willemref.
?!
I’M READY.
If needs must.
I just want to keep on believing that things will get better. The only requirement is to have more and more people speaking out. It is unfortunately a risk to do so, as it turns out. I have the most admiration to everyone doing so. It requires the true sort of bravery to go through all this BS just for the betterment of a community that at best is indifferent.
I would like A= better than A+.
Who is Dennis?
Can we just keep the A, and call the others A- ?
Fantastic post. And thank you for all you do. And count me in. And I like A+, too.
Sign me the fuck up for A+. I want a SurlyRamics necklace, like, yesterday. I have some mild graphic design/artistic skills, I’m going to see what I can come up with.
I like the A+ concept because it implies that the folks who are satisfied with A for “atheism” without the humanist values and the diversity are missing something. And they are.
for what it’s worth, I thought some about A=, and I’m meh about that variant because various detractors so often claim “women are equal now!” or “there’s no racism now!” as an excuse to ignore the very real bigotry still going on all around them. I think of A+ as inviting the question “…plus what?” because there’s always going to be some form of privilege we don’t even know we’re espousing until we take the trouble to add it to our consideration. (Besides, A+ is catchy.) ~;>
Thank you Jen, this is brilliant. (And A+ is a great idea for a symbol.)
That is BRILLIANT.
Words are important, and they should be used with care and clarity. What you’re describing isn’t the “atheist community” or “atheism.”
Jennifer, what you’re describing is a greater movement of secular humanism. Not atheism. Atheism is simply lack of god-belief, and muddling words to have atheism be anything more than just that, clouds & tarnishes the greater movement that you’re actually describing.
You have my support Jen!
I agree, entirely. The atheist and secular movement needs to grow and be inclusive. I am thrilled by the positive reponses I see above! We want change . . . Now let’s make it happen.
Yes. This. Exactly this.
I’m not sure what else to say, really.
Jen, this post is fantastic and I’m behind you 100%.
Also, thinking of stitching a little + onto my red A patch on my backpack when I get home in a few months…
I’d certainly like to see an alternative, but we’re arguing with people who take pride in thinking sticking to their prejudices is somehow a badge of rationality. And it’s not that far a leap from there to tinfoil hattery and/or Jacobinism — we’ve certainly seen quite a bit of the latter directed at people like PZ.
yes, yes YES!!!
I want a Grand Canyon sized rift between me and misogynistic libertarian douchebags, please and thank you. I see the jerks on the “other side” harassing Rhys and Amy and PZ and Rebecca (and you) and I do NOT want them claiming to represent me. They’re not ‘future leaders’ (as one d-bag is called) of anything I’ll be part of.
“Greater movement”? What “greater movement”?
Awesome post, Jen. For a long time, your blog has opened my eyes to the fact that misogyny is, sadly, alive and well, even among atheists and skeptics. I’ve called myself an atheist for many years, but I didn’t start thinking of myself as a feminist until I started reading your blog (and I’m a guy!)
I’m with you all the way on this.
Oh, and +1 for “A+”.
A+ denotes lack of god-belief that is the result of critical thinking and skeptical inquiry.
Critical thinking and skeptical inquiry, applied to questions of social inequality, lead inevitably to recognition of privilege and the need to fix inequality.
Of course there are people who are atheists because nobody ever taught them about gods, or because all their friends are atheists and it seems cool.
But they’re hardly going to be organizing any sustained campaigns for social change, are they?
Personally, I believe in A+, progressive skepticism, or whatever you want to call it, because I passionately believe that EVERY person should be taught critical thinking and have access to the tools that skeptical thinking provides. In order to do that successfully, you have to take into account where people are at, what their experiences are, what their interests and most pressing problems are. Thus, in order to succeed, organized skepticism must embrace diversity.
Voila.
Also, “equality” gets thrown around as “no affirmative action!” and “men have it just as bad!” *headshake*
…Hey, how could I forget that the symbol for female is a circle with a + on it! (And if you combine the pointy triangle A+ with an overlapping female symbol, you get a sort of +IDIC…)
I come home from this week’s pro-choice demonstrations, where I was introduced to Operation Rescue North, and find this.
Thank you, Jen, for articulating so clearly that skepticism does not stop at Bigfoot-bashing or Christ-crushing.
Hell yes!
Well said, Jen. Support from a non-joiner in the antipodes.
Fuck yes. I listened to Rebecca Watson at Skepchicon (aka CONvergence) this year on a panel about harassment, and it was appalling. All of the panelists had the same, or worse, stories to tell. Why are we letting this happen? I don’t even understand the mindset that lies behind this. It needs to end.
This, exactly.
Count me in.
Oh, and my suggestion for a label: Affirmative Atheism.
Awesome needed words.
The community needs to be skeptical of itself. When we apply critical thinking to itself, it is really difficult to run away from the truth, that there is a big issue among us. All those people who crash on media reports about the TAM sexual policy controversy trying to convince outsiders about how there is no problem. I bet that some of them are well-intentioned, but they are not being good skeptics if they really think it is more important to protect the community’s image over the community’s own members.
Hi Jen,
I think this post brings up an absolutely excellent point and I hope you don’t mind, but I took that point and sort of ran with it at my own blog.
I think the idea that social justice issues in general and feminism in particular aren’t topics that intersect with skepical inquiry is absolutely ridiculous.
The tools of skeptical inquiry should be used to shed light on issues of social justice – how are questions of sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia not empirical claims? If some guy tells me that ‘women are totally not discriminated against or oppressed in society’, is he not making a claim about the world – a claim that is absolutely testable? Also, how does it make sense for a movement – and the conferences the movement spawns – to ignore the requests of its members who think that maybe people might feel more comfortable if they knew that the movement was looking out for their safety?
It’s a pretty sad statement about a movement that some of its most strongly expressed passion is reserved for attacking its own members – those who dare to speak out on issues that matter to them.
Tell them that. Especially the libertarians.
Fantastic post Jen!
Brilliant, except that the RDF has used A+ for their Atheists Giving Aid campaign. That’s not to say it’s necessarily off limits…
Oo! “Affirmative atheism” works too. (h/t John S. Wilkins above) What do y’all think, does anyone even remember what “affirmative action” is anymore?
I’m in.
Hey Pteryxx, I’m going to be doing a Skeptics+ In the Pub locally.
PS: Brilliantly said, Jen!!!
Like x 1000. Another excellent post. People have threatened to contact your employers & “expose” you as a feminist? Seriously? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I hadn’t heard that one before. Anyway, for what it’s worth, please count me as a supporter of “third wave” atheism, whether that name or some other ultimately sticks.
Jadehawk came up with “intersectional atheism” and she was designing logos before it was even cool.
http://jadehawks.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/fematheism2.png
https://twitter.com/IamJadehawk/status/236999907880341504
Too ****ing right it’s time!
And on a personal note… Jen, I don’t think I can ever say how much what you do has meant for me. Your blog was essentially my introduction to modern feminism, and it’s where I learned to notice and recognize my own privilege. You, and the people I got linked to and introduced to from you, are how I learned to educate myself on the things that really were happening- and why they mattered. You’ve made an incredible difference in my life, and… just wanted to say thank you for that.
“I’m working with others to hopefully start an atheist/skeptical organization specifically focused on issues of equality.”
DO IT!!!! Where do I sign up?!?!
The ‘A’ logo and the female gender logo ‘+’ added to it?
I’m so “in” for this. The faux-enlightened lolbertarian dudebro atmosphere kept me from getting really involved in both the atheist and skeptic groups in college, and now that I’ve graduated, I really feel like I missed out. Well, no more!
IMO, this is a case of “sow the whirlwind”. For years the skeptic/atheist movement had as prominent spokespeople men who could truly and safely be classified as “assholes”.
Surprise surprise! They created a harbor not just for the skeptical, but those of the asshole persuasion. Who could’ve possibly foreseen that? {/snark}
Over and over again this past year, kerfuffles have emerged with overtones of “how COULD this certified skeptic be such a jerk/sexist/racist/my-own-ox-gorer?” Or shorter, “who expected human behaviour in our little clubhouse?”
This ludicrous coffee-smelling is overdue. Those thousands who called your heroes assholes and pigs were not mistaken: they were and are. And they emboldened the lesser a&ps that you now have to deal with at your cons as the cockroaches of your movement.
Lookit that, the law of unintended consequences arises again. This fish stinks from the head. Maybe Myers has some biology metaphor he can deploy. Oh wait: he’s part of the problem.
Delurking to add my approval of the A+ symbol. Brilliant. We need to make this happen. Who’s a graphic designer?
Great post, Jen! You voiced exactly what I’ve been thinking.
Yep.
This is my first time posting on an atheist blog. I’ve always been a devout (?) Atheist, and a progressive – but I’ve never wanted to get my hands “dirty” by going to conferences, getting involved in the community or being active outside my circle of friends and acquaintances.
Part of the reason is that I’ve always felt that atheism is a political and intellectual problem, not something where a “circle-jerk” of community is something that appealed to me. I’ve always had the fortune of having a circle of friends who were secular and I wasn’t bothered by religion except at the level of the country where I lived in.
But this is different, and this post really moved me. Feminism and equality and equal opportunities is one of the reasons why it’s important for me to be an atheist, more so than even science education. If we cannot have the majority of humans (lest we forget that women are the majority) live up to their full potential without fear and with equal opportunities, then we have failed as a society. We have failed as human beings. If men cannot relate to women as human beings rather than sexual appliances, then we men have failed our society. We men have failed as human beings. This is a cause I can join and be vocal in.
Very nice post. I have no suggestions for a name.
Thank you so much, Tycha, for your hard work. Women like us stand on the shoulders of women like you, and we are convincing men and we are making progress, even if it is hard to see. I cannot express my appreciation for the work that women like you have put in. I promise it is not meaningless. My sister-in-law, who is going to be an engineer and who aspires, though Air Force ROTC, to be in NASA, has a lot to owe to women like you.
Please don’t despair. Thank you.
Wouldn’t F be more appropriate?
Hey Jen,
Without you, I wouldn’t identify with the atheist movement the way I do. I also wouldn’t identify as a feminist. I wouldn’t notice privilege the way I do, and I wouldn’t be trying to change and monitor my behaviour and speech and thought patterns. I wouldn’t think the way I think today.
I guess what you could say is that the Blaghag blog has changed my life, and made me a better person. I’d also say that I’m happy to still consider you a friend, and a role model. I’m glad your form of atheism is the kind I learned to subscribe to.
Keep doing it. It makes a difference. And let me know, let us know, what you need us to do to help.
I don’t think that would be a good idea. It’s not just feminism – atheism is exceedingly white, too, and one problem feminism has had (and still has) is ignoring the needs of minority groups. I’d like to see enhanced atheism not make that mistake right out of the gate, and try to be inclusive of all kinds of diversity.
A+, adapted from the Zapfino A
Wow, seriously?
That’s not only wrong, it’s fucking low. You’re comparing PZ to people who don’t want anti-harassment policies. That’s…I have no fucking clue where you get off saying that.
Great post, however I do come away with the same questions I always do when reading about feminism in atheism. I have never been a woman at a con, nor have I ever seen a serious statistical analysis of reports of harassment. I have exactly no evidence on which to base a judgement of the seriousness of this problem. This is why I worry about passages like:
“I don’t feel safe as a woman in this community – and I feel less safe than I do as a woman in science, or a woman in gaming, or hell, as a woman walking down the fucking sidewalk.”
That is great rhetoric, I get a good sense of how serious you consider this issue to be. What I don’t know reading this is how much more than rhetoric it is. In fact are you safer from abuse or attack at a con or the sidewalk. Your male readers have no way of knowing this. If in fact that passage is a good representation of how safe women actually are then the solution needed is radically different than if the problem is online trolls making everything less pleasant and creating fear and intimidation. I do not know the nature of the problem because I have never encountered any serious data about it. Equality of course ought to be a key part of the atheist movement, but I have no idea what that means in terms of practical policies.
Dead on, Jen. Let’s see if we can move past this ugly period in the movement.
I doubt I’ll ever understand what it is the haters are so afraid of. I’ll NEVER understand how some people think a rape or death threat is acceptable!
Hear, hear!
I’m in! I’ve been “in” for a while now. It’s good to hear a leader of the movement speak up about this! I’m behind you all the way!
Can we do economic justice as well please? Because there’s a branch of knowledge that’s rotten to the core, that’s as tough to figure out as science and that’s still stuck in the dark ages and full of superstition. Plus, it entangles with social privilege and questions of equality to a very great extent.
The only way this could possibly be true is if you consider all of the women who have personally testified about experiencing harassment to be liars.
Are you serious? Please, stop opining and listen more.
If women in the movement are saying “there’s a large contingent of assholes making me feel like shit in this movement”, what else exactly do you think you need? THAT’S ENOUGH TO CHANGE THINGS IF YOU WANT WOMEN IN YOUR MOVEMENT. But if you don’t care, by all means, keep saying you need statistics on how many instances of each finely-dissected level of harassment happen at atheist/skeptic events.
Then it’s a good thing that other people do, have already discussed it at length, and many organizations and organization leaders have already decided on and enacted such policies, isn’t it?
I’m ready. I like A+, I like Atheism for All. I’m trying to think of a mathematical operator that represents inclusion. I sort of think the “at” sign of an encircled lowercase “a” has some potential.
Regarding logos, the one reason I never got one of those stupid “A” shirts is because of the name underneath it.
Nothing against Dawkins per se, but being an atheist and signifying that I am seemed to have little to do with promoting someone’s book sales or website.
I found it very cult-of-personality-ish. I always thought it seemed a little bit egotistical to have a group named after yourself.
A person should have the humility to not name anything after themselves or allow something to be named after them (instead of after the goal or focus) until they’re good and properly dead.
A logo that doesn’t define me as one person’s fan or admirer would be nice. I don’t do the hero worship thing. And that was my feeling BEFORE the whole “Muslima” thing.
@ adamcasey – Go read this:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/08/16/the-campaign-against-amy-davis-roth/
It will give you a fairly good idea of what it is like to be a woman at a con. Not just any woman but one who raised thousands of dollars for that con.
I was aware of the Watson story and I was deeply disappointed with Dawkins reported reaction to it. But this wave of vitriolic hatred towards women is extreemly shocking. I want to know other freethinkers but I have no interest in associating myself with a pack of backwards knuckle dragging thugs. I have even saving money for a couple years now because one of my goals was to attend TAM, hopefully before Randi leaves us. However I’m no longer sure I want to go after reading more details about this anti-feminist shit-storm. It’s highly discouraging.
Great post! You definitely cited the answers to a lot of things I had just heard through the grapevine and now I not only feel more informed but more empowered!
The highest mountain in the world still isn’t high enough to give you the highest of high fives you deserve for just being you.
… only the people who already hate us?
I agree, Pen.
Btw, Pharyngula Wiki has a page on economics; if you’ve got any links to add to it, please do.
I’m trying to link to the page for you, but it’s getting caught in the spamtrap. Should be easy to find via google, though.
This mystery of the invisible Dennis is cracking me up. I needed a laugh today. :)
Jennifer is right, Tycha. If you compare where we’re at with where we’d like to be, of course sometimes it feels like nothing has changed.
But that’s simply not true. A lot has changed. Social change happens slowly relative to a single human lifetime (usually, though upheavals do happen.) But it happens. Look at the big picture, and you’ll see how far we’ve come.
Don’t give up.
“The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” –Martin Luther King
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I agree 100% with you Jen. It is absolutely time for a new movement. These MRA assholes and misogynists are mind-boggling and, frankly, unwelcome. I don’t get them and I never will. And I do think it’s time to kick them out, build our own thing, and move on from them. They are the old. We’re the new.
Let’s bring it.
As for a name… I like A+, but what about Humanism? Isn’t that what it is? Atheism/Skepticism + Human Rights = Humanism?
What I like about A+, though… when I finally get my tattoo, I can use the simple + to denote my attachment to the new movement.
But whatever the name is, just come up with a name and a tattooable logo before I get my tattoo… one that’ll fit with my tattoo design (The first half of my last name, Heven, stylized like the Batman symbol, with the atheist atom symbol off the bottom of the V as the “stone”, completing my full last name, “Hevenstone”).
And one other thing:
TychaBrahe @ #23… I can’t believe I’m saying this, considering how much of a cynic/misanthrope I am, but you are not a failure. Chances are, you gave all those kids a chance to live their dreams. You did good with them. And we will do good moving forward. I’m going against every bone in my body, but I have a tiny bit of optimism for this. I think it could actually work.
I haven’t read any of the comments yet because it’s important to say this without being distracted by bullshit.
I’m totally in with your third wave, Jen. Count me among the troops. This post is so good I wish I could hug you right now and we don’t even know each other.
Just don’t call him “old woman.” He hates that.
On the bright side, it took nearly 100 comments, and almost two hours, for the first idiotic comment to show up. I guess that’s a sort-of good sign compared to normal?
And while I’m here – I hate to be redundant with all the other commenters, but this was a much-needed and welcome post Jen, I wholeheartedly agree!
Great post, Jen. Count me in!
I’ve always been a feminist, even before I knew there was a word for it, but there have been a few events in my life that I’d consider radicalizing. One was entering active duty in the Army as a combat arms officer. The other was a few years ago when I realized how many atheist men were willing to marginalize women, minorities, LGBT people, etc., and how many in those groups were willing to aid and abet their own marginalization.
I think it’s time for a third wave of atheism and a fourth wave of feminism. Each group – both atheists and feminists – is a natural constituency for the other. Let’s make this happen. We can do this.
At least they spelled Myers correctly, that’s refreshing.
Nicely said.
I want to add another voice to the chorus. I am just starting to get involved with my local groups, but I will be pushing for A+ (like it) or Affirmative Atheism (also like it) in my neck of the woods. I want to say, I appreciate greatly the efforts you, Greta, PZ and so many others have put forth to get some much needed rifts into the atheist community. Your words are an inspiration to this former blind to privilege atheist.
This a hundred times this! I’ve been horrified at all of the sexism I’ve been hearing about with in this movement! Who the hell finds anti-harassment policies controversial, for fsm sake!?
I think an important thing to look at is the student groups. The group I’m a part of is about 1/3 women. 4 of the 8 board members are women, 2 are minority races, and the vast majority of men in our group are awesome and welcoming and some I’d wager would self identify as feminists or at least allies. So yes, the larger community has issues we need to work on but the students now are the future of the movement and we are more diverse and more welcoming towards minority atheists and I truly believe what we’re seeing of the bigoted atheists is really on its way out.
I think the movement has already tarnished itself well beyond anything Jen could do to it.
This post is so amazing!
Thank you Jen for cutting through all the crap
and being such an inspiration!
‘secular humanism’.
Can you read?
I’m in. And for the rest, they’d better start swimmin’ or they’ll sink like a stone.
Huzzah! Thank you, Jen.
Full support. Well said.
Rifts in a group when we have problems like this are essential. They are healthy.
I’ll stand up in support of this post too.
Rock on, man.
You have stated the issues perfectly. I completely agree with you. The atheist movement needs to change; it needs to grow.
Same!
As a 60+, well-off, straight white male, all I can say is: You’re Awesome!
That’s exactly what I started thinking about halfway through your post. I hope we’re right.
*applauds*
A+ sounds fantastic. I don’t normally make comments, but I just had to thank you for such a wonderful post. You are inspiring.
I’m on-board, Jen. As to the proposed names/symbols:
*I think “A+” is far and away the best. Not only is it pithy, positive, and recognizable, it also dovetails nicely with PZ’s whole “not just dictionary atheists” meme. Only downsides are the apparent concurrent use by RDF, which someone mentioned above, and the possible American-centricness of it. I’m clueless: do other countries use/have familiarity with the letter-based grading system that puts “A+” at the top?
*”A=” is probably a little more to the point than “A+,” but suffers in that the only thing I can think of that uses the “A=” notation is “A=A,” the law of identity, which I’ve seen used as Objectivist jargon. The upside is that the symbol could be really easy, just a capital “A” with two cross-bars.
*”Affirmative Atheism” is just begging for jokes/derision. “Affirmative Action,” for all the benefits (and parallels) is largely seen as something that gives unearned benefits to minorities. I’d think the last thing we’d want is to suggest that minority atheists aren’t just as deserving of a place in the movement as the straight white cisgendered able-bodied male ones.
*”Progressive Atheism” and “Intersectional Atheism” are okay, but seem kind of jargon-y.
*”Humanism” is great, but doesn’t necessarily emphasize the point of “atheism plus social justice.”
Thanks for a great post, Jen. I’m with you 100%.
I’m fine with “Affirmative Atheism” and the A+ symbol. But I like your idea of “third-wave atheism” and I think that would be a fine name for the movement as well.
100x yes. For every finger pointing outward there needs to be one just as big pointing at ourselves. That’s hard. But needs to be done before anyone should be thinking of giving themselves any medals. A blog/podcast and book I really like (haven’t read book, but DH has) is http://youarenotsosmart.com/ (a celebration of self-delusion) He has a post on the just world fallacy which I think drives a lot of victim blaming and libertarian type world views.
Awesome post, and necessary.
How about A++ as a logo? To computer nerds that suggests that it is the next step, and I think that’s appropriate.
As a longtime lurker I thank you for this, but more importantly my two month old daughter will be thanking you in the future. You’re amazing, Jen.
I don’t have anything to add so I’ll just say that I’m sick of this crap and I’m totally with you.
Rock on, Jen!
Let’s do this.
The thing I like about Affirmative Atheism is it both alludes to affirmative action in the sense that everyone is welcome, (although that has baggage as you hinted at), but more so, affirmative such as it is positive and inspiring. What do atheists get criticized so often for? For being against something and not offering anything positive. (A claim I both understand but also find lame). Nevertheless, maybe this hits the mark in the way, “brights” missed.
Wonderful post, Jen. You nailed it. Please count me in, too.
When I think of A+ as a logo, I can see the plus above the A, like a guiding star or a goal we are headed for.
On the other hand, third wave Atheism, I can see three A’s, small one on the left, pale blue, larger one in the middle, medium blue, largest on the left, strong blue.
Now if only I could manage actual images.
Great post. Count me in for the next wave as this current wave is becoming intolerable.
I love this idea to bits, and I’m going to continue nagging you for a non-leadership (is there such a thing as leadership-apprenticing?) position in this future organization of yours ;-)
anyway, some ideas. first, my old design for Intersectional Atheism
and simplified
and two ideas for A+ logos
(in case you didn’t know, this is how I procrastinate work :-p )
I’m an agnostic rather than an athiest, but can I join? I like social change. It’s invigorating.
(Also, I bake chocolate cupcakes.)
Jen, you rock. Count this Oz male in.
Atheists and skeptics DO need to progress, we DO need to be about more than quackery and Genesis and we DO need to recognise, publicise and criticise when certain of our number act like irredeemable arseholes.
If someone can’t apply skepticism to themselves or their privilege or their own behaviour, we don’t need or want them.
De-lurked with my fist in the air.
This, right here.
Thank you. This post is just awesome. Heck ya I’m in!
I never comment on atheist blogs because I’m too afraid to bring up these issues. I’ve seen the responses they get. Thank you SO MUCH for being willing to speak up about this, even with the harassment you get in return.
Yes.
And thank you.
I suggest using no adjectives or other verbal modifiers.
It’s a rhetorical trap. (Visual signals like the ones Jadehawk uses for feminism+atheism are excellent — they’ll do the work of signaling our presence to each other. With descriptive alt-text for screen readers.)
A minor but important victory will come when the misogynists and racists start complaining that the word atheism has become so contaminated with progressive connotations that they don’t want to self-identify as atheists anymore. “Blech! Atheism is too feminist! We need a new word!”
That will probably not happen if we use some kind of [adjective] atheism.
They’ll always be able to say “I’m just an atheist. I’m not an [adjective] atheist. I don’t need anything else.”
And that kind of “purist” self-identification is very attractive to naive people (here naive is not intended as a pejorative; there are always people who are new to atheism and who may, in the beginning, feel overwhelmed by the Deep Rifts; we want to appeal to the new and naive people).
If we brand ourselves as a subtype then we’ll always remain a subtype. We want to be the ones who, if you’re a misogynist and you don’t want to be confused for us, you’ll have to apply an adjective to yourself. We don’t want to be a subtype. We want to be the type.
One of the reasons I lurk is the overpowering urge to scream when reading some of the utter bilge people of the slightest difference are subjected to for daring to have … whatever, that is different from the perceived “mainstream ideal”.
Thank you Jen, Sally, Greta, PZ et al for turning this ageing, cis white blah blah guy into a feminist.
Go the new whachawecallums!
Like the “A+” idea. Don’t really like the Zapfino-derived “A+” logo. That font has a pile of built-in elegance, and the derived logo kinda breaks that elegance. So here’s my shot at designing an “A+” logo:
http://cubist.on-rev.com/atheism/Atheism-plus-logo.gif
And here’s the Photoshop file from which I generated said gif:
http://cubist.on-rev.com/atheism/Atheism-plus.logo.psd
Am willing to collaborate with others on this. My email is [ cubist[at]aol[dot]com ].
Start with sexism in the general public first. Atheism is a subset of society at large, and there are HUNDREDS of good, reliable sources in several fields (sociology, psychology, economics, political science, anthropology, neuroscience….) that demonstrate that sexism (and other forms of intolerance) is a) real and b) a problem.
Once you have a grounding in the basics of social justice, you’ll be better able to contribute to the discussion. It’s really not difficult: go to your favourite search engine or online library and search for “sexism” and you’ll have enough reading material to keep you busy for years.
When people join a discussion like this and start asking for evidence (implying that there is none), they come off as a derailer, troll, or at best an ignorant noob who hasn’t done their homework. There is TONNES of evidence that sexism is a problem in general society and NO EVIDENCE that atheism and scepticism are somehow immune.
Went out to supper and could not stop thinking about this.
The A+ just crystallizes all the things Jen said, and more.
Henceforth let this be THE A-PLUS MANIFESTO!
The concept gets Atheism out of the negativity trap.
What do you atheists do, besides sitting around not-praying, eh?
Well, we are
Atheists plus we care about women’s rights,
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we protest racism when we see it,
Atheists plus we contest stupidity in the public arena…
Atheist-plus is a great identity to adopt, a great banner to rally under.
I don’t usually post this far down (100s plus) as I figure it will never get read, but, YAAAAYY anyway! Well said! I am so ashamed of all the self-absorbed “rational” thinkers in the athiest movement (almost all men) that can’t exercise the few neurons necessary to see through the veneer of their own privileged ignorance. It bothers me more that the privilege shown by other groups because atheists, rationalists, and skeptics can’t hide behind the thousands of years of patriarchal legacy to claim support for their ignorance. THEY SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
I’m starting to think that privilege is like a million-mile-long band-aid. It takes forever to rip it away, and the person it is attached to turns into a quivering infantile ball of retaliatory scream.
I’m in. This post is what I believe.
And I’m gonna add, my heart sank when I saw there were almost 150 responses because I was expecting the usual. The fact that the HUGE majority of these comments are people I would be proud to consider allies in this kind of movement has completely made my day.
I’m sorry but there is a reason feminists don’t do well in the ‘skeptic’ community. They aren’t all that skeptic and view any criticism no matter how mild as an attack on them personally, on their sex in general, and as sort of some plot to destroy feminism.
Take Skepchick for example, sells erotic photos of herself, complains that people (read MEN, disgusting men) view her in the sexual manner she sold herself in. Then gets pissed and equates being asked out in an elevator to being raped though technically the guy did EXACTLY as she asked and waited until the conference was over to hit on her.
And might I say this is a perfect example of why many men in general don’t like feminism or feminists. They come in try to shift the agenda from an atheist one to a feminist one, and then turn around and cry harassment because others dare to DISAGREE with them
And as far as the how the ‘anal rape of a 15yr old jokes’ thing goes I’ll repost my analysis of it once again
There weren’t hundreds of rape jokes as Watson asserted there were maybe ten, most of the hundreds of comments were saying the jokes went to far REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE GIRL HERSELF MADE A JOKE ABOUT HER ASS FIRST, another point Watson failed to mention.
Watson also went on to claim that such comments were typical for atheists and men in general. Slight problem with that claim as well as I personally clicked on the profile links of scores of commenter’s on that thread. Want to know what I discovered? Of the 60 or so profiles I looked at not one, NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY ONE, had any gender or religiously identifying info.
Watson had no way of knowing whether the commenter’s were atheists or men, she just made the assumption. And anyone who disagreed was “sexist” and “harassing”
My comment on Watson website highlighting the fact that she assumed facts not in evidence never got pasted the ‘moderation’ phase.
Feminist skeptics don’t do well in the community because the freak out the moment anyone starts applying the same skepticism to their dogma. Are their jerks and harasser and sexists? Of course there are, there are some in every movement, even the feminist movement. The leader of NY-NOW claimed all kindergarden boys were gangrapists becuase a drunken 60 year senator supposrted Obama over Clinton in the democratic primary. Went on to remark how he owed women because they looked the other way when he left somone to drown in acar at the bottom of a river.
But most of the “harassing” memes are typically overblown, misreported, misattributed, second and third hand stories which are taken at face value for no other reason than another feminist said so.
And ‘someone else told me’ just doesn’t cut it in the skeptic community. No exceptions for marginally hot chicks in particular or feminism (or any other beliefs system) in general.
If you cant handle that, then log off the internet
Take your own advice – cheers
Excellent post, Jen. Things like this are why you are my favorite blogger.
Wow, this post is exactly what I’ve needed! I’ve been getting pretty discouraged lately because of the whole sexual harassment drama and calls for change like this give me hope of what the secular movement can become.
More cheers.
Atheism isn’t the only boys’ club struggling with this problem. Bruce Schneier noted this week that it surfaced at Defcon in Las Vegas, and Maria Farell wrote about the phenomenon at an ICANN conference. The good news is that these aren’t exclusively boys’ clubs any longer and there is a growing recognition that everyone is going to have to grow up.
Thank you for sharing.
I agree strongly with what you wrote, with one exception. This new wave… let’s come up with some other name than “atheist.”
“Atheism” is (depending on the definition one prefers) the lack of belief in god(s) or the belief in a lack of god(s). Atheism itself make no mention of feminism or misogyny. No mention of equality or bigotry. No mention of social justice or class warfare. It takes no stand on homophobia or prejudice or hate. And as we keep seeing, over and over and over again, this is a problem.
“Freethought” has its advantages, but it is a philosophical world view that emphasizes rationality and logic. But while freethinkers are often agnostics or atheists, there have been many freethinkers of faith as well. And while rational, logical arguments can be made in support of treating one another with respect and fairness, such values are not inherent in freethought.
I like the term “humanism,” but it is too broad. Humanism is a set of values, and anyone who embraces those values — even devout theists — are welcomed in the Humanist fold.
If you were to draw a Venn diagram showing the overlap of atheism and freethought and humanism, this new wave would be within the intersection of all three areas. People who held this worldview would stand in opposition to theocracy and superstition, call upon others to exercise their ability to think and understand, and emphasize values of equality and social justice.
So, anyone have any suggestions for a name?
Great post Jen! Count me in!
the adjective is ‘skeptical’.
oh, and by the way, you are an ignorant jackass.
Aw, someone already did the “and my axe” joke…
But yeah, you’re describing a movement that my heart is already in. Let’s go, let’s do this.
Brava!
Yes, like a wave of nausea.
Rebecca Watson saying “Guys, don’t do that” is totally the same thing as what you just claimed she did. Oh, wait, no it’s not.
Credibility, you haz none.
I meant to post this as a reply.
I’ve been very disappointed in the skeptical movement the past year. I’m all for A+ or even Skeptical Humanism.
Skepticism is a tool. There should be a movement or branch that uses it to guide progressive causes. We can’t let the haters take control of skepticism.
Thanks for writing this, Jen. I’m in too!
This is an example of what I’ve hated most about this abuse. When I see women being harassed for making simple statements asserting their own viewpoint, it is directed at *all* women. I’ve spent over 5 years active in the atheist/skeptical movement and I now wonder, what if I ever get a bigger platform? How will I be treated? Damn if I’ll give it all up because of that, but I feel like saying, “I am Rebecca Watson.” “I am Surly Amy.” Dramatic sounding, but there is a real chilling effect on women everywhere when this happens. The subtext is, “and let that be a lesson to all of you ladies before you get any crazy ideas.”
I was out at a theater performance tonight and checked Twitter during intermission to see that Greta had linked to this post. I clicked through to read it, and in the midst of a crowded, noisy theater lobby I wanted to scream, “F*** yeah!”
Thank you, Jen. You have my unwavering support.
Nice. I may play with some Illustrator-Fu for a while…
147: It’s telling that the bulk of your comment here on Jennifer’s blog is to further demonise Rebecca Watson, instead of engaging with the points Jennifer (the owner of the blog, in case your Skepchick tunnel-vision had obscured that fact) raised, or the abundant links she included. The rest of your post appears to be general MRA butthurt bullshit assertions, unsupported by anything and bordering on incoherent irrelevance.
What this tells me is that you’re yet another adolescent jackass still fucking obsessed with Rebecca Watson two years on, as if she personally opened the gates of Men’s Hell herself by suggesting that hitting on a woman at 4am in an enclosed space after she’s said clearly and publicly that she’s going to bed might not be the best way to introduce yourself.
The only thing unskeptical about this situation is the creationist-level mental gymnastics required on the part of commenters like yourself to continue to demonise women in the face of reams and reams of evidence that what they are saying about douchebags in atheist-land is undeniably true.
Let’s have a look at how wrong you are:
For starters, Skepchick != Rebecca Watson. Second, someone selling erotic photos of themself doesn’t give people permission to treat them in a sexual manner anytime people feel like it (just like how giving consent once doesn’t mean it is automatically given at all later times). Also, where did Rebecca equate the elevator thing to being raped? From what I recall, all she said was “Guys, don’t do that”.
Going through Rebecca’s post about it, I count about 20 rape jokes. Going to the reddit article in question, I count more. That, however, is pretty much beside the point – how low do you have to go if you defense is “oh, there were only ten rape jokes, so it’s ok.” The joke the poster made is also irrelevant – saying she brought it on herself is just victim blaming.
The assumption that most of the posters were atheists and men was pretty well supported – it was the atheism subreddit, so a lot of the posters will be atheists, and the nature of the jokes make it pretty clear they were written by men.
Um, did you read, I don’t know, any of the links Jen posted. Or any of any of the posts linked to in those? There are many tales of harrassment out there, and that is why they are taken seriously, because many, many women have reported being harrassed. So, it isn’t so much a case of ‘someone else told me’ as it is ‘This large list of people, many with supporting evidence, have told me’
100% support from this straight white guy. I blew the whistle on workplace sexual harassment a number of years ago and paid a steep price (whistleblower protection laws are essentially a joke, BTW), so dear readers don’t underestimate how difficult this task is.
But it is the right thing to do.
You were expecting it would be a condiment?
Unfortunately “A=” invites confusion with “A=A,” which is some kind of Randroid sign.
I really, really hesitate to ask this considering the industrial grade shit you just sprayed the place with, but what are you talking about here and what does it have to do with anything?
“Feminists are bad skeptics. As proof, here’s a list of talking points I’m parroting without ever researching their veracity or critically examining them at all.”
It’s amazing how often they get that wrong, isn’t it?
Do you have any actual interest in finding out?
hmph. my first comment is stuck in moderation, probably too many links. anyway, here’s the last procrastinatory design for the day: Atheism Plus
Why is there a Christian cross in your logo for atheism? ;-)
You’ve inspired me, Jen. I’m ready to be front and center in the New Wave. Thank you for writing this!
Fuck those nozzles, we’d be far better off without them.
The problem with atheism the movement (as it has been) is that the only thing that joins us is our atheism. This means any misogynistic ass is free to join and ruin the party for everyone else. We need to bridge over to a community that starts with atheism, but actually stands for something positive. We need to start judging people as not worthy of the movement if they would treat anyone poorly – the worst of us is what the theists (and our members as well) remember, and it’s time we rid ourselves of them.
Bring on the atheist humanist movement!
I’m with you Jen, and have always been!
I agree, so I revise my suggestion:
“Affirmatism”.
This is a movement that affirms rights, equality, humanistic values, liberty, and general good taste. I hereby declare it started.
[Those who object to allying this with affirmative action, please remind me. What’s the problem with affirmative actions again? Is it helping folks who have been traditionally marginalised get into the mainstream? If yes, then that says a lot about you.]
Actually, come to think of it, this is exactly what NAP is trying to do – but on a political plane. Perhaps they need to expand their mission.
Men who act that way should be shamed and shunned. I’d say like how the Xbox girls get revenge in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQnIJ-ljctk , except that women are generally too classy to stoop to the same level. Up with Matriarchy!
*adds hand to the pile*
Avengers assemble!
YES YES YES!
I hope this takes off. In addition to all the other reasons above, it’ll be something much better to explain who you are to people that hadn’t heard of you than “boobquake lady.”
I was thinking that “intersectionality” was an awesome word for this that really deserves more attention in all sorts of movements. “Secular humanism” is also a handy name to have on hand.
Thank you. I’m ready for the schism. A+
Alright, let’s do this!
This made me smile. Onward!
Try this. Invent a female persona. Give yourself a name that obviously indicates you are female.
Join an atheist chat room. Go to reddit. Log onto an online gaming forum.
See what it’s like.
Delurking to say, I’m in. Awesome post Jen.
I’ve been in for a good six months or so, only I’ve been calling it “social justice atheism.” I’m cool with whatever label we settle on, though, and I gotta admit “affirmative atheism” has a sort of pizazz to it.
Oh, and I’ve got another logo to add to the pile. I’ve never been much of a fan of the Dawkins “A,” instead preferring the ol’ Atheist Alliance International one from ought-7, as designed by Diane Reed.
Oh oh, and AWESOME post Jen! You win one (1) Internet2!
Late to the party, but as I’ve said elsewhere, you are totally on point and I’m absolutely on board. Count me among the infantry.
Just wanted to leave a note to show my support – so here it is!
I wish you luck Jen but this is not my fight. I view atheism and skepticism as tools I can wield in the fight against haters and bigots, religious and otherwise, to tray to carve out a space where we trans* people can get on with our lives. I have neither the time or the energy to fight yet another bunch of smug, self righteous, over privileged, spoiled, straight, white cis people. I deal with enough of that sort as it is.
Still be of good cheer Jen, your enemies in this fight are pathetic little wastes of protoplasm that with any luck will whine themselves to death.
I’m with you 100% on this up hill battle. Keep going; we’re behind you!
Fuck. Yes. I’m in. That isnall.
I’m only a silly white guy, but I want to say that I think you are more that welcome in the movement as far as I am concerened.
Reading your blog as well as Skepchick and others has informed me about the importance of feminist ideas. I think it sucks that you have been made to feel unsafe in this community, but you have made a difference.
Jen:
Wow. Well thought. Well executed.
Is it possible to agree 110% with you?
Yes, please.
Yes. This. Completely agree with this.
I didn’t really believe that there was an overarching problem here until I read this post. Jesus effing Christ, I really am part of a boys’ club! That, as, Shakespeare said four hundred years before the scanner, would be scanned.
Third Wave sounds like either Transhumanism or The Talking Heads. Let’s go with A+.
Oh, and I’m so totes behind A+.
I can imagine that as a soundbite.
CBS anchor interviewing Jen:
“So just what does A+ stand for?”
“Atheism + Social Justice”
Very well said Ed – I have often wondered why this gaping blind spot existed in some people’s assessment of the facts. OR worse do as Dawkins did and suggest that because women suffer brutality elsewhere trying to handle online and offline sexism here is suspect. Who asked you Mr. Dawkins?….Women are fighting it everywhere and are not working against each other. It stunned me that he thought he had position to take women to task on where and when to confront it.
Imagine if we suggested such a thing to the ADL?
Thank you all for proving my point
1. What advice would that be exacly, staying of the net if you cant handle criticism? I handle it just fine. I’ve yet to really see any though most people just make assignations about my charecter rather than the points I wrote about, see #’s 3,4,5,6,7,& 8
2. Your welcome
3. I have dyslexia, spell check tends to spell words fine but miss the finer points, and you are discriitory against dyslexics for being mean to me (do you see what I did there with the second half of that sentance?)
4. Acctually she said guys dont do that in the conference in response to the elevator incident she said felt attacked, even though the guy took no for ananswer, never laid a hand on her, and didnt even ask a second time
5. A few thing mandrellian, “futher” implies I’ve demonzied Watson here before. As the Jens point that she feel more safe walking down a dark alley than she does exchanging words on the internet or in a well lit public building in the midlle of the day surroded by dozens of men who would beat the shit out of any other mad daring to put his hands on a woman saying no, I cry bullshit. Its not true, and she knows it.
As to the rest of my post, what makes you think I’m an MRA? Technically feminists themsevles should be MRAs as they claim to be for the equal treatment of both sexes’ nice insunuation of gay anal rape in there too, I didnt know you could divine age by text message. And how exaclty is one comment proof of an obssesion? Alo what makes you think I am a creationist
And finally how exactly is pointing out that one woman lied in her charecterization of strangers on a a message board “demonization” when it is the truth? And how is pointing it out proof of “douchebags in atheist-land”
6. Joe, I knoe SC=Watson, thats why I switched to her name. No it doesnt, fair point, but it also means that they cant really complaign if someone does, actions have consequences. Male sexuality is fairly straight forward. To take advantage of it for finacail gain(and what she used the proceeds for was admerable) and then turn around and demonize it is hypocracy at its finest
If the number of jokes is beside the point then why bring it up? Second MY point wanst about the number of jokes but that the article was written in such a manner as to suggest nearly EVERY comment was an anal rape joke, when in fact it was the opposite.
Again my point was not that such jokes were OK becuase f the low number. My point was Watson LIED in suggesting that the majority of comments were inappropriate, when in fact they were protesting the very jokes she was coneming. My further point was that Waston claimed it was athiest men making the jokes, but when I clicked on nearly 60 different profiles not one of them had any info identifying the posters as male or athiest – so where did she get the data that shows those posters were men or athiests?
I post on religious boards al the time, doesnt make me religious, I post on womens issues and feminists boads, doesnt make me a feminist or a woman. Facts not in eveidence.
And finally I never said there was not harrassment. I said most of it was overblown. I dont consider asking a woamn for coffe after she spent hours partying in a bar to be harrasing. Repeatedly asking, getting up there. Putting your hand on her definatly harrasment. But saying hello, and asking her to your room in such a non threatening way and taking no for an answer is not harrasment. If it is saying hello to anyone on the street if they dont want to talk could be considered harrasment
7. Pointing out sexists and harrasing women withing the feminist movement.
8. Note how you cant point to anything specific? This is what I’m talking about. And you should have used these ‘ ‘, not these ” “, as the words yo are attributing to me are not an actual quote
Dead on, Carli – This is not about feminism or women alone…
“faux-enlightened lolbertarian dudebro atmosphère” — MUST STEAL THIS.
I call this stance DATA OR GTFO. It’s about as subtle as the original.
If your sister said something horrible was going on would you ask her for data or would you aks what the guys name is, what he did and where he lives?
Fizzing thru da Fizzics says:
I know people lurk for a variety of reasons, but I wonder if more people delurked when the asshole MRAs, slympitters, sexists, et al come crawling out of the woodwork…would that push them away more? If it seemed like a veritable avalanche of progressive A+’s coming at them, would their crap get drowned out?
Excellent post, and I am so glad that you say:
I concur!
Please take your own advice. Get the hell off the internet you sexist asshat.
For the umpteenth time, Rebecca Watson said “guys don’t do that”.
That’s.
Fucking.
It.
It’s advice on how *not* to hit on women, unless your goal is to be creepy and get shot down.
That you can’t understand this shows how much ‘respect’ you have for women, as well as the level of privilege you have.
It would be nice if we didn’t ghettoize to nerd-com…we already have this problem. And as much as nerdom is a lovely space for nerds it’s not really an attractor in the wider world.
sorry nerddom ? Not nerd-com…. you get my drift.
Suggestion – How about someone set up a collab space to hash out some of the meat of this?
Ditto, here’s something I wrote over at Ophelia Benson’s blog:
And there’s your problem. Or one of them, more accurately.
You don’t get to decide for someone else what is or isn’t harassment. More to the point, you don’t get to mansplain’ to a woman that “oh, sweety, you’re overreacting. this isn’t harassment. never you mind.”
You patronizing, sexist, lying, asshat.
Oh yeah, and ONE rape joke is one too many.
The suggestions of A+ (atheism+social justice) have gotten much love.
I like it because it announces out the gate that this isn’t a religious organization. Then it says “…plus we care about social justice in all its forms”.
I don’t post here often, but I just wanted to say that I’m totally on board with this new wave of atheism, and I’m optimistic about the outcome.
Also, Pteryxx’s “A+” idea is awesome. I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with the idea of wearing the scarlet A on a t-shirt, but I feel like I could wear an A+ shirt with pride.
Derailing 101 – and a waste of pixels.
“emphasize ACTING ON values of equality and social justice” – I’ve had enough jaw-flappin.
Yes. A+!
I’m not too comfortable with a new wave, or as I see it, a sub-division of the skeptic movement, this is looking terrifyingly like the religionists break away sects that fight among themselves. A further sub-division is going to deter people from participating if we’re fighting among ourselves, and the current row has caused a lot of people to walk away rather than take one side or the other.
Would it not be better to stay as one and fight the injustices from within? That said there will always be the numpties who just don’t get what skepticism is about, they just pick a side and dig their heels in, it’s human nature…… unfortunately!
PDX_Greg:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I keep up with a fair amount of bloggers, and I frequently read all the comments (or the vast majority of them). You’d be amazed at the people reading a comment @324.
****
Quietmarc:
Me too.
I’m glad to see that at nearly 150 responses, this has been overwhelmingly in support of Jen and A+.
****
natashayar-routh says:
You do know there’s a lot of overlap there, right? Many of the same type of smug, self righteous, over privileged, spoiled, straight, white cis people you’re fighting are the ones activists like Jen are fighting. That’s part of the reason A+ works. It’s not just about Atheism. As others have said, that’s not enough to unite a diverse group of people into a movement. The addition of PLUS means that we’re *atheists* plus we fight for social justice.
An end to sexism and misogyny.
An end to homophobia.
An end to ageism.
An end to ableism.
An end to transphobia.
So many of those issues overlap with the others, that if you tug on one string, two or more will start to unravel.
[Insert People’s Front of Judea joke here]
Nevertheless….consider me an enthusiastic splitter. A divider.
You do that Pete….stay and fight from within….It will be a pleasure to watch as you take them on! As for me – I do my bit every day.
Pete:
I think that for many people, a desire not to be associated with the scumbags, MRAs, rape apologists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, etc is the reason they don’t want to be part of the current atheist/skeptic movement.
I agree that the movement needs to be redefined, with clear goals and an understanding of THIS shit won’t be tolerated *. Jen’s post does a magnificent job highlighting what the redefined movement should be about.
Where’s that darn ‘LIKE’ button…?
*stuff like ElevatorGate, and the vile, monstrous things said to Rebecca Watson.
That beeping noise you hear is the great big truck backing up to deliver mountains of shiny new internets in boxes of any and every colour anyone ever liked with stars, rainbows, balloons and ribbons galore.
Enough for every one of you delightful people. Jen gets first pick ….. and as many other picks as she likes.
No, it doesn’t. Like I said, selling erotic photos doesn’t give permission for people to treat someone in a sexual manner anytime they feel like it (to which you agreed). This means they can complain if someone does – because they haven’t been given permission.
And if you read any of the links Jen has so helpfully provided you, you will see that it is not overblown. It is pretty clear that this is a serious problem – prompting the very blog post we are commenting on.
And, as Tony has said, you don’t get to decide what is harassment, so whether or not you think it is overblown is irrelevant.
Can’t really say anything that hasn’t already been said better. So just, yes, definitely, count me in. You are awesome! Thankyou.
I *don’t* think cons should have specific anti-sexual harassment policies.
Cons *should have* anti-harassment policies that are broad enough to cover sexual harassment, as well as other types of harassment that we should choose not to tolerate in society.
A+ FTW!
This is awesome. Well done, Jen.
A very well thought out article. I never could understand how people could claim to function on reason and logic and then proceed to act the way that some of those idiots do. It amazes me even more that in 2012, a sexual harassment policy had to be requested. I would have thought people would have simply known how to behave like respectable adults.
I think you’re right about the nay-sayers losing, though. As you said, it’s an uphill battle, but there is ground being gained. Even if those obnoxious few never change their mind, if feminists and minorities continue to write articles like this and speak out against that kind of behaviour, it’ll have an affect whether they like it or not.
Hi,
First let me say I support third wave atheism 100 percent. Secondly let me say that I am a Christian.
Ok, let me explain that a bit more. I don’t believe that what we believe has anything to do with what kind of people we are. I believe in God, atheists don’t. So what. What we are is determined by the good that we do. Equality is good. Bigotry is bad. And I will always support those fighting for equality no matter what their beliefs on God are.
It’s no secret that Christianity (and for that matter every religion) has had its share of infiltration by those trying to use it for their own political will. Some churches and denominations more than others. And I think by recognizing that both Christians and atheists deal with bigot infiltration, we can separate the bigotry we see from the respective groups and recognize we’re all just people trying to work out answers to our questions. Through this recognition we can also become allies in the fight for equality, despite differing beliefs.
So that’s really my main point, that we can both see that bigotry is wrong, and we can work together to do something about it regardless of whether it appears in atheist groups, churches, or anywhere else. You have allies where you would least expect. :)
Thanks and keep up the good work!
can’t have a social justice fight unless you talk about racism and classism….
seriously no point in even starting unless those are included as matters up for compassionate discussion as well…
perhaps it’s just an oversight… hope so.
the only person I know who explicitly identifies as a humanist also happens to be a fan of “the amazing atheist” :/ which I find rather confusing.
Well said Nathan – and welcome… I have been saying for a while that I have more in common with religious people who fight for social justice than I do with atheists who spend every waking moment pwning young earth creationists… I mean once it’s done…It’s done. Also….seriously how hard is that?
The work of pwning sexism, racism, homophobia, ablism, and all other sorts of hatred is never done….and it’s ACTUAL WORK.
For a while now I’ve been (mostly quietly and to myself) calling this new wave ‘social justice atheism’. I wouldn’t call myself a skeptic, because of the libertarian Boys’ Club association and even just ‘atheist’ makes me cringe a bit. I like to call myself a social justice atheist. But if all the cool kids start calling themselves ‘third wave atheists’ or A-plussers, I’ll go with that.
As a white, cisgender, male, hetero, privedged, human being:
1. This was one of the best posts I’ve ever read.
2. You have my support.
3. Let us change the world for the better.
May the Force be with you, Jedi Grand Master Jen!
Hi Jen,
I’m mostly a lurker, but I feel that on this post I ought to show my support for you. Fight the good fight! Thanks for peeling back the rug and showing how many cockroaches this movement has become riddled with. You might get some crawling up your arm, but you can’t crush ’em if you can’t see ’em.
And that overlong metaphor is why I don’t comment very often ^_^
Wow! It took awhile to read all of the comments, but COUNT ME IN!
Now for a few random thoughts:
It seems like the MRA’s have learned one thing from the Gnu Atheists (and only one thing) — it is OK to be loud.
The rape fixation of the misogynist/libertarian wankers may be due to the fact that they view rape as their only chance to have sex with a woman. They sure as hell aren’t going to attract any girlfriends or mates with their wonderful personalities. Natural selection will remove them eventually, but it is a slow process.
When you agree on the form of the A+ symbol get in contact with the folks at Evolve Fish. They did it for the Digital Cuttlefish and they can do it for you.
Our work may be never done but it’s always worth it. :)
Here is a link if you are interested
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/product5452.html
ADD ME! I want to be part of this new wave of atheists, or A+.
Atheism plus, A+, is excellent, and says it all.
The “dictionary” atheists can stay on the other side of that rift, along with any MRAs- they aren’t needed, or wanted in a truly inclusive A plus.
This post is simply perfect. I am delurking just to add this comment.
I have been that girl, the token, the one who thinks the guys like her because she’s cool and passionate about atheism, but finds out they only “like” her if she doesn’t expect to be treated w respect.
Finding other atheists was so thrilling that I didn’t notice the anti woman bias at first. When I started noticing it, it was an enormous disappointment, huge. Kinda like finding out your fiancé is KKK member, or that your mom hates gays. What a let down! Of all people, you would think atheists/skeptics would have been able to see misogyny for what it really is, and be offended by it, based on reason alone. I guess they are blinded by privilege?
There’s just no excuse for the anti woman attitude. I find it shocking, and disgusting, how many nasty comments will pop up every time even the most innocuous female topic comes up. I mean, still mad over Rebeccas request not to hit on her in an elevator? Really?
(And to the (non empathetic) men, just because you feel safe at skeptic events, doesn’t mean some women do NOT feel safe at the very same place.)
I really like Jadehawk’s logo. The A+ is too clearly related to the scarlet A (is there a copyright on that?) as well as being reminiscent of the Brights. Maybe if we did something creative with a different font and “plus” written out it would be better, but Jadehawk’s is a better fit to me.
Coming up with the logo is the easy part, though. We’re all saying yes to the idea of a new version of the movement, but how do we move forward as a new group? I don’t know; I’m in the middle of nowhere Antipodes, with no local group at all, and very few contacts in the country. Guidance, anyone?
Allow me to just say, FUCK YEAH!
Therefore harrasment is subjective and not objective? In that case Tony you have sexally harrassed me. And if one joke is too many why wasnt that the subject of Watsons post? Why did she insinuste that nearly all the posts were the same as the quoted examples?
This is about more than just about what’s going on internally. A lot more. This could change our outside reputation–which currently has us as being a bunch of grouchy, nihilistic, middle-class white guys.
If atheism isn’t about humanism–about social justice–then it’s useless. We’re not a movement–just a bunch of theological critics. From what I gather, the real reason the atheist movement has been gaining momentum is because more and more people are waking up to the human harm religion causes. We’re already the heart of the movement.
So yeah. A+
(I’d vote for “atheist humanist” for the technical term, and “atheist plus” as the soundbyte.)
Why not? Got trouble picking one?
The problem with most of Jens links is that they link to summeries, of other web pages summaries of other webpages assertions, and you have to follow the daisy chain for five or six links untli you see the quote in its actual context, the one direct link regarding the mailing lists mentions a thunderfoot, but doents really say whether or not thunderfoot is a man or not, and even if he is isnt is sexist to attibute the action of one individual to an entire gender?
As for the thing about Rhys I didnt see any comments made about him that I have heard of simmilar vein from him(though to be fair those accustion follow the same kind of daisy chain link)
Camouflage. The godbots will think everyone with that A+ symbol is just another nice Christian like themselves, and by the time they suss out our true intentions and goals, it will be far too late. Far, far, far, far too late.
My advice was to get off e net if you cant handle criticism, I can.
I do find it odd that I am so often accused of hatred and bigotry and sexism, yet I am the one who remains calm and rational, and you so called good guys let fly with the personal attacks and the swearing.
Watson gave a talk on not hitting on people durring the confernce, the conference ended, she went partying (good for her) she left to go to bed, the guy already on the elevator hit on her, she made is seem like he was a creepy stalker who follwed her and cornered her.
Seems to me he did exaclty as she asked and only hit on her once the confernce was over.
And we have a problem Tony, under you theory of sexual harrasemnt anything can be harrassing at any time, totally on the whim of whomever feels like it.
He asked, ONCE. She said no, he did nothing else. How is that harrasment? He took a shot, and backed off when she said no.
When I read this article it occurred to me that the author seems to expect “atheism” to equal “humanism”. Stating the belief that “God does not exist” is unrelated to a belief in gender equality. If there is no supreme being then your choice is to look to the natural world and science or to adopt nihilism ( I suppose solipsism has a certain internal consistency going for it). I would even argue that the opposite belief system would be a far more rational conclusion. You only have to look at the way the vast majority of mammalian inter-sex interactions to conclude that “Mother Nature” wanted the male of the species dominant. I am not saying humans should behave in this manner– quite the opposite. I agree that women should have social and legal freedoms and protections equal to men and this includes freedom from sexual harassment and unwanted repeated sexual advances. What I am saying is that a *lack* in a belief of a supreme being and likely its concurrent moral code does not lead to humanistic beliefs or even basic courteous behavior.
This ugly misogynistic harassment that the author had to endure also brings me to my fundamental problem with “Atheism” in relation to skepticism.
Suppose I claim that there is a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri (to bring Russell’s analogy up to date with the advances of modern astronomy). You would likely look at me as though I were insane and correctly ask me for some evidence to support this wild claim. I of course would tell you that I know in my heart and soul that it is there. You can’t prove it is not. In fact its actions are all around you and you need only to *believe*. Maybe I’d even threaten you with dire consequences for not acknowledging the Blessed Chinaware. You would rightly back up slowly toward the door shaking your head and wondering how I got this delusional. Undoubtedly we have all had these discussions in some form or another but with angels, demons, Transubstantiation, and the Conversion of the Jews as more “plausible” stand-ins for the teapot.
As an “Agnostic” though I cannot say that the teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri doesn’t exist only that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes such a fantastic claim. I cannot logically claim to know that the teapot doesn’t exist. The statement that “Teapot doesn’t exist” is a belief just like “Teapot does exist”. One is helluva lot more likely than the other granted but to state with certitude that there isn’t a teapot is incorrect. All you can say is “I see no evidence for the existence of the Teapot”.
I know that the people who read this are generally well-read and intelligent so I will point out that I understand that the maxim “you can’t prove a negative” is untrue. Dr. Steven D. Hales is also mostly correct (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf) but, in this case, if you make the teapot an omnipotent, omniscient super-being with “His ways inscrutable”, you do in fact make this negative impossible to prove (Descartes in his ontological argument had to logically acknowledge that God could be an “evil demon” bent on deceiving us before he quickly and lamely rejected it). If you are up against something omnipotent that you want to prove does not exist and it wants to deceive you, well, you’re stuck.
With a group that identifies itself as “Atheist” you will draw a heterogeneous group with widely differing moral philosophies. Some of these will be people who hold highly values of nonviolence, human equality, justice, truth and compassion. Some well be simply forcefully rejecting a particularly hated religious upbringing. Others will be hardcore individualist-anarchists. And as was demonstrated in the author’s blog, some will have the usual staggering ignorance of all misogynists, racists, and bigots.
Those of you who are fighting the hypocrisy, fear, and ignorance that is much too common in religion by forming collectives of atheists are substituting one belief for another and you will continue to draw adherents who will be increasingly indistinguishable from the angriest fundamentalist. The pendant jewelry with the atom model will warp from protest piece to icon and Atheism will warp into the exact thing you are currently commendably fighting. As an agnostic and as a skeptical rational being (not a Skeptic in capitalization) you shrug your shoulders at the statement “God exists”, give it as much thought as Russell’s teapot, and continue trying to show by courteous logic that God is not necessary for a just and fascinating universe.
Bleh!
I wish it was possible to evict the misogynic assholes from the able-bodied white males because I don’t want them in my group anymore.
Any movement I want to belong to can’t just be pure atheism and nothing else. Social justice and equality are too important to toss by the wayside in pursuit of another creationist on the internet.
Thank you for writing this post!
That should be a good prompt for you to do some self-questioning.
“It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime.”
Nice sentiments but I’ve seen plenty of atheists/skeptics form opinions on the above matters with which most of the people posting on FT would vehemently disagree (yes yes I know my personal experience doesn’t matter and I’d probably be better off looking for stats on this). Random example: “I applied skepticism to race maters and found out that yes, race matters; sub-saharan africans are truly not fit for our society due to their mostly genetic lower IQ” (even some well-known atheists adhere to such, as we know…). The only thing that will ever unite a significant percentage of atheists is lack of belief in “god” and related, imo but I could be wrong…
PS: sorry if this was addressed in the comments, feeling a bit under the weather so wasn’t in the mood to read everything
Really? So if in response to your calm and rational argument I were to fly off the handle and call you a sexist ball busting hag and not attept to refute you argument in any manner you would see that as “a good prompt for you to do some self-questioning”
Or would you see it as a moron with impulse control issues attacking you for disagreeing and not even capable of a reasond response to your writting?
Lets recap – I Calmly and rational point out someone who happens to be female is lying, and proved proof. Meanwhile I say nothing of women in general
My repsondants call me a bigot and claim it doenst matter that She lied
And you think that is good enough for me to question myself? For what exacly. Tony and Joe I am assuming are men, but you as a woman with a better developed frontal lobe should be capable for far more ellegant articualtion So perhaps you can tell me exactly what is sexist about highlight non subjective facts, and why my calling attetnion to them is deserving of such vitriol
I agree with this.
a) He wasn’t already on the elevator. He was in the bar where she was and went to the elevator after her. Unless you know differently, and the only way you could was if you WERE elevator guy.
b) Her advice for ‘Guys, don’t do that’ was in the nature of friendly advice. Doing that sort of stupid thing is creepy, doesn’t work and so if they actually do want a relationship with an actual women, it’s a losing strategy.
c) The harassment wasn’t so much Elevator Guy, and if you had read even a smidgin of the posts on this over the last year or so you would already know this. The harassment was the severe over-reaction by entitled, privileged males (and some chill girls) to this friendly advice.
This leads me to conclude that despite your claim to be calm and rational you are arguing in bad faith and have not a rational leg to stand on.
Oh please.
When you regularly get called a bigot and a hater then yes, you should definitely check if maybe the description fits.
That you were calm has no bearing to the quality of your argument. You can calmly claim that the Earth is flat and your first cousin is a pony. It would be just as rational as your whining over Rebecca Watson.
You gave no facts. You just had a great big temper tantrum in written form.
Fuck off.
The whole elevator incident has been discussed dozens of times. It has been dissected and looked at from every angle imaginable. Bringing it up again serves nothing more than derailing.
Trust me, lujlp, you aren’t bringing anything new or interesting to the conversation.
Sounds good.
You get an A+ from me!
I completely agree with Jen. The atheist community is not immune to the issues in society, and I do not for one minute imagine that (some) atheists do not think the same way (some) men do outside of atheist groups, that is: “You have been drinking and talking to me all night, this means you want to fuck me, otherwise you are being a tease”, or “Well, you are wearing clothes like that, you should expect that men want to touch your ass”
Whilst society in general may not want to stand up and say “this far and no further”, I think we as a community can say that we do not accept behaviour like this.
I have to admit I have been one of those who stand back and ignore low level sexism, misogyny and transphobia etc. I am an online gamer, and I play a game where less than 5% of the players are female (Eve Online), and where misogyny is within some sections of the player base, almost a required behaviour, so, whilst I may have spoken up when people in my immediate group have used misogynistic language, I rarely speak out when it is in larger groups, or among those who I am not familiar with.
At least within the skeptic/atheist movement, we should be able to stand up and say “No more”.
If you had been paying attention, adamcasey, you might have noticed that the problem was identified, described, analysed and backed with research papers – all by the women and our much appreciated handful of good blokes. A couple of modest solutions were proposed.
Only after that did the mindless trolls come along, waving their genitalia and shouting, “You’re not allowed to say that about me. I’m perfect.” Since then they have come up with every possible permutation on the scatological. But not a single useful idea.
As for this “take me back to the beginning and explain it all very slowly” scam, let me try an analogy.
If I mention the word “atom” you don’t immediately demand that I go back to the first mention of the notion with the ancient Greeks, do you? You don’t expect me to go though the story and the understanding decade by decade until we arrive at the Large Hadron Collider where I show you the whole of the press conference on video for the Higgs boson announcement, do you? Of course not!
For fear of looking an idiot you have a quiet word with your neighbour who is a junior science teacher or you take a basic text out of the library. After that you might ask questions.
So what you are doing is a well-know delaying tactic, designed to waste as much woman-power as possible. Whether you realised you were doing it or not – you have been spotted!
Besides, where I live the campaign for full rights for women begins in the middle of our civil wars of the seventeenth century. At best I have 20 years left. I intend to use them doing something interesting or productive, preferably both.
Btw, Jen – excellent stuff!
And there are people who would claim that they have applied skepticism to their thoughts about the existence of god and concluded that some “greater power” must exist. Thumping one’s chest because “me, skeptical!!1!!11eleven!” isn’t the same as actually applying careful thought and coming to rational conclusions.
Those who claim that their careful skeptical thinking led them to the conclusion that non-white people are inferior to white people obviously did something wrong in the process. It should be obvious that when Jen writes that people should apply skepticism to everything it’s implicit that saying one’s skeptical while actually just indulging in confirmations of one’s bigotry doesn’t count.
Popper once remarked on words, that if the definitions of tyrrany and democracy were reversed, he’d rather be called a tyrant than a democrat.
I’m not sentimental about being called “new atheist”. I’ve never even liked the term.
*claps and stomps feet* Well said!
Count this middleaged straight white cis in.
Pete Knight,
There are more people being deterred by the current image of the movement than could possibly be deterred if it takes a turn towards social justice or even has heated debates now and then.
How do I know that? Because we, the othered others, are far and away the majority in every population. No?
Yes – count me in.
Funny thing is, I’ve not always been an athiest. When I was a christian believer, the first chinks in my faith really came through my discomfort with how christian churches deal (or often fail to deal) with issues of inequality and privilege.
After I rejected my faith, this blog, along with those by PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Greta Christina et al were my introduction to the athiest community on the internet.
It seemed entirely obvious and unremarkable to me that athiest bloggers and activists also stood up for equality and the rights of those disadvantaged by our patriarchal societies. Why WOULDN’T an athiest/skeptic movement stand up for such values? It certainly seemed obvious to me!
So elevatorgate, and the subsequent flowering of the trolls, came as something as a shock!
Hey-ho, having spent decades trying to stand up for equality and justice in the Christian church, I guess I’ve just got to start all over again in my new home. It really is the least I can do from my white, male, middle class privileged position.
So, as I said, count me in.
Neil
I see where you’re coming from, but I think choosing a new name would be conceeding too much ground to the hate shreikers. We are the skeptics and we are the atheists. We reject the woo of no-I-won’t-share-my-toys-with-that-slimy-girl libertarianism, and we lack their devout faith in the present movement’s perfection.
Another mostly-lurker stepping up to say “Fuck yeah!”
I actually had a similar conversation the other day, as following the TAM, Tf00t and related drama was quickly raising my disgust levels with parts of the movement. And yes, agreed, 100%. Non-belief is all well-and-good, but then what? If it’s really the only thing holding your group together than you’re going to run out of shit to say and do pretty quickly. I’d like to think that rational, free-thinking people would all be able to agree that all human beings deserve respect and safety just on the basis of their personhood. If not, well, you’re not really the kind of people I want to be around, even if we agree on the no invisible man in the sky thing.
Random aside is random, but isn’t it odd that rational thinkers are weighing in social justice issues without doing any homework? Isn’t that one of the things that pisses us off about creation vs evolution debates, the lack of any grounding in the science behind evolution before weighing in to whine that “we didn’t come from monkeys”? It’s not like there’s entire textbooks, articles and websites on the subject or anything…
Anyway! A+, new new atheism, humanist pizza with everything… I don’t care what we call it (within reason) I just want it.
Thank you for this!
Congratulations! You were always brave, you just needed that perfect chance to use it.
I hope you’re enjoying your new life.
Jen,
a few months ago we had a brief e-mail conversation, during which I thanked you for being such an accessible gateway into a friendly, atheist, feminist community when I needed it. You will be pleased to know that since that low moment I have soared in terms of confidence and happiness, and a lot of that is because I am much more comfortable with my identity as, what I would term, a humanist.
Anyone can be atheist, just by not believing in deities. But if we want a community, it has to be one based on social justice.
I’m with you 100%.
“If women in the movement are saying “there’s a large contingent of assholes making me feel like shit in this movement”, what else exactly do you think you need? THAT’S ENOUGH TO CHANGE THINGS IF YOU WANT WOMEN IN YOUR MOVEMENT.”
What? You have radically misunderstood/misinterpreted. There is a problem. It’s called sexism and it exists everwhere. I know, it’s not exactly hard to notice. Do we need to fight sexism everywhere we find it? Yes of course, what kind of idiot do you take me for?
The post I wrote is specifically about that species of sexism that exists within atheism. It exists, I know, again, it’s not hard to notice. What is it like? I have no damned idea. Sexism comes in many shades and many forms. The fact that sexism exists does not tell me that I ought to support one particular policy to deal with it.
Consider. If people of colour come up to me and say that they do not feel safe in one area is that enough information to tell me what to do? Of course not. If the problem is that they are likely to get stabbed in that area then the solution is dozens of police on patrol. If the problem is racist graffiti that is a radically different kind of problem.
My question is not and never has been “ought we to give a damn about women”. The question is “what is the detailed nature of the problem and what policies ought we to impose.”
“If your sister said something horrible was going on would you ask her for data or would you aks what the guys name is, what he did and where he lives?”
What the hell is “asking what the guy did” if it’s not asking for data?
“There is TONNES of evidence that sexism is a problem in general society and NO EVIDENCE that atheism and scepticism are somehow immune.”
Yes, of course. That is obvious. I dont know if I wrote particularly badly above but people are assuming an incredible amount of ignorance on my part.
Sexism exists, it is a complex and multifaceted beast. It has different parts that must be tackled in different ways. It also exists everywhere. This is a post about sexism in the atheist community.
If that sexism manifests in exactly the same way in atheism as it does everywhere else then we have no need to talk about this specific case, we should simply act here using the same techniques we use everywhere.
However, I doubt it does manifest in exactly the same way. This community is different in terms of makeup and how it communicates. As such I would expect that the details of the problem are different. As such I would expect that we actually need to talk about the issue and communicate clearly about what the nature of the problem is.
Is that really such a controversial notion? Sexism is bad, we need to do something about it. Sexism is not a homogeneous thing, we need to understand this instance and talk clearly about how it is different.
I don’t think we should treat this guy as an asshole who’s playing the fool. We’re not sure he’s an asshole yet, but we already hate him. He could be (a) a regular ignorant person, or (b) a budding asshole, testing the waters of assholery, or a (c) veteran asshole getting ready for an argument and starting soft. I think we assume it’s (b) or (c) too often, without evidence, and that just justifies their belief that we hate them irrationally.
We should make ignorant people feel ignorant, not unwelcome.
“Do you have any actual interest in finding out?”
No, normally when I ask questions online I dont give a damn about the answer. … What?
How silly of me to forget it is verboten to disagree
Thanks. Genuinely.
Well, Jen, I am living on the opposite side of the globe and in the countryside, so I do not visit any conferences and I am not member of any atheist organisation (or to be more precise, of ANY organisation, period).
But for what it is worth, here is one cis-gender-white-middleclass-male who supports you wholeheartedly.
Count me in 1,000,000 ppm.
No, that’s not what I’m asking at all. Unless I’m much much worse at communicating than I expect you have misinterpreted wildly.
Sexism exists. There is a hell of a lot of literature on the subject. We need to act on it. Yes… I fucking know. It’s not exactly a secret.
The question I raised is not “explain to me what sexism is”. The question is “how, in detail, is sexism in the atheist community different from sexism on the sidewalk”. That’s a damned important question and one that needs to be communicated clearly.
Clearly the solution to the problem of there being disproportionally more rapes at TAM is a very different solution to the problem of disproportionally more rape threats. These are two different things and they call for two different responses.
I have encountered in all these discussions nothing to tell me, within TAM, which is the more significant problem. That is radically different from “please explain what sexism is.”
Of course there’s a teapot orbiting Alpha Centauri. The mindworms need something to drink, don’t they?
And if the RDF kind of owns “A+” lets use “A++”.
A blog post like that was so necessary!
64738 times thanks, Jen.
Gee, I wonder if I could, y’know, apply skepticism to your claim?
Let’s start with the women first: what evidence do you have to determine that their reports of harassment are false or “overblown”? If you don’t have a preponderance of evidence that suggests this, then your null hypothesis should be that they are telling the truth, and you need to take their claims seriously.
Now onto you: what evidence do we have to suggest that your claim of harassment is false? Well, your comments show that you are trying (and failing) to make a clever rhetorical point. Therefore, claim dismissed.
Skepticism applied! See how easy that was?
Why not both? Jen’s post isn’t suggesting that other forms of harassment be ignored.
She saying that, within their broader harassment policies, they should specifically address sexual harassment.
You can disagree all you want. The problem is that all your reasons for disagreement have already been observed and dismissed as not valid. So you’re just repeating the same old shit, bringing nothing new to the table.
Yes, that hack into the FTB backbiting channel was some scary cyberpunk shit. Apparently, all the hacker had to do was open an e-mail Freethoughtblogs had sent him.
Aside from this, I cannot really take this seriously. If you actually have to state that you *actually* feel *safer* walking down the street than xyz, then you are simply addicted to feeling threatened and in the habit of attributing victim status to yourself. That is to say, unless you live in a scary city where people get shot and assaulted at every turn.
The thing is, atheism is not a movement. It was never going to be a movement. It is the simple rejection of the idea of the supernatural (which is an important rejection in parts of the Middle East and the Americas, not so much in Europe anymore). That’s all. No need to throw conservatism, feminism, anarchism or any other kind of ism in there. Ockham’s razor, folks.
Now, what is in its last gasps is not the bogeyman of the ‘male white’ in the ‘movement’ (I know, feminism and racism are *totally incompatible*). What’s in its last gasps is people’s tolerance and willingness to have people shove their ideologies -ranging from quaint to obnoxious- down their throats. They are beginning to resent the fact that, instead of agreeing on the common denominator, the whole ‘movement’ is populated by deranged crazies who are trying to peddle their ideological nonsense to unsuspecting passers-by.
Yet, the ideologues soldier on and on, alienating more and more people in the process – people who were never going to be their opponents. Who never had any interest in their funny ersatz religions in the first place. Every alienated atheist is another example of the oppressive patriarchy and another claim to victimhood.
Richard Dawkins was right. There is no atheist movement. Trying to organise atheists is like trying to herd cats.
Yikes.
Sounds like a good plan to make your own SitP+
But from today onwards, Atheism Plus is a movement. We don’t expect you to join.
I am a secular humanist. That includes being an atheist, but I find “secular humanist” more descriptive, and of course, I am a humanist. I am also a feminist so I am very happy with the way this shitstorm in the community is turning out in the end. I jumped on board the Secular Woman thing the first day. Love it.
Fucking A+!
What a thoroughly righteous rant, Jen! Thank you for voicing so well the growing frustration I’ve been feeling toward those who can’t – or won’t – see past their own privilege. Count me in!
You must get your facts at least this |——–| correct to be taken seriously.
Jen, I very much look forward to hearing more about the more inclusive secular organization you’re working on establishing.
As an aside, last year I had an idea for a blog/forum/community that would focus specifically on intercultural humanism. The site would feature rotating bloggers addressing skeptical and atheist issues connected to gender, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, and so on, and would serve as a hub for humanist conversations across cultural lines.
I ran this idea by some of the prominent figures in the movement, and while some were supportive or even enthusiastic about it, others persuaded me that the message wouldn’t reach the folks who most needed to hear it, and that the cultural consciousness-raising really just needs to continue in the comments sections of already-existing and worthy venues. So I stopped investigating options and focused my attention on other projects.
I bitterly regret not following through on the idea then, as I think this explicit mission is vital right now, and I currently lack the time and resources it would take to get it off the ground. But the conversations that have unfolded here and elsewhere recently make me guardedly optimistic about where things are headed. Let me know if my involvement would be helpful.
Thank you Jen! As a father of two young women, I am so proud to point them to you as someone to emulate. To quote Tom Waits off of his newest album, we need more Raised Right Men!
For those saying it’s just humanism by another name, it’s not. Humanism doesn’t require skepticism or critical thinking skills or the scientific method. This fuses them all together, and creates something new.
You have my support.
You don’t get this, do you? We want to alienate people like you. If your reaction to someone’s account of not feeling safe, is to indulge in stupid, arrogant, self-righteous dismissal, then please feel unwelcome, please feel unwanted, and please leave.
-_-
Exploiting errors and shoddy protection has always been the go to way for criminals to take advantage of others. From your comment it’s obvious you applaud those individuals and mock heir victims. Clearly you’re a repulsive human being.
As someone already said, you have our word for it. What more do you need?
A+ ?
more like F-
When did the most conservative and downright reactionary position imaginable become the “unpolitical” and ideologically “neutral” position anyway?
The link about the rape jokes points to a post with direct examples and a link to the reddit in question. The Amazing Athiest link points to a post with direct quotations and a link to the reddit in question. The Paula Kirby link points to a post with screenshots and links to the tweets in question. The photoshop link includes the image in question. The private emails link points to a post with links to numerous pertinent sites (namely Ed’s post about it and Thunderf00t’s confession), as well as including quotations. The Amy Davis Roth link points to a post explaining all the important details, with links to evidence. The Vacula link points straight to the important screenshot.
So, no. Jen’s links point to webpages providing a sumary of the situation, with direct links to the evidence. I think I had to follow at most two links to find the quote in context.
As for Thunderf00t, he is a fairly well known identity (look up Why do People Laugh at Creationists, on Youtube), so it is rather reasonable to say he is a man. We aren’t attributing his actions to an entire gender, but using them as a data point supporting the idea that this kind of thing is widespread.
Now you are just being deliberately obtuse – Jen has linked directly to the page doing the ridiculing. I really can’t see how that is a daisy chain.
Here.
Awesome article! I support you fully and share your ideals!
I’m hoping we can change or get rid of all the sexists who think it is fine to harass women.
The problem with this post and others putting the FtB case – and also with many of the posts attacking FtB, you, and Rebecca watson – is that the argument has devolved into selective spin on both sides.
Many of the people you oppose spin your entire line as being “radical feminist”, “misandrist” and so on. This is – to a significant extent – nonsense. Unfortunately, you, PZ, Ophelia and others spin the entire opposing line as “misogynist”, “privileged”, “entitled” and so on. This, too, is – to a significant extent – nonsense.
There has been anger on your side because genuine instances of harassment and sexism have occurred and because too many knees have jerked stupidly at the very mention of the word feminism. There has been anger on the other side because genuine, reasonable questioning about the extent of the issue and the best responses to it have been met with insults, dismissiveness and lazy, fallacious misrepresentation.
I have long considered myself a feminist and have written numerous pieces on various internet boards vigorously defending equal rights and opposing sexism, harassment, the crass objectification of women and so on (e.g. here and responding to a response to that here). Now I find myself described as a “scumbag” and a “misogynist” by the increasingly intemperate and tunnel-visioned PZ Myers. According to him, I never posted anything at Pharyngula except to “…snipe at the skepchicks, argue that the interests of women weren’t worth fighting for, and dismiss any discussion of sexism.”
This is a flat lie, and one that can easily be verified as such. Myers, and others at FtB, have been indulging in this sort of abuse and dishonesty not only against genuinely abusive trolls and idiots but also against many of us who simply questioned whether all of the claims about harassment, or the extent of the need for policies, or the behaviour of Rebecca Watson regarding Steph McGrath and so on… were correct, or had been properly established. In fact we had seen that some of the claims about harassment were, initially, exaggerated and distorted but that the tendency at FtB and elsewhere was to instantly assume that the worst must be true. It did not seem unreasonable for us to suggest caution. And for this we were subjected to absolute tirades of personal abuse, dismissed as “mansplainers” (or gender traitors, in the case of dissenting women) and in some cases banned from blogs.
It became clear that apparently abuse is not necessarily bad if it comes from the “right” side. So yes, some of us got a bit annoyed about that. Being on the receiving end of double standards causes anger – as you are well aware.
The pity of it is that both sides are now seem obdurately entrenched but both need to realise that neither is being fully reasonable, and most importantly that there has been wrong done on each side. That’s the only way we’ll ever get past this. Personally, I’m not hopeful that we can, but I’d love to be proved wrong.
Woo Hoo! I’m so ready.
I love A+.
All these mathematical atheist symbol ideas made me think of |A| ( absolute value of atheism, always positive atheism?) I don’t think it works as a symbol, just kind of fun to think about.
Thanks Jen!
Feel free to present evidence that any claim of harassment in this discussion has been exaggerated or distorted by the reporters, witnesses, or anyone operating in good faith. All the distortion I’ve seen has come in the form of accusations from the harassment denying side. While you’re at it, feel free to try and present an argument against anti-sexual harassment policies that isn’t based on personal incredulity, misogyny, entitlement, and/or privilege.
Bravo. This is a great idea.
Not anymore, it seems. givingaid.richarddawkins.net is now “NBGA: Non-Believers Giving Aid”. So no problem there. :)
I agree, Jack. Yes, on ‘our side’ there are unhelpful and nasty trolls, anti-feminists and even some outright misogynists, but I do feel that the discussion is being framed as if anyone that disagrees fits into one or all of those categories. I really don’t think that’s true, especially as it is possible to agree with a central message (i.e. equality) but disagree with particular details.
<
Apologies, I wasn’t clear. I’m not referring to specific matters raised in this particular post but to things that have occurred since this whole sorry business began. One example would be the “upskirt photography” thing in which the worst possible interpretation was initially assumed to be true and later even the person who first mentioned it felt it necessary to rein things back a little. Please understand: I am not saying all the reports are false, or exaggerated. I am saying that occasionally there has been a visible tendency to assume the worst on insufficient evidence. Those of us who noticed this expressed concern mainly because the rush to damnation on insufficient evidence is dangerous, and something those who consider themselves rationalists should be on the look out for.
And this is why I grow weary of this. I have not, and do not say that there should be no anti-sexual harassment policies. I said that some of us questioned the extent of the need. It is precisely this unwillingness to properly read what we do say, and this readiness to descend into straw-manning, false dichotomising and so on that so frustrates those of us who sometimes question the prevailing attitude.
Yep, its a hard fucking fall jen. You weren’t the first and won’t be the last.
See: hyperskepticism. The only example you can cite is the upskirt photography, and it is entirely reasonable and rational to say that upskirt photography was extremely likely given the evidence presented. It’s unreasonable to insist on absolute proof before taking the complaints seriously.
Likewise, it is not reasonable to question the extent of harassment or the need for harassment policies except out of sheer ignorance. It’s been documented and backed up with research for years, including current detailed accounts from other conferences that are instituting policies. Questioning it now is just special pleading.
RDF has copyrighted the red A only “to prevent others from claiming it and blocking people from using it”. They encourage people to create their own images/materials incorporating/remixing it. http://www.outcampaign.org/promotions
Perfect. <3
Love it!
Your certainty is enviable.
Nicely written Jen! It’s good to see the negative comments are drowning for a change! I suppose they must feel oppressed, although what they should feel is being left behind. Yep, it’s time for the boy’s club to stop being the loudest voice.
The A+ thingy is a really good idea, although I would also like A++, being a programmer :) But since I’m also a student, A+ will do just fine!
Whew! What a ride. I’m probably just gonna keep calling myself an “atheist” but totally supportive of diversity around it.
All my life I’ve read science books written by white straight dudes – enjoyed them very much but didn’t know what I was missing. Science bloggers have much more diversity than science authors had historically – I hope that is changing – and it’s opened my eyes to a larger world. Your blog is a part of that and I am certainly not unique.
It was the reaction to Rebecca Watson that really – I don’t know how to say this – pierced my heart. Years ago I’d read Gavin DeBecker on safety and he specifically mentioned women and elevators. So when RW said “Guys, don’t do that” it made perfect sense to me and seemed unremarkable. And then came the mind-boggling reaction. I just couldn’t wrap my head around it. No way in hell can I break metaphorical bread with anyone who would treat another person that way.I may have atheism in common with that person – but I am also a carbon-based life form. It doesn’t mean I will identify with them. That’s the rift you’re talking about.
I see in the comments that A+ has a lot of support but it does seem a bit “Bright-y”. Here’s my suggestion. How about An in Helvetica inside a box like a chemical symbol, where n represents diversity?
Tony •King of the Hellmouth
I know there is a lot of overlap, this is a matter of emphasis for me. The concept of spoons is useful here, I just don’t have the spoons to deal with the fight for the atheist/skeptical movement.
A lot of spoons go to dealing with just being a late transitioning trans woman and I’m rather fortunate all in all. A lot of other spoons go to supporting the trans people I know many of whom are on the edge of survival. My remaining spoons go to fighting for our right to be and live our lives. I simply have none left for this fight.
I wish you and Jen well and hope you succeed in this struggle.
No, that is the only example I did quote because I saw no value in posting a list and getting into lengthy re-hashes of previous discussions. This does not mean it is the only example I can cite. Once again you have simply resorted to fallacy to dismiss me.
That is a mere statement of opinion, and one which is based on the idea that someone should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Which was precisely the basis of our concerns about this and other reports. But again: I see no value in re-visiting this argument. You suggested I had no examples. So I gave one. That’s all.
It is reasonable to take all complaints seriously. It is, however, unreasonable to simply assume guilt; especially about something heinous and potentially reputation-wrecking. This was the essence of our problem.
This assertion is questionable, to say the least. Why is it unreasonable to question the extent of harassment? Surely it is not only reasonable but fair and necessary to do so, if we are to form a rational and realistic assessment of any problem at conventions? Don’t we want to get as accurate a handle on the situation as we can? And, yet again, I have not suggested that there is no need for harassment policies.
What are you implying here? How is being keen to establish an accurate understanding of a situation “special pleading”? For whom?
“still fucking obsessed with Rebecca Watson two years on”
It seems like longer, but it’s only been 1 year so far since ‘elevatorgate’.
Feel free to read the research and share it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/06/02/the-further-hyper-skepticism-stalling-our-conversation/
cites research with harassment ranges from 52% to 100% in the article and the first few comments.
See also:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/06/01/how-big-is-the-problem/
which provides survey data specifically from the American Secular Census. 23% of women report that unwanted advances from other participants contributed to feeling unwelcome.
When do we start?
No underprivileged group or person should be required to commit anything at all to this movement. They should be supported regardless.
We’ve been laying out the problems for a couple of years. Start here for a summary: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/06/10/doing-away-with-drama/
Precisely. And that’s why some of us lost patience, somewhat. That is why, regrettably, the discussion degenerated and polarised. I for one take great exception to being labelled a misogynist, MRA etc. simply because I am concerned about rushes to judgement and condemnation. Those things are the sign of a political movement going wrong and in danger of becoming doctrinaire and intolerant. That is what some of us see going on at some of the FtB blogs, and the fact that raising the concern resulted in absolute swathes of the most personal abuse and hectoring did not exactly alleviate that concern.
I have been a staunch supporter of women’s rights and a vocal opponent of sexism all my life so when someone lazily dismisses me as the very opposite of that – the sort of person I have fought with consistently – I am, unfortunately, likely to react unfavourably. And as I said, this has been going on in both directions. I recognise that. I want to see some sign of recognition on the FtB side too. Until we have that there will be no prospect of a meaningful reconciliation of the warring parties here, and no way to move on together. That would be a shame.
I could not agree with you more. Civility and civil rights are for everyone. I’m in MN and my skeptic/atheist/humanist community is gender diverse (working on racial, etc) and at our regional conference the harassment policy was briefly outlined. Guess what? Everyone had a good time.
i’ve resisted for a while calling myself an atheist. partly due to an internal debate between agnosticism/atheism and secular/humanism. and partly due to being turned off by the aggressive and combative nature of many online atheist groups. now i wonder if it was the ugly hyper-masculinity of the vocal majority that was off-putting to me. i am glad to see that this might change when more ladies, and the real men, speak up and don’t put up with the ugly. A+
Yep!
What’s so nice about the +, though, is that by definition, it means positive. And that’s what I think a lot of people really want: not a movement that is reactionary against something else, but something that is in itself a positive force.
A Plus ….. I love it! Until, something better comes along, I suppose!
A^n
The fact that my local Skeptical Society of St Louis gets this makes me so enthusiastic to continue on as a member. Yesterday we had the largest Skepticamp so far, 125 attendees. And we care. If you have a problem, we want to hear about it. And that helps people continue to show up. And if we stopped wanting to make things better for our members, I can guarantee you people would stop wanting to show up.
It amazes me that this clarification still needs to be made after all this time, but I thank you for making it.
It sounds like you are describing secular humanism. Since atheism is not believing the existence of an intervening god, the label should be just that, precise, without becoming a loaded word. there is too much misunderstanding of atheists already.
FUCK YES! I’M READY! Love the A+ idea, but whatever the new movement is called, whatever its symbol, I’m all in.
Wow that’s the same book that taught me the same thing.
I think a lot of men don’t even think about how they are perceived. I did a little, because I am large, and because I had sisters. And maybe my parents taught me better than some. But even I never thought about elevators as locking metal boxes where you are putting your trust in the other people to not harm you.
I really think more men should read that book. It is more marketed to women which is unfortunate. The other quote from that book that really affected me and helped me understand was
“men are afraid that women will make fun of them, but women are afraid that men will kill them”
Humanism is a legitimate philosophy.
however I’ve noticed a trend where these double issue atheists use humanism to do a left handed dismissal of issues that don’t fit their goals.
Pteryxx, for some reason I am not seeing a reply option to your latest response to me so I will just post here. Your response contains a couple of links which I have already read, but I have to say it does not seem to actually be responding to my previous comment in a way that either recognises the specific points I made, or rebuts them. As such I find myself at a loss for a further response.
Sadly, our whole exchange illustrates one of the major concerns I have had during the whole protracted schism: some of the people on your side simply to be unwilling to listen to us or to read our words carefully, preferring instead to say rather appalling (to us)things like :”No underprivileged group or person should be required to commit anything at all to this movement. They should be supported regardless.”
I’m sorry, some of us are not going to accept that anything should be supported “regardless”. No, uncritical support – or opposition – is the domain of the doctrinaire and the “True Believer”. That is never going to work for us.
I’m bowing out of this now. I feel I have said my piece as respectfully and fairly as I can manage and I am grateful that such responses as it garnered have also been respectful. We could all do with more of that. It was a much nicer experience posting here than over at Pharyngula. :-)
I’m sure this has been covered, but I still want to say it.
The reason so many of the privileged class (of which I am a member) don’t see a problem is because they are in the privileged class. I taught my two sons from an early age that they were, because of their ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender, and later, their sexuality, were given a huge headstart in life. The choice they had to make was to continue to promote this or work to eliminate it.
There are a million things, both big and small that I will never have to deal with on a daily basis. I do have a responsibility to bring about a society that treats everyone with the same respect as I automatically get.
I have been trying to call out bad behavior when I see it at a personal level. I think more of us who have the privilege need to do this.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!! This is the best idea! I would be so proud to be A+
Please explain to me, why I’m an irrational baboon dolt for suspecting someone walking around with a camera around ankle height would be taking upskirt pics?
I’m wit you. Although I wouldn’t use the last gasp / dead enders argument. A vocal minority will always be there, especially since it is so easy to comment and claim you’re an atheist / skeptic. Even this could be a positive because it will be hard to get complacent.
Meet space should strive for 100% safe environment. While the same low barrier to entry exists, immediate negative feedback can actually reinforce that the environment is safe. Thanks for all your hard work and perserverance.
I’m totally on board with this.
It was only on the religious front that I’ve ever received any sort of discrimination that effected me personally. My response to that, however, was not to make that the one and only fight worth worrying about. Instead it helped me gain an idea of what others have to deal with, which is often on a far greater scale and way worse than what I have. I didn’t like what was happening to me so why would I be fine with it happening to others? It just seemed clear that we should help each other. I mean, we were in the same boat after all.
It surprises me, though not as much as I would have thought or liked, that in a group with so many intelligent and rational people that such an obvious reaction does not come naturally or easily.
I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but you raise a good point. The most obvious parody comes across as childish name calling, rather than a clever insult.
Unfortunately, it’s a fact that every group of any size includes a broad spectrum of people. The fact that someone shares an idea with all of the members of that group (be it atheism, catholicism, or pot-smoking) doesn’t exclude the possibility that you will end up clashing with some members of the group. There simply is no group that ever will be a perfect match to you and your ideas. It saddens but does not surprise me that the aggregate group of atheists includes misogynists.
Clashes within atheism will never go away .. we have in commonly only one fairly small thing: the absence of a belief in a deity. Beyond, that, it’s a free-for-all. We apparently love to argue (a time well beyond the point of civility) with each other almost as much as we love to argue with theists!
I’m very sorry, Jen, that you’ve had these disillusioning experiences – likely it was bound to happen sooner or later – but don’t let them cause you to tar everyone in ‘the movement’ with the same brush. There are many of us standing in support of true equality for women, and who don’t condone misogyny in any form!
Rather than telling women to be nicer about it, why not tell the men who are doing it to cut it out?
@Carlie – sure, and any symbol requires some explanation. I also liked the comment of the fellow upthread who said ++ indicated the next thing. Another person suggested An which I liked. But as always the idea is the important thing.
@PlutosDad – “I really think more men should read that book. It is more marketed to women which is unfortunate.” Exactly. It is marketed (perhaps by male publishing company executives) to women for their strategic self-defense, but it is the responsibility of men to understand and act accordingly. Gents, go get yourself a copy of The Gift Of Fear and get educated.
How about instead of being politely appalled, you learn to read for comprehension. My quote that you find so abhorrent reads “They should be supported regardless (of their commitment to our cause).” as it refers to the previous sentence of the statement; and that’s what it means. A rational social justice movement will support trans* people, minorities, women, the poor, male rape victims, and anyone else oppressed by discrimination, whether or not those people give two damns about atheism or have ever even heard of it. And if you find THAT appalling, good riddance to you.
Sure, I’m more than willing to admit I’ve helped polarize this, been abusive and outright motivated by spite during this. What good does denying reality do me?
But that really doesn’t say anything about the abuse feminist women like McCreight have been getting for pointing out what they receive as sexism or how complicit you all have been in it You’ve tolerated it, laughed along with the jokes and done nothing to stop it.
Doh! Apparently the platform didn’t like the superscript tag. I meant A^n, like an exponent. But whatever everyone comes up with is fine.
For the record, the whole A thing – a Dawkins invention – carries some Dawkins baggage with it. Love his books on evolution, but I am frequently amazed by the awful stuff he says on diversity. Guess we all have strengths and weaknesses.
Amazing that a handful of commenters actually have been saying ‘Atheism already has a (dictionary) definition, stop touching it!’ Sheesh.
Via linkbacks from LousyCanuck, another relevant essay just went up, specifically discussing social justice as a natural extension of atheism:
http://cognitiverevolution.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/atheism-therefore-feminism/
Well, atheism means “non-religious”, not “morally superior” so I’m not at all surprised that there are sexists, racists, and homophobes in the community.
I’m in support of A+ for sure.
Leave it to jackrawlinson to leave after completely misrepresenting someone’s point.
It’s the good without gods part that I keep getting hung up on. Are we? I see so many examples that show we aren’t necessarily; the push back against social justice is primary. I don’t understand those who say that if we want to work on social justice, we need to separate ourselves from atheism. If we do, can we take our Gw/oG billboards with us? Why can’t I be an atheist and also concerned with humanitarianism, with equality? Can one really say they are good without gods in one breath, and rail against the ebil feminists or dismiss racist statements or engage in homophobic apologetics with the other? I posit that one cannot. If you’re not concerned with social justice, if you’re dismissive of social justice, if you’re cruel to those who fight for social justice, you’re not good without gods. You’re just an entitled person who happens not to believe in deities, and thinks that they’re all done learning now.
Thanks for this post, thanks for the work you do, just thanks.
My experience was the same. When Dawkins said the god of the OT was a misogyinist I thought ‘Wow, he acknowledged that as an actual thing!’ That was so rare. And female genital mutilation was being taken seriously and not called “culture.” They take women’s isssues seriously too? Count me in!
But I was disillusioned way before the elevator incident. Hearing big names say things like “reality is sexist” and “there is nothing more natural than rape” didn’t help things.
I will try to explain a little in the 20 minutes I have before I must leave for work. And my work figures into this.
For “on the sidewalk” sexism- I have long, blonde-brown hair that is quite shiny in sunlight. Sometimes, strangers (mostly men, a very few women) will come up behind me and pet my hair. The sexism inherent in that is that they feel some entitlement to invade my personal space in a way that they would never do to a man. This is one type of example.
Another is my workplace. I’m a vet tech. I work at a veterinary hospital and that means that most of the employees there are women. I’m 5’6″ and somewhat overweight so I don’t look that imposing. But I’m strong as hell. I can pick up a (standing) human being up to 250+ pounds and walk away with them without problem. This means that I can hoist around most of the dogs we deal with.
Sometimes animals come in that are ‘down’, meaning they can’t stand up or walk. We have a gurney, but I can usually carry in dogs up to the 80+ range on my own (before the start getting too long to handle easily). So I regularly have conversations like this:
Recept: Can you call Bob out of the boarding wards? The client requested a man to help carry their dog.
Me: I’ll be right up. I’m not busy, and I’m stronger than Bob anyway.
Recept: Okay, but they did request a guy…
Me: Hi, I’m here to help you carry your dog.
Client: Aren’t there any guys who can help? My dog is really heavy.
Me: I’m stronger than the guys here. Let’s go get your dog.
Client: I still think a guy would be better… I don’t want you to hurt yourself.
(I hoist large dog out of car and carry it to the door while client stares at me)
Me: Can you get the door for me, please?
That is a type of everyday, ‘sidewalk’ sexism. I’m female, therefore I must be weaker than *any* man.
The key thing with those examples though is that they are one-offs. I will rarely, if ever, see those people again. This is also something happening in everyday life.
Atheism, on the other hand, is a movement centered in the internet. Most of the discussions and activities happen online, or are organised online. And online, people feel safer to act out their assholeish tendencies. And some of them bring that to the events as well.
Say I was at an atheist event, and I had an occurrence of the random hair petting. I tell the guy to stop, he gets a little offended (they always are) but he stops. However… then I do the worst thing ever. I tell someone about it… on the INTERNET! D: dundunDUN! I am liable to get flooded with “it was just a compliment”, “I wouldn’t mind if a woman”, “That’s not creepy”, “It’s just ’cause the rest of you is so ugly” or other such delightful comments. And they wouldn’t be for just a short time. It could happen for months. Or years.
Elevatorgate started with something akin to “It’s a little creepy to get asked to a stranger’s room for coffee at 4 in the morning, in an elevator with only the stranger, after saying I was tired and going to bed. So guys, don’t do that.”
Now read up on all that Watson has had to deal with. THAT is atheism-sexism versus sidewalk-sexism.
For what it’s worth (and I hate to plug ‘my’ symbol here) another problem with A++, |A|, A^n and similar is that the symbols only make sense to someone who already has a high degree of specialized knowledge: programming, mathematics, chemistry and similar. Atheism and skepticism already have a snooty ivory-tower reputation, and an inclusive symbol shouldn’t include what is in effect an in-joke that only the minority of highly educated people will get. Almost everyone knows that + means additive or positive; and we should be welcoming to anyone willing to learn, regardless of education level.
You have my axe.
Excellent challenge, I will take you up on that. In a similar vein, I love this:
http://www.morethanmen.org/2012/08/17/hey-white-guys/
As a fellow lurker who was de-lurked by all the gross push back and a burning need to say something in defense of reason, welcome!
Two points.
First, I think it really stinks that there are so many misanthropes that you have encountered in your atheist endeavors. Shame on them.
Second, I do think you should not try to combine ideas which really are not related. The NRA doesn’t spend time talking about affirmative action because that is not really relevant to what the group is primarily formed to support. Atheism, in the same manner, does not have a real connection with feminism. Now, if you were talking about a “feminist, atheist” group then both tags would apply and you might have more ammunition for that part of your argument.
I won’t use this post to go into a deep argument about feminism, I will just point out there are SOME aspects which are problematic. Title 9 was significantly bad (not in intent, but in design). Women and men are different and pretending they are equal, in everything, is not rational.
So being abusive and motivated by spite is fine as long as you are doing it for (what you perceive to be) good reasons? You can justify anything with that sort of logic.
I think you have been staring to long into the abyss.
Bloody hell. All the peopele frothing at the gash over the “A+” symbol are jumping the gun a bit.
“Oh we have a symbol!!! JOY!! the battle is already over now we put a plus sign after a capital A.”
“For what it’s worth (and I hate to plug ‘my’ symbol here) another problem with A++, |A|, A^n and similar is that the symbols only make sense to someone who already has a high degree of specialized knowledge: programming, mathematics, chemistry and similar.”
OK, that’s a good point. They might not make sense to someone who isn’t a total science geek.
Honesty and clarity is appreciated – but this is a note of respectful disagreement.
The core of scientific skepticism is that it is based on evidence and, to the degree possible, dispassionate analysis. It follows then, that it is by its nature no cognizant of privilege, gender, wealth or politics. It also follows that feelings bow to evidence and experience must be corrected for bias and preconception.
When one claims that one doesn’t “feel safe” at TAM, without attempting to analyze as to if you ARE safe – that comes across as both practically AND intellectually damaging to the movement. We are human, you and I both. Feelings can be misleading, even false. They can be a starting point for investigation only.
Many of the vile comments you referenced are repulsive to most and all sane people. To the degree that trolls are scribbling anonymously on bathroom walls – they should not be empowered. When criminal, they should be reported and hopefully prosecuted.
It feels good to link humanism with the scientific and skeptical movement. I mean that honestly. If you scratch the surface and subtract the angered personalities – we almost certainly share most of the same values and only have minor discrepancies on how we should put them into practice. But this link is dangerous and unfounded. “Scientific rationality” has been used to justify economic oppression, sexism and racism.
Because most of us hold science and skepticism dear while we recognize how it can be misused. Many are uncomfortable with its inappropriate use – even in a “good” cause. Much pain can result in good people trying to do right in the inappropriate way.
Thank you for considering my words.
Bravo Jen, great post and a brilliant rallying cry to move it all forwards.
A+ sounds good to me.
And if the NRA did consider affirmative action at all, maybe it’d be less racist. Bigotry is the default position when groups do NOT make a commitment to diversity; because of historical ignorance and silencing, and unconscious bias, among other factors.
Unfortunately you just did make a deep argument against feminism. Presuming women and men AREN’T equal, or presuming they’re different, most often can be explained by bias, and bias is not rational. See the Pharyngula feminism wiki resource, linked in the sidebar there, with scores of researched resources.
Imagine a world with no jackrawlinson’s…
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GREAT POST JEN!
FWIW I give it an A+
Also…
Re: Manifesto, see OP.
Except I don’t think it’s ok. I think it’s morally reprehensible and something that should be beneath most people. Unfortunately I’m still a vindictive person (trying to work through it). I’m not making excuses for myself nor do I want any made on my behalf. I know I fucked up several times during this making the situation worse (at least in a small way) each time.
“Second, I do think you should not try to combine ideas which really are not related. The NRA doesn’t spend time talking about affirmative action because that is not really relevant to what the group is primarily formed to support. Atheism, in the same manner, does not have a real connection with feminism.”
Woah, hold the phone there. Ideas do not exist in silos. If this life is the only one we will have, then how does anyone get off denigrating the life of another person living the only life they will have? And as a society how could we possibly benefit from making whole groups of people walk around feeling like crap for their membership in some demographic? Misogyny and privilege produced religion and are produced by it, shampoo, rinse, repeat. So respect for others certainly is part of the realization that we are on our own, with no god to make justice for us.
Well I think A+ is a great, fitting symbol. I don’t think there’s a faster way to let everybody else know just how arrogant you are. You’d grade yourselves A+ from the outset. Its perfect.
I missed this post yesterday because I was asleep for most of the day (long story short: I slept for 24 of the past 48 hours. And paying back my sleep debt was glorious). Don’t have much to say that hasn’t been said already and better than I can say it, so:
I’m with you, and I like the A+ idea.
Well, it’s good that Jen provided all that relevant evidence in the OP, which is backed up by harassment and chilly climate research! Wouldn’t want someone’s stated feelings of safety or non-safety getting emotion all up in the discussion of helping women feel safe among atheists.
By the way, if you’re actually interested in the misuse of research to justify inaction against discrimination, see here for an example:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/08/19/motivated-research-on-the-wage-gap/
I’m not opposed to feminism, I am opposed to some of the more outrageous feminist ideas. And NO, the reason men and women are not really the same is NOT mostly the result of bias. Sure it is, in SOME aspects, but there are real physical differences and even brain differences between the sexes. It is not rational to pretend those do not exist.
The NRA is not one bit racist. There are racist jerks in the NRA, but there are also plenty of non-whites in the NRA and they have never discriminated against a member because of race.
Yes, I’m trying to shove the insane ideology that I am a full human being down your poor little throat. So when Dawkins condemns misogyny and racism in religion is he doing the same?
Yes, some ideas DO exist in silos. Sure you can mix them together, but if you want to treat them as always linked then you enter problematic areas.
And my issues started way before this. It used to be me calling women who believed in God dumb cunts whenever they’d comment on Thunderf00t’s videos.
I’ve made some progress I think :/
Fair play. I can’t fault you then.
Self-preservation comes first. Be well.
I bet it feels awful to see your superiority complex evaporate like that. Makes you seem small, and scared, and lashing out at with the feeble bit of imagined strength you have left. So, so sad.
A misogynist reference to piss on others’ enthusiasm.
Are you really such an ass?
Though you do manage to rather succinctly illustrate Jen’s point. Thanks for that I guess.
I never said women are not full humans. I’m saying to argue that there is no meaningful differences between men and women is just scientifically wrong. It is scientific fact that the brains of men and women develop differently, and it is beyond science that the bodies develop differently too. I never said either is better, so it is only on you if you feel that somebody might be slighting women by making that argument. If you feel inferior or superior because of your sex, then that is on you.
And ideas are conceived, discussed, and enacted by human beings who are universally prone to bias. Failing to address that bias does nothing to address or remove it.
Jen: I’m in. What’s next?
Great Post.
I believe I just established a connection between atheism and diversity, based on a simple principle of reciprocity. So these two ideas, at least, are not separated by silos.
I will grant you that the NRA is well-separated from diversity. Perhaps purposely so.
Marcbarnhill–your idea sounds great, even now. Maybe the others above need to reconsider why they would oh so tastefully discourage more communication and more voices joining the conversation. But good ideas stick around, so I figure this will happen, one way or another.
Says the people patting themselves on the back over a symbol and nothing else.
I am sure your sense of worth increased ten-fold after somebody else decided on which picture would accompany your “movement”.
It’s kind of like designing a DVD cover before you have made the movie.
Religion is responsible for generating and sustaining most of the racism, sexism, anti-(insert minority human subgroup here)-isms… it gave a voice to the bigotry, established the privilege, and fed these things from the pulpit for thousands upon thousands of years. What sense does it make to throw out the garbage bag of religion yet keep all the garbage that it contained?
I can’t help but see social justice as a logical consequence of atheism. I’m for getting rid of all the garbage.
Of course, if one were paying attention earlier, one might think the individuals you are dissing have spent years living the movie.
That doesn’t matter if you always use bias as an excuse to ignore the facts.
They’re excited to finally have a direction to move in. What’s so wrong about that?
http://www.womeninsecularism.org/
http://www.secularwoman.org/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/05/23/real-progress/
Oh, hush, george. We know feminist like Jen McCreight have never done anything ever. They’ve gotten by on their looks and conning better much more talented people. It’s true. Just ask Abbie Smith.
Read your link to the opinion post, then reviewed the GAO document. You do know that it looked at broad categories, rather then specific jobs in a region ?
We should probably first define what economic gender discrimination IS in the workplace, then analyze quantifiable outcome variables. IMO we should control for THE specific jobs in the broad fields analyzed. The null hypothesis is that there is no gender discrimination – from which statistical significance must be proven.
There is a real danger of confirmation bias, and it is exacerbated if we share the same preconceptions and biases. If we are in conflict – as long as we play by the same scientific rules – this is good (and WHY it is important to be broadly inclusive in skepticism, BTW).
The conclusion is less important than the process. This is the core of skepticism.
I disagree regarding “A++”:
An added “+” as a symbol for something “taken further” should be reasonably clear. And even the intellectually and linguistically impoverished people of “1984” were portrayed as being able to understand “double plus whatever”. The fact that (a certain kind of) nerd can see, where “A++” came from, would be just an added treat.
Sure, we shouldn’t make people take an entry exam. But we shouldn’t treat them as idiots, either.
I mean, there is Google+, so how difficult can that be?
Count me in. Many thanks for the excellent post.
Hey now, Abbie did apologize for saying Jen got in on her looks. Only for that one comment though.
Consider me another atheist guy with all the privileges who is a feminist (and trans, gay, minority) ally. I think you’re right about the last loud gasp of a dying group. This is also what I think about all the amendments passing to disenfranchise homosexuals. The people in power can get it done, but they only feel the need to do it because they can smell the change coming.
And dudes, you can still get laid without resorting to sexual harassment. In fact, I think it improves your chances.
Does anyone else find this truism just plain stupid at this point?
Yeah, right, because the “A” by itself didn’t already have the same ‘problem’. :rolleyes:
The humanist viewpoint that women are fully human, is a reason-based conclusion. Skepticism about the truth and moral validity of old biases about women has done great work in blunting their effect. The benefit of making more minds available for important civilization building work is being reaped even now.
It is also a properly skeptical view to recognize human desires and motives as both wonderful and dangerous. Fear of strangers, for example, is a natural human impulse. Sex is a natural human impulse. Fight or flight in the face of perceived threat is natural. Desire to maximize ones position is natural.
Becoming civilized, i.e. capable of living in city-based world, is an exercise in respecting, but taming and managing all these impulses in the best possible way. I don’t know what others’ experience has been, but mine suggests we have plenty of this kind of work left to do. We certainly have quite a bit left in what passes for the Atheist Community.
Jen and others have rightly brought evidence of ways our community performs quite poorly in these areas. It is appropriate to skepticism to take this evidence seriously. It is foolhardy to worry about the negative effects of bringing this evidence to light. The negative effects of the less-civilized aspects of our community were always there waiting to happen. It is natural to wish that they not happen now, here, to us, but there were only a few ways that was going to happen. Either women in the community would have to be something other than themselves, or kept out. The first is neither humanist, nor realistic, the second is undesirable.
Freethought, if it is to grow beyond an isolated cult (for lack of a better word), is simply going to have to integrate its worldview with all the current and future issues in civilization at large. That’s a large task. We’re not going to do a very good job of it without the equal partnership of people like the Skepchicks, or Ophelia, or Jen, or of those interested in racial discrimination or other important social issues. If we have nothing to say about this stuff other than, “we don’t want to talk about it”, why should anybody see us as a useful worldview?
This is an interesting claim coming from someone who has so far demonstrated a high degree of arrogance, along with turgid ignorance when trolling their way threw FtB.
…but on that note, yes there is a degree of arrogance that can inflict anyone in any movement of any cause. Some of it’s justified, some of it is problematic. And yes, I am sure some Slimepitter dezian would deface this A+ movement (presuming it will take off) as Arrogant + or even Asshole +, but it does not take away the legitamacy this could be a movement by people who have real issues who want the world to be better and more progressive place. So trash it all you want with cute little insults, but it will unlikey stop what is happening here. /shrug
Yeah it’s not it received constant mockery and scorn from agnostics and believers alike.
Lol, at the troll whose frothing at the gash over his ridiculous protest of this.
Love the A+ !
Now, where, *specifically* are you going? I think most of the Cons now have anti-harassment policies. What else– more women speakers? Finding and supporting groups of minority atheists? Supporting gay and trans rights?
A push on an important issue gets people working together and makes the endless whine of “you just shouldn’t FEEEL that way” coming from the misogynists look as childish and negative as it really is.
(This is in no way a criticism of what you’ve done so far, Jen. It’s– use this energy. Where do we go from here?)
Good to see you are using the term “frothing at the gash”. I am glad it’s catching on. :D
This one is great too! :)
Wow.
Nobody around here, in Toronto, bats an eye at atheism or feminism, so it was easy for me to forget that it isn’t that way everywhere, even in places that I think of as sociologically similar, such as the urban centres of the USA. (BTW, I’m a dual American-Canadian; came here 18 years ago, just about the time the web was born.) So I’m shocked and saddened to learn of the “boy’s club” mentality that the poster describes, but it’s better than being naive and uninformed.
And I’m encouraged at the determination to re-set this movement along more inclusive lines. “A+” is, as others have said, brilliant.
The Readercon fantasy book convention, too! http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/05/public-statement-by-the-readercon-convention-committee/
Why DO you keep posting on FtB? You do nothing but criticise and demean others but it seems you just can’t stay away. Are you really so unhappy that we disagree with you that you feel the need to try to silence and exclude us?
This is a reference to Ted Kennedy, who did support Obama over Clinton for the presidency, and to the Chappequidick (sp?) incident, for which Kennedy was rightly condemned. He was something of a scumbag, despite his excellent work in the Senate. As to what the head of NOW-NY had to say about kindergarten children in response to Kennedy’s support of Obama, I have no idea and don’t feel the need to go looking, given the distortions and drivel in the original comment.
I must say, it is heartening to see just how many positive comments in favor of social justice there are in this thread in comparison to nay-sayers who apparently think social justice just isn’t that important/necessary. You seem to be right, Jen, that “we are winning.”
It is nice to see how many de-lurkers there were for this post – I had no idea that the people arguing AGAINST basic respect for all people were in such a minority (you wouldn’t know it with all of the internet drama). This is refreshing. I’m not much of a “joiner” – as in, being an official part of an organization that I may not totally agree with all the time … I think religious upbringing spooked me – but I support the promotion of skeptical social justice groups 100%.
I like the ideas expressed in the post and in most of the comments so far. I also really like the A+ logo as posted at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5xaYSiHF0DfNE1OWFVvakRsSE0/edit (by One Thousand Needles, above). I’ll admit that my first thought was that it smacked a bit of pride (like the Brights meme) as expressed earlier in this stream, but I don’t think that’s actually a valid criticism as I gave it more thought. The “A” symbol is pretty widely known as an expression of out-atheists, so adopting it with a “+” expressing the idea of a community that goes beyond mere non-belief in god(s) and towards values like those Jen addresses, PZ Myers does in his recent Free Inquiry article on “Atheism’s Third Wave,” and that many other deep thinkers in our movement also have discussed in blog posts, statements of support, and articles all over, is a positive step and one that, I think, we need to move towards both in our activism as well as our adopted symbols. I consider myself many things besides an atheist (e.g. skeptic, freethinker, and humanist among others) and I realize that these sorts of ideas sound a lot like those the humanism movement has expressed for years, but to gain the adherence of a wider set of people, many of whom have perhaps avoided the humanist tag but do vigorously subscribe to the atheism (or agnosticism, if they prefer) label, this simple expression that they are ready now to move beyond mere disbelief and work for an expanded set of social values may be persuasive. If there is an issue with this symbol and the RDF, I’d suggest that they’d readily agree to it’s use for the good of the movement, and should be approached sooner rather than later since this symbol has the potential to become ubiquitous very quickly. I certainly am ready to start using and spreading it around. Thanks Jen, PZ, and so many others who are helping all of us move in this positive direction. Good things can come out of discord, and I’m convinced that our growing collection of critical thinkers is well-suited to making that happen.
Its a perfect case-study for me, and its funny. I’m not trying to silence you or exclude you. Don’t be so dramatic.
Salutations Freedom Fighter,
I was looking for the entomology of the term “freethinker” and stumbled upon your blog. It was a very well written article and I found it informative and disturbing. The level of intransigent ignorance prevalent in the world today is disappointing.
Fight on!
Sine
I really really appreciate reading this article! Thanks Ms. McCreight for putting your story out there. I am frequently shocked an saddened by the behavior of people that I otherwise agree with.
I’ve been an atheist for about 10 years now and over the past year or so I’ve gotten involved with a Unitarian Universalist congretation. It’s a really warm and welcoming place for atheists in a way that *some* Christian/religion-bashing atheist boys clubs are not. The first principle of Unitarian Universalism is “We affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.” It’s something I find very powerful as a feminist, atheist and anarchist.
To me, A+ sounds a lot like UU (definitely not a bad thing), so I wonder if it might make sense to see what work is already being done that aligns with A+ and build a broader coalition.
Cheers,
-Eric
He’s also not fond of people wielding supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at them.
My first exposure to UU has been their work with my local NAACP. Definitely a social justice connection to look into.
I’ve been discouraged about even being part of the atheist movement lately, but I like this too.
Hell yes, Jen.
Hell yes.
So… Ms. McCreight… pilot kinda just admitted to trolling. Can he be banned?
Very nice! Mind if I steal this for an upcoming post?
You need do some research. Search for “atheist sexism” and “skeptical feminism” and suchlike terms.
Fair dues to you, keep on trucking and feck the begrudgers. This is one man who wholly supports you.
I was just going to say, “Its a perfect case-study for me,” clearly reads: “I’m trolling”, julian.
The movement has been in place for quite a while, it just hadn’t been formally distinguished. I think the reason many of us are excited by A+ (or whatever rallying cry we decide to use – we could choose to use many) is because it is an encouraging reminder that we get to define who we are and what values we endorse… and we get to leave the chaff behind. That’s really refreshing, to me at least. I’ve long wanted to get more involved in this movement (I even applied to be a Skepchick!), but all of the infighting and rampant misogyny left a horrible taste in my mouth. “I don’t want to be a part of *that*.” But now I have something I can truly get behind and fight for 100%. It makes me want to start up my old blog again. :)
Atheism necessarily leads to a shift in philosophy, though. It isn’t just not believing in a Divine Agent, it’s also restructuring how one sees the world given the knowledge that there is no divine agent. Step two of Atheism is to ask yourself why you believe certain things and to start justifying your beliefs with the naturalistic worldview you’ve adopted.
Atheism, in this way, is an expression of skepticism and leads, necessarily, to fully secular thought patterns and philosophies. This, in turn, leads necessarily to humanism.
Atheism does not exist in a vacuum. Those atheists that continue to wave the oppression flag against anyone are, perhaps, the most irrational people in our movement since they have yet to go past step one – calling oneself an atheist. There’s more to responsible philosophy than that.
Perfectly said, Jen. As a middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied man, count me in, not to back-pat the obvious but to fight for the necessary.
You do realize the best way for you not to be taken for a troll is to not indulge in trolling behavior. Doing some research instead of demanding people answer detailed, statistical questions is a good start.
Fantastic post, Jen, I’ll add my voice to the chorus and Nth the A+!
Except in the skulls of the misogynists and
Dictionary Atheistsfence-clingers.Let me tell you something: you can’t tell a woman that she should feel safe, or that she IS safe, when she sees the venom and hate spewed at women (generally or specifically) on these forums. I don’t know what else you want in terms of evidence. Go find any blog post dealing with feminism on FtB and read the comments. Your evidence will be there.
Now, as a woman who knows that at least some of those commenters are likely to be in attendance at an atheist/skeptic meetup, and knowing what they believe about women and/or feminism, do you think I feel comfortable with the idea of going to one of those meetups?
It’s not just the documented cases of actual, IRL harassment that concern me and keep me away from such events. It’s also the virtual torrent of hate left by anti-feminists on the internet THAT I CAN SEE WITH MY OWN EYES. Does that make sense?
Thank you!
Well, normally when people ask questions whose answers are readily available and have been expounded on at length, especially in that kind of tone, and especially with these kinds of questions, they’re just trying to stall or frustrate discussion.
Jen,
I must respectfully disagree, on these grounds:
1) The broader the group, the more momentum we gain.
1a) Broad groups have scumbags in it, social progress has been made (not enough by a long shot, but it has.) The more positive forces within that tent, the better.
2) How many faction splits have worked?
3) Strange Gods Before Me made an excellent point: Rebrand as a subtype, and you’ll always be a subtype.
Sorry, I love reading your blog, and agree with you the vast majority of the time, but I’d rather be a positive force from within than without.
Even though there are biological differences in the way brains and bodies develop, the claim that the differences are “meaningful” is your claim to prove. There are lots of differences in the way my table lamps were developed, you know, and they still do exactly the same thing equally well when I put bulbs of the same brightness in them.
Perfect, rowanvt!
Not this shit again.
Jen,
I’ve watched with silent rage all the sexist bigoted goings-on from the start of Elevatorgate. As a white, cis, male astronomy grad student, I am rather privileged. I’ve read Pharyngula for over 5 years (that’s how I found Blag Hag in the first place). I don’t comment but once a year or so, mainly because I can barely find time to play with my cats ( damn grad school!) and also I can’t seem to find the energy to post regularly. My own blog is sadly neglected.
I grew up in rural western Colorado, and I’m glad to say that through reading you and other great atheist feminists I am no longer the bigoted homophobic misogynist I was when I graduated high school. I’m not quite finished growing, but I’m more complete, closer to reaching my full potential, in no small part to your many posts and unwavering integrity.
You, among others, have made me a better human being. I am not a great feminist, but I’m improving every day. I am proud to stand by your side and work toward a better future.
Thank you for being so eloquent and passionate!
I would like some examples of the outrageous feminist ideas that are putting you off. And no one has ever denied that differences in bodies do not exist.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post?
ArrrrrrrrggghhILOVEIT! A+!
We are doing this, people! ;)
*facepalm*
False. Velocity vectors must have components in the same direction for momentum to add.
The problem in this specific instance is that we’re not all pushing in the same direction. To claim that you should tolerate bigotry for the sake of group size is silly when your goals are to fight against bigotry.
A second issue which was mentioned above is the fact that by splitting away from the bigots, we make the movement more appealing to a lot more people with whom we share common goals (see the whole “better a progressive theists than a bigoted atheist” idea).
A third issue is that numbers per se don’t matter as much (particularly now) as having people committed to change and willing to work for it. What use is having a large group of people, if all they are willing to do is navel gaze and pat themselves in the back because they don’t believe in gods or Bigfoot? Better to have a smaller group who is passionate about activism and fighting against gender/race/class oppression.
There is a field of study called sociology. Some of the things that sociologists study are the social differences between men and women. These differences are not physical but social. Perhaps if you stopped thinking about physical difference between men and women and realized there were other differences that weren’t physical, then you’d have some slight clue about what people here are talking about.
Just a suggestion.
I dunno! I would have said that a 20% difference, otherwise unaccounted for, would be statistically significant.
Very good summary – but imo is not atheism-sexism it is internet-sexism. Combination of morons on internet plus outspoken women = shit storm of hateful sexism. Just look at Anita Sarkeesian, no idea if she is an atheist but she got pretty much the same treatment by being an outspoken woman on the internet. In her case it was gamer-morons rather than atheist-morons doing the harassing.
I have seen several posts saying the A+ symbol implies superiority. That may be the case, personally,I don’t really have a strong opinion on which symbol to use.
I am mostly curious about why so atheists resist being proud of being atheistic? Maybe it’s my lingering religious upbringing, but I feel pretty good about shedding my superstition. It’s perfectly legitimate to be proud of one’s accomplishments. I could not care less if a believer is put off by it. I sure as hell don’t tell them they can’t be proud of their belief in superstition. I’m put off by the crazy beliefs, not whether they feel pride in it.
well said!
I like A+, but how about A-> (read Atheism Going Forward)
I have seen several posts saying the A+ symbol implies superiority. That may be the case, personally,I don’t really have a strong opinion on which symbol to use.
I am mostly curious about why so many atheists resist being proud of being atheistic? Maybe it’s my lingering religious upbringing, but I feel pretty good about shedding my superstition. It’s perfectly legitimate to be proud of one’s accomplishments. I could not care less if a believer is put off by it. I sure as hell don’t tell them they can’t be proud of their belief in superstition. I’m put off by the crazy beliefs, not whether they feel pride in it.
As an example: I’m not gonna pretend that just because Karl Rove is an atheist, that I would take common cause with him. Another atheist might support additional causes which I support, or causes about which I am indifferent, and I will take common cause with them. But if they support causes I find morally repugnant, they cannot sit at my table. Life is too short to do otherwise.
I think I get what you’re asking. If we’re going to combat sexism in the atheist movement that is worse than on the sidewalk, we first need to know WHY it’s worse and how it’s worse so that we can do that. I don’t think you meant it as a delaying tactic, but more just asking the question. I was a little curious myself, since I never go to conferences.
Rowanvt made some good points, and I’m sure we can find some more. Also, it might be worse because we don’t really expect to have our views heard and and debated by the guy on the sidewalk. The guy on the sidewalk isn’t likely to talk us down when we’re trying to join discussions, or threaten us with rape based on our opinions simply because he probably isn’t privy to our opinions. And we can always just cross the road if they seem creepy. We don’t want to leave the movement, so we’re *stuck* with them more.
(Someone else can probably say this all much better than I can.)
My point was primarily within the focus of atheism itself. Personally, the idea of wading in the muck and trying to end bigotry by standing against it from within appears to have a greater chance of success than breaking off into a subtype.
I think it’s probably a necessary thing, from a social and a mental health point of view, but, if it’s going to actually do any good outside of that remains to be seen.
Personally, I see much of the opposition as anti-feminism at its core. This is something that often sounds like misogyny, but I think it’s something a bit different. It’s still wrong, of course, but the solutions for the two things may be very different.
Where I differ from other people is that I do not think that momentum is currently on our side. Quite frankly, if the current growing opposition to feminism is based out of strong misogynistic roots, we’re basically fucked. Then it’s time to batten down the hatches, form our own groups/cultures and wall off. I actually prefer to be optimistic, so I go the other way. I think it’s far too important for far too many people for that.
If we can actually teach and educate people that feminism (I’d link other social justice concerns as well, but quite frankly I don’t think that any of them have the same baggage that feminism is dealing with right now) isn’t the scary dogmatic anti-egalitarian thing that they think it is. Yes, that means we need to excise the trolls and the assholes and the sexists out of our movement.
Theoretically, we could do both. And in fact, I HOPE we do. Get away from the “skeptics” and at the same time work towards rehabilitating the view of social justice concerns in our society. I just don’t expect it.
Why are you continuing to misrepresent what Rebecca said in regard to the elevator? I can only assume you have read what others have said instead of going to the primary source.
Personally I think all these boring posts should just include this link and say please listen –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk#t=4:30
I even added the time for you – as you will notice it is already more than halfway through so a passing comment – given the shit that happened due to it that is important! Now what exactly did she say and how does that conflict with your presentation of the events?
As much economic impact is at the margins – you would be very right if that was validated for individual jobs corrected for seniority, and a host of other confounders.
Check out the GAO document (and if I stand corrected, please let me know) – it was an analysis of categories (craftsmen, for example). The document is quite good, and acknowledges this limitation.
thanks and respect extended.
As an outsider looking in at this whole debacle, i’ve tried to look at both sides dispassionately. For the most part, my attitude is that if a lot of women *say* they do not feel safe, then they *don’t* feel safe. While i understand the “other side” of the argument – that if women are being systematically harassed at cons, where is the evidence of it – i also understand there are a whole host of reasons why harassment would be unreported, both at conventions and in the outside world.
There is a problem. I believe it. I accept that policies should be in place to address it. In that regard, i am 100% on your side.
However, there is more than one problem here, and the FTB bloggers around which this tempest revolves are guilty of adding fuel to the fire of the second. You see, it seems as though you expect everyone to agree with you on every tiny detail, not only on what the problem is, but how everyone else should perceive it, how it should be dealt with, what the anti-harassment policies should be down to the slightest “jot and tiddle,” to borrow a phrase from everyone’s favorite book. Even the slightest deviation from the party line brands one as a misogynist. (Don’t believe me? Let’s see how long it takes for me to be branded as one merely for daring to write this.)
People that offered reasoned, alternate solutions to the con harassment issue have been themselves harassed and insulted merely because their opinion was different. In that regard, the involved FTB team needs to be honest and shoulder its share of the blame for the level of incendiary levels to which the rhetoric has risen. Vitriol and insult have been spewed by both sides. When that happens, no one wins, no one sees the light.
The FTB bloggers in question have enemies today that were once their allies. Those former allies were alienated because of some perverse need for dogmatic purity that brooked no deviation from the party line of how the issue should be addressed. You are not right about everything. No one ever is. There can be reasonable alternative means of addressing problems, and not everyone will see a problem in exactly the same fashion.
Look for a means to a solution, to get back the people that really SHOULD be your allies, not merely on the issue of atheism, but yes, even feminism, or keep insisting that everyone see things EXACTLY your way and keep the politics of division tearing things apart. It’s your board, it’s your choice.
I honestly wish you good luck.
There’s a common ground at the core that can be used, a general direction. I’m disagreeing purely out of a desire to try to get the most out of a broader base, and try to be a positive influence.
If it can be easily verified, then start verifying it. My memory of your posts at Pharyngula were as described by PZ. Without exception!
So if you want to claim you were such a nice guy, then you’d be able to show posts where you supported women. Ready, set, go….
Reading all these comments – it’s amazing. This may be the first time in a year that I’ve felt part of the atheist community instead of merely an outsider with similar interests.
It would be nice to have an A+ symbol as an identifier. Something to suggest a positive space. If someone is wearing an “A+” t-shirt, pin or surly, they are already aware of problem and may be willing to listen to a newcomer.
I’ve followed pretty much this whole thing from the beginning, and I haven’t seen any “reasoned, alternate solutions”. What I hvae seen is a whole lot of stop complaining about it and maybe it will go away if we pretend it doesn’t exist. Honestly, seriously, what is even one example of one of those reasoned alternate solutions?
Rove won. Anyone can sit at my table if they can help me in the long run. Does it mean I enjoy it? No.
Chris Camp – given how little you understand even the basics of feminism and choose to characterise all feminists as victims I doubt this call is aimed at you.
In regard to Thunderf00t’s hacking or not – head on over to his blog to discuss it. http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/ftb-and-the-conspiracy-to-defraud-drawing-a-line-under-this-pointless-crap/
No, what you did was mix two ideas together. To suggest that they are ALWAYS linked is simply ludicrous.
Atheism is atheism, diversity is diversity. Well over 99% of what atheism is has nothing to do with diversity. Well over 99% of what diversity is about has nothing to do with atheism.
Well that’s a perfectly reasonable solution, isn’t it? I mean, it’s not like it affects HIM anyway…what is WRONG with you that you think you have the right to make him uncomfortable just because you feel endangered?
De-lurking to say that this is a brilliant and perfectly timed post.
I’m in.
Oh noes!!!
A+ suggests that we are arrogant and might think our position superior to our opponents. Gods forbid that we should actually represent our position forcefully and positively.
This is terrible.
Perhaps it would be better to use Atheists Urging Gentler Happier Thoughts (the AUGHTs)
…or,
Atheists Who Think There’s More to Being Civilised Than Just Dissing on Other People’s Nonsense (the AWTTMBCTJOPNs)
…or maybe just,
Oh don’t mind us out here in the rain.
Get real guys. Arrogance is part of the job description for anyone seeking to change the status quo. That these gals are pulling it off with grace, thoughtfulness and even humility is testament to their mastery in the matter.
Thunderf00ts blog is really useful for seeing how these people with valid concerns behave when the leash is off. Jack Rawlinson appears to have a serious problem with FtBs. But don’t worry him and his mates are organising the Peoples Front of Atheism to fight back and reclaim the ‘movement’. Be afraid, be really afraid!
If you want wade through the muck and tell the bigots to knock it off then do so. Have a nice time. Let us know how it works out. Meanwhile, the rest of us will remove ourselves from the slimepit and work in a way we think would be more productive.
Well enjoy the company of people who make you sick, then. There are plenty of people with whom I can take cause and feel all right about it. As I said, life’s too short.
Also, A+ would make a great Surlyramic.
Well, idea number one is that men and women are equal in all things. Fact is, physically men are superior in some ways, women are superior in others. Same goes with mental functions.
Title 9 was a horrible idea. The INTENT of getting more girls opportunities for sports was fine, but the mechanism by which they forced it actually resulted in LESS collegiate sports. Even Men’s sports which were able to sustain themselves (like Rugby) were cut from school programs because there were not enough women who wanted to participate in sports and that meant the ratios for athletes were off and thus the mens sports had to be cut.
Plus you have many women who believe that equal titles should mean equal pay and they will happily sue companies who do not despite evidence showing that the men were producing more value for their employer.
Too many “feminists” want, not equal, but actually special treatment when it comes to the government and the law. Get back to me on it when the feminists manage to get their special privileges removed. (And if you didn’t know they have them, then you have not worked with the government before. My current employer is a female owned company which is why they won the government contract I am currently on. Before you say anything, prior to this company taking over, I was working for Dell at the same location so in the end the only thing that changed was the company name that showed up on my direct deposit.)
Dream on, Bob.
The ‘Plus’ in Atheism + refers to a broad range of social issues for which there is no further to discussion to be had.
Any attempt to criticise, challenge or in any way disagree with the bloated tenets of this new religious movement will be met with condemnation, pariah-hood and excommunication.
The position of this new great religion is that unless you are with them then you are, by default, a misogynist, a rape enabler, a sexist, privileged, etc.
There is no need for free-thought in the New Best Atheism – all thinking is done for you.
All one needs to do to be part of this new age is get on their knees, confess their error, and submit.
Have fun! Hope I’m still welcome when I want to drop by. :)
It is better than “third [or any ordinal] wave.”
I like both “inclusive atheism” and “A+.” Count me in.
doubleplusgood!
This is false. There’s been plenty of debate about exactly how harassment policies should be implemented and what specific behaviors should or shouldn’t be permitted. (Here’s an example.)
Great post, Jen! Keep it going, and there are a lot of us who will follow…
If you haven’t already, look for a local Ethical Culture group. We are an atheist/humanist community, that works for social justice. We have a long history of working for social justice. (try aeu.org or ethicalstl.org)
I love you
“…a broad range of social issues for which there is no further to [sic] discussion to be had.”
I don’t understand your position. I hope you will explain and help me understand.
From my perspective, until there is true equality for all people in our society these discussions are far from over. There is still much work to be done. Do you not agree with this?
If people think “A+” is too arrogant and superior (and yes, I know they’ll come up with something to complain about no matter what), what about just reversing it? “+A”? Shorthand for both “Positive Atheism” and “plus Atheism” as in “(good causes, social justice, etc.) plus Atheism”?
I’m with you, Jen. And I really like Sassafras’ version of the logo. +A really works.
I for one am entirely comfortable communicating gloating self-satisfaction when the contrast at issue is with drooling bigots.
Plenty of religious believers are solidly intelligent and humane, and it’s stupid to pretend to “bright”ness superiority over them (though we should remember that the creators of the “bright” label had no such intention… though, as usual, Intent Isn’t Magic). Misogynists and transphobes and the like, whatever their (ir)religious status, are another matter entirely.
This emotional ploy might have been more effective if theists hadn’t been using the phony “you’re a religion too!” tactic on atheists for decades. It was bullshit when they said it and it’s bullshit when you say it.
I suspect that a lot of the misogynists are post religious individuals who have not shed all their patriarchical indoctrination. As they are replaced by “uncontaminated” atheists the quest for equality should become much closer to moot. Thankfully most people who escape from religion are not in this category.
I believe that second generation atheists will be less influenced by societal pressure and biblical nonsense.
UU is an overall good thing for people who want the church experience without most of the baggage of particular religions. But from what I’ve heard, there is a lot of variation between UU congregations. Some are more atheist-friendly than others. Some have great sex ed programs. Some are more woo-heavy than atheists tend to like. Some are more Christian-esque than atheists tend to like. Some are LGBT-friendly, but not all are.
I’m new to discovering the “Atheism/Skeptic” community. It appears you feel I’ve rehashed an old criticism. Can you elaborate?
There’s a lot of (justified) excitement downthread about “A+,” but can I put in a vote for “inclusive atheism” as the long-form title? “A+” makes a great logo, but I think “inclusive” is better for the literal spelled-out title than “plus.”
Love the A+ idea and I think it will survive/transcend the “brights” association. It has a good feel. Where Atheism is not really a system of belief but just the lack of a god belief, though I do identify as an atheist, I also think Agnostic applies, and African (as we all are) then adding the plus can encompass sexism, racism and other bigotries, humanism, free thought, skepticism and the community writ large.
Love the post. This is really brilliant and I really hope that we have marked the high tide in this discussion followed by real thoughtful and effective commitment to solve these problems together in a meaningful and constructive way.
Glad to be even a very latecomer to the pile on of support I’m seeing here. :)
Problem is that your #1 can be paraphrased as “lie back and think of the movement, baby”.
No movement that just wants my support but doesn’t want to support me is one I want to belong to.
Dear Jen,
I am a member of the Boy’s Club by default, but I completely agree with you. I will speak up when called upon.
Do you think the “+” has this problem? (Not a rhetorical question; I’m genuinely interested.)
How utterly bizarre.
This is most definitely not a fact. Where’s your evidence? This is a bullshit poorly thrown together hypothesis that’s failed to gather any conclusive or major evidence since it was proposed in the Victorian Era.
Amazing! Everything I wanted to comment about resolved itself the further I read, everything was already written down. Thank you for your courage, for enduring all the hate from people who should be on the side of reason and for carrying on.
Just saying YAY!
Werd. And that’s why they are squeeeling like the alien spawn that jumped out of that guys chest in the movie…. not just in this community – but in the world.
I’m sorry, but that’s a terrible idea. That directly cedes “atheist” to the bigots.
Not to mention that atheism, as such, is overwhelmingly socially salient in a huge proportion of the world. Giving up that place in the societal conversation would be a huge mistake.
Jen’s idea is to improve the atheist movement, not to abandon it.
Sounds good. Where do I sign up?
I thought that was the Atheist People’s Front.
The number of replies on a Reddit thread increases over time and the proportion of negative or hostile comments can also change. I’m skeptical that you can support your claim that RW “lied” unless you have a screen shot of that thread on that subreddit from the moment in time Rebecca started writing her blog post.
I like Sassafras’ +A idea. It’s inclusive (not geeks-only), it avoids school-grade associations, and it would make an equally nice SurlyRamic.
As a part of many movements – it undermines my credibility to quietly tolerate it where I see it…. I don’t understand why this is hard to understand.
I do understand people in the groups not enjoying layers of privilege…not having the energy to do battle all day all night…
So people need to step up. If you are willing able…learn all you can, assess self and speak up, take responsibility, address issues has the come up and don’t make it about yourself.
Thank you so much for writing this. Point me to the new wave of non-douchey atheism and I will be there. Tell me how I can help get others there. I would love to feel safe in the atheism community. I don’t.
Angie the Anti-Theist
I never said you weren’t a full human being. You’strawmanning/kicking down wide open doors. Not interested in a fallacy orgy, sorry.
During the Civil War the same thing was said about the institution of slavery. True fact.
Count me in, too. :)
Jen, posts like this are why you will continue to be an “up-and-coming student leader” of this movement, and why the privilege-blind wing will not be able to change that.
Is anyone else amazed and thrilled by the comments in this thread? There have been very few critical posts among an overwhelmingly positive response. Magnificent.
Indeed brother.
Uh, the movement already exists. It’s that thing with which you keep telling everyone that you have a problem. And it’s different enough from the parts of various movements of atheism and skepticism that Jen thought it might be time that we have an identifier so that we don’t have to keep having conversations with people who want to complain about someone else getting feminist or anti-racist chocolate in their variously cisgender heterosexual white male atheist/skeptic entertainment peanut butter. Because there is always some jackass who has to tell others what things don’t go together, and what blogger who identifies as atheist can write about on their atheist blog.
Sometimes having an identifier clears the issue up front.
But saying that people are patting themselves on the back (and who were these people, anyway?) for designing a logo for something which does not yet exist makes you ignorant, a hypocrite, a liar, or some combination thereof. That thing which annoys everyone so much which Skepchick and FTB and and all sorts of people have been doing? Yeah, the identifiers are for that.
People keep lumping me into it, and trying to foist “membership duties” onto me, but I’ve always felt incredibly alienated from and by it. I’m really happy that other people are willing to help fight it.
Hanannibal – a least your ‘side’ might find it a little harder to wax lyrical about how FtBs/Skepchick are destroying the atheist movement? Unless you want to keep them in and this A+ thing is just splitting the cause.
Anyway I’m sure there are lots of ways you can take the piss out of it so everyone is happy!
First….many of us came to anti-theism and atheism – not through philosophy but through actual oppression by religions forces. See: women, LGBTQ, people with disabilities, people of color etc…Being told you are not a real person, a full human being, an abomination, a curse has it’s effects on a human psyche. It often means that our lack of religion is directly as result of the experience OF religion.
When we find we receive the same treatment in the non-theist community we generally speaking are greatly saddened. What we thought might be a refuge…is not.
Unless and of course it becomes commonplace in that “community” to be heard and respect. To have our motives respected when we criticize from within that community.
This A+ happening is a potentially extremely powerful and healing experience. It is possible that Iwill not shy away from identifying more openly and aggressively because on the whole I will be less embarrassed to be potentially associated with hateful, self satisfied, blinkered, priveleged, clueless people.
There are indeed many more of us – and will be should the movement actually become a REAL movement through some serious if you will forgive the term….soul searching. That is the ONLY way to grow and go global and not just be a club for white dudes who agree with each other about philosophy and shit.
Exactly.
What an inspiring post!
FWIW, count me in.
How do you keep a broad base of people who disagree with 90% of what you’re about? People who want to drag you in the opposite direction?
Thank you for noting that a culture of misogyny impacts those in the middle – and new gamers – to assume “that’s just how it is”….and so it not only stays that way but new generations of people who do not care are created…because culture replicates memes. We CREATE culture.
The problem I see is that, for the people that have become disenfranchised with the movement, a splinter has to not end up being what is going on now- bickering back and forth. I’ve lost interest because of the sexist and etc… crap, and frankly if I were to get involved again I wouldn’t want to just see more of this same rehashing with the “A+”s devoting a bunch of energy to treating the sexist people like they are saying anything that’s valid or in any way not just trolling.
The only way I’d care to be in any of this community again is if they were just dealt with coldly and quickly- you crack your bigotted stuff, it’s deleted and you’re warned, do it again and you’re gone. Same with speakers, etc… You vent your bigotry once and you’re just told if it happens again we won’t have a part with you. No long debates, no blogstorms, etc… Kick the trolls out. Do not feed them. And be done with it.
We don’t treat people spewing outright racism as if they’ve something intelligent and worthwhile to contribute so it’s far past time we don’t treat those unapologetically spewing sexism, ablism, cissexism, heterosexism, etc… as if they’ve given us something worth debate. It isn’t advanced stuff, they don’t need endless lectures, excuses of just being ignorant, and handholding to get it. No more excuses. No more caring about engaging them because all they do is thrive on the attention you give their bigotry. And as we as a community seem to have an untiring patience for giving these people a podium, I doubt that this will happen. If some good splinter movement does come up, and doesn’t fall into the trappings of being defined by a constant battle with the current privileged cis straight white male middleclass one, then maybe I’ll have the energy to care but… I’ll believe it when I see it. For now, the boys club won and I have no desire to be associated with it nor the energy to constantly combat it.
and now I want pizza
Oh. So very much this.
Well. That didn’t take long. Who said i felt uncomfortable? Did you even read the first couple of paragraphs, or did it all get forgotten the second you read something you disagreed with?
Also, you don’t know me. You have no idea what issues i may be dealing with that could put me in a similar – if not the same – position of fear. But that’s okay, leap to conclusions. It seems a popular pastime.
No one is right all the time… not even me. (Someone record the date; this may be the first time in the entire epic saga that seems to have reached the public eye with Elevatorgate in which someone actually admitted the possibility that they might be even a little bit wrong.) I can only tell you what i read, and how the discussions hit me as someone that had no axe to grind in the debate.
I feel terrible for women like Rebecca and Jen (just to name two.) No deserves the BS they have been subject to just for saying there was a problem that should be addressed. Not ever. There’s a lot of folks on the “other side” of this debate that i’d love to slap upside the head for being hardheaded, sociopathic dipsticks. There’s a genuine problem here that hurts a lot of real people, and they’re too busy bandying semantics and playing their skeptic games that they can’t see there are times when the evidence they are seeking is hidden for damned good reasons.
People want to be condescending because i point out something they don’t like, fine. Knock yourselves out. You’re not hurting me. You’re so tied up in your anger that once again, you beat on someone that WANTS to stand with you, but because he doesn’t agree with you on every point, must be turned away. And before someone says it, no, i don’t feel like any sort of a martyr.
Jen, i’m sorry for what you have gone through. I hope the day comes when you and every other woman – or LGBT person for that matter – can feel safe wherever they go.
I’d suggest that maybe you should look at how you’re communicating, because several of us seem to have read your comments in the same way. For me, the things in your original post that stand out are:
“I have exactly no evidence on which to base a judgement of the seriousness of this problem.”
If you have “exactly no evidence” the fault lies with you. As I said, there is plenty of evidence. If you have no evidence, that is because you have not looked for it, nor have you listened. Is your expectation that everyone who cares about this issue should take the time to give you a basic education before we can get on talking about how to solve the problem? Can you see how that expectation may be perceived as unreasonable?
“If in fact that passage is a good representation of how safe women actually are then the solution needed is radically different than if the problem is online trolls making everything less pleasant and creating fear and intimidation.”
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Do you feel that it is impossible to take action until we understand all aspects of the problem? Do you require 100% of the details of a problem before you start to solve it?
How do you feel our actions would change based on the two (not mutually exclusive, and not an exhaustive list, btw) realities you suggest? Why do you think others have not already tried to take action based on either of those contingincies? Are you aware that there are over 5 decades now of serious research on the issue of sexism and women’s safety?
When you say that you feel we need more information before we can take correct action, it feels like a stalling or diversionary tactic because a) there is information, certainly enough that we have an idea of SOME actions we can take (anti-harrassment policies are a step in the right direction) and b) telling people to hold their horses until we have more information is a long, long history of holding back equal rights movements of ALL types.
…though honeslty, I should be more kind to Drive By jacktrollinson, …a name I affectionally called him everytime dropped insinuating liners, then scurying off before the moderation radar picks up his offense over at Pharyngula. Until that is, PZ gave him the righteous and well deserved permaban smackdown. Alhtough it should be said, I can’t really take anyone seriously who does that…but I am told in good debate one must give person who takes the time out to explain their views the benefit of the doubt.
So let’s look at this from a skeptical point of view. jackrawlinson tend to always show up at FtB when women’s issues are being discussed. And he shows up to diss those bloggers who are trying to discuss proactive and progressive debates about it. Though he never claims he’s an out right sexist…it does appear from his posting habits that he does have issues that gives preference to women. Thus I think he despises women given any sort of preference what-so-ever. So cryptically he’s likely a misogynist not a rationalist as he indicates. Though he uses the launguge.
So yeah…he has women issues. And he probably doesn’t like them very much outside the porn/sex industry. And is especially uncomfortable with giving them any equal footing. Therefore, quite likely being a bigot. Since there is no other convincing and compelling reasons why he would reject Jen’s post.
It’s too bad though, he covers this up with flowery launguage instead of just telling us the real reason why he’s posting about it. /sigh
lol. scientific skepticism is something people do, and people never exist outside of the kyriarchy. As a result, scientific skepticism as actually practiced in the real world absolutely is influenced and shaped by privilege, gender, wealth, or politics. Because the humans doing it are.
Pete, I don’t think so. I think its like the aphorism about teaching a pig to whistle.
I think you just don’t. Atheism, skepticism, secularism, rationalism – those opinions, viewpoints and ways of thinking are not movements, nor where they ever capable of becoming movements. The question anyone considering joining a movement should ask themselves is this: what do I need to accomplish? If the atheist’s rejection of god is in part a reaction to political circumstance -eg an oppressive theocratic régime the atheist has to live under-, then atheism can become political. It can also be the reaction to an oppressive socio-cultural environment.
In this case however, the amalgamation of a new ‘movement’ that’s never going to work, built on top of the smouldering ruins of the perceived ‘old atheist movement’, which has always been a figment of the imagination anyway, this amalgamation, must find its targets first. And what motivation would true sceptics and rational thinkers have to join a movement, the plurality of which woul, hypothetically speaking, be subscribed to oppressive, anti-free speech kookeries?
Damn that was some good blogging there Jen…Add my voice to the chorus; we are winning and this is not the time to take our foot off the gas.
Awesome. What a fantastic post. Thank you.
Seems to me atheism the philosophical term merely means the lack of belief in gods.
But atheism the movement can—and, in the opinion of what is clearly a large number of us, should—stand for vastly more.
Is there something problematic about this?
(Not that you are implying there is, Pteryxx.)
It doesn’t bend anywhere. You bend it. We bend it – I hope.
I’ve noticed that some women will pander to the lesser evolved in their blog/googleplus/whatever readerships by posting sexist content. They seem to think that will get them accepted as “one of the boys.” That is a huge mistake. It sets the progress gained from earlier feminist efforts back, and makes those women just as sexist and offensive as the men whose favor they seek.
This this a thousand times THIS!
This is why as an ex-Mormon I was so stoked to find an Atheist/Skeptic community in the first place. Onward, to the future! :D
A+ Atheism and secular Humanism rolled into one.
Not much to add to this post and comments, other than to support.
And those who want to use abusive behaviour to maintain their sense of status don’t deserve support – unless its to mend their personal issues.
You’re disgusting.
I’d like to know what Jen thinks of the “A+.” It’s clearly going over like gangbusters on this thread (and I’m not complaining), but does our host like the direction her commentariat is taking her “new wave of atheism” suggestion?
As an atheist who spent seven years as a UU, I feel compelled to point out that the picture is not always so rosy. The short version is that a large number of very powerful people within UUism are staunchly and loudly opposed to outspoken atheism, and they express this perspective in ways that very much disrespect the First Principle (not to mention the Fourth).
Please have a look at what Adam Lee (an atheist UU) and I have written on the subject; one place to start, which includes links to some others, is here.
That is not at all what I said. I said tell me one time, one example of those reasoned alternative responses to the documented problem of sexism at atheist conventions. And you can’t. And you try to hide behind poor, feeble you, can’t be arsed to not spout shit without finding out if you can back it up first, we should feel sorry for you simply making a “mistake”. Well, it’s not a mistake. You’re poisoning the well by claiming things that aren’t true, and nobody stands for that.
Carlie said (#272.1),
Really? Then maybe you missed Massimo Pigliucci’s comments on The Misogyny Wars which addressed the topic, his “reasoned, alternate solutions” essentially consisting of this:
Now, one might criticize that as being a little too vague, a little too “motherhood and apple-pie”-ish, but the article by Russell Blackford that he linked to discussed some problems and solutions in more detail. However, the fly in the ointment exemplifying Bob Moynihan’s point about “party line brands” is that Massimo noted the following:
However while he also noted in his P.P.S. that he hadn’t expected that he would actually be accused of that, one might reasonably argue that several subsequent criticisms of him by, among others, Ophelia Benson, Melody, Sally Strange & Rebecca Watson for an insufficiently militant allegiance to the feminist “party line brand” is virtually tantamount to a charge of misogyny: “if you’re not with us then you’re against us”. But for instance, this comment by Melody:
Considering that Ophelia can draw some parallels between Nazi Germany and TAM – oppressing the Jews; oppressing The Sisterhood – and that Paula Kirby can likewise point to some fascistic tendencies in feminism, and that at least some segments of the MRM show the same tendencies, I hardly see it is much of a stretch, at least for those still with a foot or two in the skeptic camp, to think that there are some problematic parallels between “the feminist movement” and the MRAs. That Melody at least seems to balk at that possibility tends to justify the conclusion that some feminists at least are overly committed to that particular brand – maybe that their emotion is clouding their judgement?
Yes, because it’s trivially pronounceable (“ay plus”), so it functions as a verbal modifier. The ‘purist’ line will be “I don’t need to add anything to my atheism. Atheism is good in and of itself.”
I want to add that other than this vulnerability, I think A+ is clever. I was never really irritated with the Brights label like some were, and A+ seems reminiscent of that.
A+ will isolate us, though.
I get that people need to make some kind of statement, but there isn’t a specific need for [adjective] atheism or atheism[modifier].
There is a general need to say “we are the future of atheism and you can’t stop us!” That’s what I want too. It’s just that there are other ways to achieve this without isolating ourselves.
…or “To The Right”?
No, thanks.
Well…this is one more blogger in my google reader feed. Great post.
What you don’t get is that you, and this crap you just posted here – essentially “Shut up wimmun, your concerns aren’t valid and there isn’t a real problem other than your damn whining” – is the proof that we need a culture change, and that there is a problem that needs fighting.
You can be right in practice – and to the degree you are right I think you would be surprised that there is broad agreement that this is a bad thing. Biases in conclusions, and even more subtle biases as to which questions we address – are corruptive.
However, the claim that the tools of the scientific and skeptical enterprise are inherently biased is simply not the case. There is no “privileged white male” T-test, for example.
This is why broad inclusion is very healthy, as is discord. More diversity becomes a further advantage. I suspect we don’t actually disagree on this, but emphasize different points.
Best wishes.
I really like the green reflective logo, Jadehawk, not least because it does contain the idea of reflection, reflective thought. I also like that the A looks like it has one foot planted firmly in a negative (skepticism) but is stepping out firmly into a positive (humanism) – both aspects are important to me. Can I go ahead and start using it? I want to set it as my FaceBook avatar.
A very latecomer to the horde that this post has de-lurked. Nothing to add. I’ve been disgusted by what I have seen over the past year with much of the atheist/skeptical movement. If it is just another movement that panders to white men frightened by social change, then stuff it. I can join the Tea Party or the local Baptist church and get that. Thanks for everything you and the others are doing to make atheism something worthwhile.
Gah! The purple circle becomes pink in the simplified version!
The A+ designs are interesting.
*raises rock hammer*
There it is folks:
I predict that you will never see this charge backed by anything remotely resembling evidence, no matter who says it: Not backed by a real or metaphorical Paula Kirby, Phil Mason, or Richard Dawkins. Detractors seem merely resentful about the admixture of Feminist/Race/Gender politics with their pure, pure “Atheism” (unless, of course, that admixture benefits them or their own agenda).
The closest any detractor will (or can) get will be to complain about stridency and whine about “free speech” — never bothering to highlight exactly what is “strident”, explain how anyone’s ability to express was threatened, or acknowledge the supreme irony of a complaint made about free speech simultaneously juxtaposed against a complaint about stridency!
I counter accuse: Nothing but sour grapes!
Great post, Jen. I met you at the Rapture RAM in Oakland last year, and I remember feeling such pride in our movement when you and Greta called out one of the other speakers on some sexist comments in his talk. The other guys I spoke to at the meeting were supportive too, which felt doubly great. Then came Rebecca’s innocuous comment, followed by some seriously disappointing behavior by Dawkins, Shermer, DJ, Thunderf00t and a few dozen misogynist lunatics. Wow. I hope it’s still possible for the atheist and skeptic movements to tame the wild bunch, but there is no excuse for what you and so many other atheist women have had to put up with. If A+ is the answer, rock on.
(looks like I broke the reply-to thread)
Thanks for the shout-out, but I also disagree with your #1 there.
I don’t want a big tent, like you want.
And I don’t want a divider in the tent, or an extension of the tent, or a second tent, like A+.
I want to push the racists and misogynists and other regressives right out of the tent.
(I want them to eventually feel like atheism per se is too progressive for them, so that they want to rebrand themselves.)
Agreed.
O noez! She made a joke about her ass! That must be punished by threatening her with rape! It must, I tell you!!!1!eleventyeleven!!
You don’t exactly look at the screen when you type, do you?
“Feel” is the operative word here. You “feel” unsafe, you “feel” that you’re winning. In the scheme of things, FTB and Skepchick are insignificant in this movement and they’ve both been criticised roundly by some of the biggest playiers in this movement.
I am truly sorry that you feel the way you do, but the bottom line is that feelings are not facts.
Jen
Just remember these insults and threats come from complete inadequates – unfortunately there are many vociferous ignorant and inadequate people out there
I wish you strength.
Larkness
Thank you for your note. I have no intention of telling anyone how to feel. All I am claiming is that not all feelings are sensible or valid. This is a core scientific insight, and should not be surprising. For example, many fear terrorists or guns, while alcohol and autos are far more deadly.
I also (and absolutely) do not claim to be above this – and understand that our feelings are shaped by our experiences and predispositions. As to the ugly and often illegal threats cited and posted – although as a male I don’t have associated fear or risk – for different reasons I hate these threats and the hatred evidenced. Firstly, as a human I am disgusted that fellow humans would write such things. I am inclined to defend my fellows and a movement I associate myself with – from such base filth. Lastly I am perplexed at the confusion of wanton trolling with fair criticisms of skepticism being confused with humanist or political goals.
As to how we could evaluate this issue ? Quantify the outcome variables and compare with matched cohorts. How safe ARE women at TAM compared to the places of work, homes, other meetings, etc ? Feelings aside – pretty safe I suspect, but we all bow to data and I am vulnerable to disproof.
Thank you
Ugly. Looks like a bad commercial ad.
Wonderful post and wonderful discussion in the comments (if the 50 comments in that I’ve read is any indication – I only stopped because I had to post this!). What I love about the active movements (atheism and/or skepticism) is that it has forced me to question not only my thinking, but my behavior. Thanks Jen for keeping my eyes wide open.
And as everyone’s been saying: sign me up.
I’ve always worried about Atheism as a label because the word seems to represent only part of a much bigger picture. Well, if we accept that we are going to use the word “atheism” for our entire set of principles, then Inclusive Atheism is a pretty good proposal. And, Pteryxx, I do like A+ as a logo. And thanks for a brilliant post, Jen.
“Inclusive Atheist” is a label I can get behind!
Great article Jennifer. I liked it for exposing the misogynist elements of the atheist community but also for a look at the underlying “Robin Hood” complex that permeates so many ‘critical’ groups today.
It is in the latter regard that I address the following suggestion. It seems to me that the whole movement of atheism is irretrievably locked into that sort of “Robin Hood” complex that generates the type of behavior you find so reprehensible. [I write this, I should add, from the comfort of a nation (Canada) where extremely conservative and/or extremely irrational religious thinking belongs to a minority.]
There is something inherent in the idea of a group that is opposed to another that generates this mentality.
Perhaps a recognition that there is and are many free-thinkers within religion, and hence that religion per se is not the enemy but rather the sort of irrational thinking in religion. In this way, you might recognize that the same traits you opposed in religion are found in the atheist community, and conversely, some that you called enemies are much better allies.
Understanding that free-thinking is also first and foremost a charitable thinking (hence an ethics) will go a long way to understanding how religion can serve a meaningful role in a rational life by encouraging and emphasizing those very ethics that are often the first to fall away in the rationalist life – just take a look at the sociological analysis of anomie, atomism, and solipsisms (all notions with deep connections to philosophically rational perspectives).
This is where you are going wrong.
“Superior” is a loaded term with a fuzzy meaning that supposedly indicates “better” without ever naming the terms of comparison. Let’s walk through a thought experiment! How are men superior physically in some ways? Do you mean upper body strength? So what if men generally have more upper body strength? How does that make their body strength superior? Is more always better? So what if a man can lift a bigger rock than a woman? with no tools? There are tools. There are people to help. The rock gets lifted either way. Who cares how?
If you consider being able to lift a heavier rock with no tools and no help “superior,” that’s all on you. It’s a personal preference for the use of the term, and there is no necessary reason for calling the bare-handed solo method superior to the tool-using or cooperation method. That is your personal bias.
Maybe not your exact personal bias and maybe you agree with me on the whole rock-lifting dilemma, but you can extrapolate to other examples and see what I’m getting at.
Jen, I love you to bits. If I had a granddaughter I would wish she were you. I’m all in. And for jadehawk re a logo, try using the red A with the plus sign raised and to the right. As in A to the + power.
Once more into the breach my friends…
Seconding love for the green logo.
I vote something along the lines of “universal scepticism”.
Great post. Count me in!
And then there’s this. The INTENT of Title IX was to remove discrimination that kept women from participating in all kinds of federally funded educational/collegiate endeavors, from science to sports. Title IX concerned itself not at all with increasing the total number of students participating in sports, or increasing the number of sports. Are women participating more in everything from science to sports and facing less discrimination? That’s the question you have to answer before writing off Title IX as a horrible idea and/or failure.
Resources are scarce. There’s no right to play rugby under the college umbrella. And there are other ways to reduce the number of male athletes without cutting entire sports, and schools have the freedom to choose how they do it. But where sports meets academics meets college meets money is a huge topic that would derail this conversation. I only bring it up because men playing rugby within an official college athletics department supported by college money is the kind of very specific example that has nothing to do with why Title IX was enacted in the first place, and is kind of a red herring.
We lurkers are like the Grey Host; call upon us and we’ll come thundering from beyond the pale.
+A is MUCH better….and avoids that front of the class teacher’s pet thing as well… And to be honest… social justice comes first for me… Atheism is a philosophic position I arrived at having been oppressed by religion (among other things…)
So YES!
Uh. Sure they are. I understand this can be hard to grok by those that think atheism/skepticism must be done by everyone pretending to be Spock-Mentat hybrid, but that’s not really how humans operate.
The way one feels in a given situation is extremely valuable data, as shown by research on chilly climate and stereotype threat.
Damn, but you’re ignorant. Go back to the beginning and read all of the actual firsthand accounts of actual harassment, and then come back and say feelings aren’t facts.
Deep Rifts! Deep Rifts! Deep Rifts!
I’m so on this side of the Rifts, which honestly cannot be too Deep if they separate me from people who think rape and death threats are amusing and/or appropriate responses to anything,
Confounding expression of your privilege(s) will get you kicked out of the Boys Club fast enough, not to worry.
Do wish people who enjoy certain privileges (me white, generally straight) would stop apologizing for it. There is not need… what there is a need for is to actively undermine those systems where and when you can.
You need not apologize for the skin you were born into. IMHO.
Simply be an active traitor to this system of privileges.
So links to posts or comments expressing threats of rape and violence are no facts? Feelings are not facts you are right, however cornering people in elevators or alone in rooms are facts. Do those count or are you going to now say well those aren’t really harassment, besides no one saw them.
Never mind–question answered!
(Reading this thread took so long I didn’t notice Jen had posted again.)
In French, A+ is short for à plus, which means things like “see you later”.
What u r describing Jen is atheism plus humanism. Humanists stand for all these positive things….but a few may believe in a god. They..like all humanists…believe it is we humans who must solve our problems without supernatural appeal or intervention. So I favor your term ‘atheism plus’. The plus may then be simply explained as humanism….instead of having to enumerate all we stand for. Other options might be pantheism or humatheism.
We’re not talking about scumbags here. We’re talking about bigots. Having bigots in the movement alienates the people who are the targets of the bigotry. Failing to kick the bigots out ensures that the movement will always remain small.
How telling that you can’t seem to process that groups can grow without relying on adding more white men in order to do so.
Very well said. I was worried you were going to drop out of the movement altogether, which would have been a huge loss. Count me among the members of your boys and girls club!
Well, I guess it’s back to the tattoo parlor for that ‘+’.
Ah, great to see a fellow female vet tech. atheist. Back to the subject: I really do hope that this A+ movement gains more than majority status so I and other women will feel comfortable to attend meetings and participate online as an “out” female. When I attend a meeting about atheism/skepticism to discuss the relevant topics I want to be without worry that fellow attendees will have another motive in being personable. As an aspie [Asperger’s] I have already been victim to mixed motives from several males in my life starting at age 5 or 6. I do not want to have to be suspicious of all males I talk to online or in person that are in the atheist/skeptic movement.
A lurker delurking. Yes, yes, yes! I’m with you Jen! Love ya!
I registered just to comment on this and I wanted to say: Jen- Don’t let the haters get you down. You are doing great work and I think A+ is an awesome idea.
Males for 3rd wave atheism!!!!
Outstanding article. Thanks so much for posting. While we may not agree on our view of religion, I think it’s time that we took the power in our movement away from the scientists and started to give it to the activists; the ones that care about change and equality and not selling books.
You know I’m a scientist, right? ;)
Sorry I’m late.
I’m ready.
THIS. THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!
:D
For those who don’t know about the differences in brains between the sexes:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=brain+development+differences+gender
For how title 9 is killing men’s sports…
http://savingsports.blogspot.com/2010/12/john-stossel-on-unintended-effects-of.html
http://espn.go.com/espnw/title-ix/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports
Which again points out it is the IMPLEMENTATION not the intent that is the problem, just as I stated.
And for Karen, yes, the strongest men physically can lift far more than a women can. THAT IS A VALID COMPARISON and IT DOES SHOW THAT IN SOME WAYS MEN ARE PHYSICALLY SUPERIOR. And, I also stated there are ways in which women are physically superior. The point is, there ARE real differences, and to argue there isn’t or that they are meaningless is to ignore reality. Even around our office, men do the vast majority of the lifting of office equipment because, in the vast majority of the cases, the men are physically better suited to doing so, being stronger, taller and having better leverage. To try and insure that women do the same job as the men is simply not directly feasible in almost every environment. Nor is it really necessary. As long as all the work is getting done, nobody really cares that the women take on the majority of some other office tasks as it all balances out in the end.
WHY would we take any power away from scientists? And just what POWER do you think they have? Are facts, logic, rational thought and an ability to use their education now considered some kind of super power??
I want MORE scientists in this world, and I only wish they actually were able to wield some real power.
I have never been a member of an atheist organization and I was horrified and surprised to learn that atheist men were treating women so badly. I, naively too, thought that atheists and more rational people in general would all be feminists and strident defenders of civil rights for all legitimate claimants and would act appropriately.
Hypothesis: men who attend atheist/sceptic conventions are more likely to be misogynist a**holes/bigots than atheists who stay home. If true, perhaps we find better ways to convince more of the atheist community to attend (especially folks who are not hetero white males).
As I believe that atheism will eventually be the default worldview and the need to espouse and defend it will fall away, hopefully within my son’s lifetime, it will necessarily have become the widest tent. So, one way to see the task could be to find a way where one who is “of course” an atheist is also, “of course” a feminist, and general, all-around strong supporter of equality for all. I think it is a great idea that atheist groups, in other words, should attempt to explicitly hold more in common than nonbelief in god(s). Perhaps this ‘more in common’ starts as simply rules for behavior at meetings or in public. (Also, a metaethics, like Sean Carrol has noted is largely missing, needs to be worked out – or at least better presented as such to this community by philosophers and other critical thinkers.)
Would it be enough of a start to have such rules/laws written down, widely known, and enforced in the main (national/transnational) atheist groups? Whatever it takes so that we can actually inherit and make our own the values of the enlightenment, extended far beyond what some of the enlightenment thinkers considered, no doubt. Sapere aude.
…meanwhile, while having a chuckle at taking back what is ours, you might want to look behind you. As we’re in the process of dumping our tea leaves in the Slimepit harbor. Viva la revolucion, moron.
QFT. To pretend that atheism has nothing to do with social justice issues is to gut it and leave no more than an intellectual conceit: factually correct, certainly, but of no particular relevance to anyone’s life.
Definitely an A+ OP!
Interesting article and I’m sorry to hear about the apparently extensive nature of the sexual harassment you’ve been subjected to.
However, I can’t help but note several problematic statements of yours. For instance, I really don’t see that “Paula Kirby decided we’re all feminazis and femistasis” is particularly accurate or credible as I read that article of hers quite closely and I see nothing like that at all. In addition, while I’ll concede that many of the “men” – and I use the term loosely – commenting about the “15 year old girl” and her receiving a Carl Sagan book were at least boors, I would say that the young lady in question was anything but “nonsexual”, as Rebecca Watson argued, as her own comment which initiated that sequence betrayed a sexual knowledge that belied her tender years. In addition, I wonder if you might point me to the page on Skepchick where Ms. Watson has listed all of the “rape and death threats” she has received – as Richard Dawkins has done with his posting of the letters and threats he has received on “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” pages of his website.
Seems to me that if you want to make a credible case for your argument you might want to be more circumspect about making categorical statements or ones with insufficient evidence to justify them. Tends to raise a question or two about the rest of the arguments presented …
Great post. So jealous that I can’t be this articulate. Want to add:
Atheists plus pro GLBT rights.
Atheists plus pro immigration policies.
Mostly, thanks for being great. Don’t let the bastards get you down.
So fucking what, you boring doodad.
Two comments:
First, thank you! Thank you for the wake up call, for putting into words what needs to be a serious part of a dialog that focuses on aspiring to be the best we can, as opposed to merely presuming that being an atheist makes one part of a superior subset of society. Rational criticism is best served evenhandedly. So very true.
Next, like so many others, I also find the A+ concept appealing. I’d like to explain why it appeals to me, not as a badge of superiority, but as a catchy logo to help identify support for the positive aspirations so eloquently spelled out here. The term ‘atheist’ is a very simple description, after all: it describes a person who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods. No more, no less. The A+ concept, however, not only emphasizes positive aspirations, but also signifies the addition of something more to the plain fact of atheism.
Why add something else? Because, as we all know, being an atheist (i.e., being overtly free from theism) does not in and of itself mean that the person so described does not still suffer from, or even desperately cling to, many of the worst aspects of faith-based prejudice, sexism, unmitigated arrogance, irrationality, or violence. The ‘+’ indicates there is something more.
Not a bad conversation starter!
Delurkin too to say to count me in. A+ all the way ^^
This has gone on for so long, and had so many threads on many boards that seriously, to find a specific thread is a virtual impossibility, However, there was one thread i read in which a person familiar with venue security mentioned that those that felt they were sexually harassed should report the situation to venue security. He gave a very detailed, logical explanation of how venue security worked, what their job was, and why, regardless of the event or organization using the venue, the person feeling victimized should avail themselves of the venue security team. The poster, who was VERY supportive imho, was virtually disemboweled by the FTB community.
Go ahead, feel morally superior. The fact of the matter is, there are people that want to be allies that this community has turned away. you don’t want to acknowledge it, not my problem.
As i said before, good luck.
Actually, I would suggest having more than a single design. Part of the idea of inclusion means allowing a variety of expressions and iterations.
If the symbols are consistent, a multitude of logos will still communicate the same message. Together in their diversity, they also communicate one of the larger points we are trying to make.
One option for an A+ image.
Inclusive atheism… now there’s a label we can all support :)
I can pick up and carry significantly more weight than any of the men I work with.
Who is physically superior now?
An atheist movement that doesn’t seek to promote social justice is merely a group of people being mean at the religious and gullible (which I believe is all the misogyny brigade is here for).
I’m for social justice… where do I sign?
First off: Great post, Jen!
Second: I disagree, Gregory, because I think the problem isn’t that “just atheism” were inherently not enough substance for a good movement, and more that some assholes think that they can push others around without repercussion.
Yes yes yes!
I’m not sure if a new A+ movement that includes a left-progressive view on social issues (which I happen to share) is the answer to this problem — after all, it’s perfectly ok for secularists and skeptics to disagree on issues of social justice, politics, feminism or whatever.
I’m really sure though that people who erupt in verbal violence at the first hint of disagreement (seriously, rape threats as an argument for/against anything? wtf?), and who claim that opposition to bullying in the movement amounts to mission drift should be excluded from ANY movement that is concerned with ANY worthwhile cause, and specifically skepticism. Because they’re simply assholes who want to keep bullying without repercussions. Because they make constructive debate and action impossible. Because they are great examples of irrational hate-filled bullying, i.e. of not-skeptical thinking.
Ha! I might have to plagiarize this.
Long time FTB reader, first time commenter. De-lurking, with rock fingers in the air, to say “wheeeeeee! count me in!”.
And now I go back to preparing for a committee meeting.
Just adding my voice to the support. Let’s make this bowel movement into a movement. Nothing else to say that hasn’t been said already, but I’m adding a “+” to my atheist A T-shirt.
1. You need to read more research on what differences there are and and what the potential impacts *may* be.
2. Who cares? Brain differences and their potential effects are not relevant to THIS topic in any way shape or form.
3. Stop derailing.
Sine,
First of all, welcome.
Second, your accidental comment about entomology reminded me of an XKCD comic, number 1012. If you’ve never read XKCD, I recommend it.
Dammit, one day late and I’m already at the bottom of a thread long enough to build the biggest ball of twine in minnesota.
You have my axe.
“See you later, assholes who are clinging to misogyny and bigotry” …jerk.
That’s great, but are you trying to imply that your situation is the norm in most places? I would assume the answer to that is no. You might, after all, be working at a nursing home surrounded by men all in their 80’s and beyond. I’m willing to bet that I could out lift you and as could many of the men that I work, play or just hang around with. And I am 44 years old with a blown out knee, serious shoulder damage and related back muscle atrophy. Of course, I work out regularly and did a lot of PT to overcome those injuries, but while I am pretty fit, there are plenty of men in better shape than I am. I do work at a military facility with plenty of women in that gym. Not ONE woman in there can lift as much as I can (set of 10) in ANY category of lifting and many of them are in better physical shape than I am.
I am livid about the hate in the “atheist movement” but I’m honestly not sure what to do. I don’t even like thinking of us as a “movement”. I haven’t moved. I’ve always been here! Yes, I’m one of those privileged people. White, male, cis, grew up middle-class, dull, raised by a feminist mom, can’t match his socks with his sandals, et al.
First, I don’t think that people mistreating one another has anything to do with atheism so if there’s a third wave and it gets back to something more like “secular humanism”, I’m on board. That’s about how people behave with people. If it’s “3rd wave athiesm – now without the trolls” I’m not so sure that’s my thing and I don’t expect it to take off.
Second, I completely forgot that you were “Boobquake Jen”. I just remembered you as funny, athiest Jen who moved to the PNW when I moved away (with a snifle of sorrow for myself) whose blog I read once in a while. There’s an important point you may have to make for folks who show up here on the blog. What’s the difference between you being in control of your body and someone else being in control? What’s the difference between you leading Boobquake vs someone else sexualizing and/or harassing people? Yes, I know the difference but I think that’s fundamental and *probably lost on a lot of folks*. Especially guys who think everything they say and do is driven by some kind of innate logic that trumps anything else. Again, though, this seems more like something humanists or feminists would say than athiests . . .
Third, I’m finished enumerating but everything needs a third, right? Makes it seem more formal and finished.
You have my support for whatever that’s worth.
replace (jonleszczynski),(derailingtroll)
Watch as the majority of secular/skeptic/atheists move away fast from your “movement”…because a real movement involves a diverse range of people. It’s actually you that thought you owned this movement (it’s not one yet)…but what you actually had was a pair of air quotes with nothing in it but a thin thread of non-belief.
This is why people have pointed out building a movement on a negation is a faulty start. It should be obvious why that is now. That was not a movement but a Mutual Admiration and Soft Target Pwnage Society.
New footing – building on solid ground…critical thinking in most cases ends up in a commitment to social justice…
What’s funny to me is you still think you’re being asked for permission to reset the ground rules…. You’re not!
Train is leaving the station….woot!
Feminism is the camouflage word for “feminazi”. It is ofcourse bullshit in the premises of atheism since everything falls under “secular humanism” since the rights of the slaves have been earned. Feminazis are average looking individuals with not much to show for face or body. So since men won’t treat the same pretty vs ugly women feminazis have issues. (Just to let you know, it does happen to men and we don’t complain either)
Do you know why? Because some of us grew up. We accept that life is not fair and that sex is dynamic. We accept that our society will judge people of how they look..in the same way you feel “harassed”, “threatened” or whatever just because some people told you off. Same thing happened with that elevator c*nt. Sad and immature women trying to solve the issues of why they are not getting laid. and no..pink color won’t cut it..i seriously do not understand what is with feminazis and pink hair. I consider myself a freethinker but i came across way too many of you and you do seem like a cult because you look. act and behave the same.
moto: the hate for the phallus.. the bullshit of patriarchy and all that crap.
The only person segregating is you. you think you are being persecuted..you think you are “perfect” but at the same time you attack sexual behaviour because YOU find it inappropriate…you segregate haptic and linguistic behaviour and call it “wrong”…not because of “critical thought” but because you look like an upside-down fuck with no glitter..( and don;t you dare talk to me about rape because most rape happens in families and people that know each other)…what happens in public places though with people wanting to get it on…they will treat a pretty lady like a queen and probably come to you quite rude just for a fuck..because thats the reality…you are not appealing to the current social and sexual trends…sexism will always exist because people need to fuck. people will segregate because sex is a dynamic mechanism that needs competition.
trust me…every time i see a woman or a man like you…i do troll the shit of them because they are mostly psychos that got like that due to luck of sex.
“People shat themselves with rage at the suggestion that cons should have anti-sexual harassment policies.”
If conferences or conventions SHOULD have anti-harassment policies (I’m not 100% convinced that they should or must) then we should be clear here that what we would be, or should be, implementing are *anti-harassment policies*, not *anti-sexual harassment policies*.
I would hope we wouldn’t need to have anti-harassment policies, because I would hope that sensible, reasonable, mature adults can behave respectably – and reasonably, sensibly, tactfully correct any person’s behaviour which is an outlier, which in all but the most extreme cases shouldn’t and wouldn’t involve throwing them out of the conference, and I think, I hope, we can do that as decent human beings without forcing all the adults at the conference to abide by specific behavioural rules set out to them like schoolchildren.
However, I digress. Whether or not harassment policies should exist is basically a separate discussion altogether. For the sake of argument right now let’s suppose yes, they should exist.
If we’re going to have conference anti-harassment policies, then they should be anti-harassment policies, which are drawn up and implemented with the goal of preventing any harassment of any person for any reason. Race, gender, religion, social skills, favourite comic book, whatever. No harassment of anybody, for any reason, is appropriate.
(Of course, before the creationists and anti-vaccinationists jump in, rational, respectable critical debate about your scientific claims and scientific review or debunking of your statements is never harassment of any kind.)
What I’m saying is that preventing harassment is certainly not just about sexual harassment, and it’s not just about women. It’s important to remember that. Men are subject to sexual harassment too. Women and men are both subject to all kinds of harassment, which is undesirable and unacceptable, which is not sexual harassment. It’s crucially important to remember that when framing this discussion.
“You only have to look at the way the vast majority of mammalian inter-sex interactions to conclude that “Mother Nature” wanted the male of the species dominant.”
Honey, why don’t you do yourself a favour and get a copy of Bruce Bagemil’s “Biological Exuberance”. I know you put in “majority” to absolve yourself of the ‘exceptions’, but there’s far less male dominance than you presume, particularly since traditionally, observation of animals in the wild has interpreted actions and interactions with eyes of the times (often sexist, homophobic and misogynist, etc).
*applauds*
I’ve always been interested in science (and philosophy), but what really attracted me to organized (skeptical, humanistic) atheism was its power to respond frankly to the injustice of religion. Nothing is quite so clear a rebuttal to religious hatred as saying a) your hatred is based on something that is objectively, factually wrong, and b) the fact that your bad behavior is based in religion is irrelevant: it is morally wrong either way. It was at first bewildering, then appalling to realize that so many atheists did not value this at all, or, worse, were unable to percieve the blatant injustices that they themselves committed.
Frankly, I don’t have it too bad myself. I’m male and more-or-less present myself as such. I almost always pass as white without effort, which neatly exempts me from implicit bias and awkward encounters. I’m bisexual, but atheists are overwhelmingly more accepting of homosexuality than the general population (at least *in principle*).
But from a queer perspective, and from the perspective of someone who has dated women who approach relationships in a non-stereotypical way, there are still so many common-yet-bizarre myths and bad attitudes floating about in the atheist community, and these have been disturbing to watch even as a man who didn’t express much in the way of feminist sentiment before.
Perhaps the most obvious one is the antagonistic model of sexual relationships, the “I’m a man who’s always horny, but women are not, so we will always be ‘disagreeing’ about sexual boundaries and manipulating each other.” mentality. You get the restrained, ‘geeky’ versions of this attitude, the “nice guys” and some of the bullshittiest bullshit in evo psych. You also get the outright nasty versions, the POA’s, the unabashed rape apologetics…
Besides the obvious (well, they should be obvious) ethical issues here, what really bothers me is that the antagonistic model does not even seem to be an *adult* approach to relationships. I don’t see how anyone can even operate on this level unless profound ignorance prevents them from accurately empathizing with individuals of the opposite sex. And yet you have this whole population of people who will jump all over you for pointing out how idiotic and hurtful this mindset is. A whole population of “skeptics”, even, exerting massive amounts of energy in defending a totally dysfunctional, often dangerous attitude toward sex.
This is just one example, of course. There’s also a lot of unthinking nonsense along a few, well, historically common patterns.
“I’m tired of hearing about issue A, but rather than ignoring that discussion I’m going to complain endlessly about having to listen to it, even in spaces that are devoted entirely to discussing A, and even in other people’s personal spaces that don’t exist to cater to my whims.”
“I think that problem B has already been solved (even though there’s empirical evidence that it was not), so I’m going to regard all attempts to address B with suspicion, like maybe they’re an unfair attempt to exploit members of the dominant group.”
“Group C has a problem, but it’s not my problem, so any organization that focuses on things that *are* my problem should not expend any effort toward helping C.”
It’s troubling that we see these attitudes at all. It’s even more troubling that they are directed primarily toward women.
It bugs me to see people wallow in ridiculous ignorance. It irritates me to see that people who claim to be politically allied with me act like total assholes. It infuriates me to see women whose well-being I care about being targeted for threats and harrassment. It shames me that, as a man, I’m implicitly expected to agree with these ideas I find repulsive. It worries me that these attitudes are often the very same attitudes that have been used to oppress queer people. It’s disquieting to see how very much certain people, who believe racism is largely solved, sound racist. And it’s depressing to realize that sometimes we don’t seem to have much of an international “game plan”, a way to deal with the fact that in many regions expressing one’s atheism (or any form of religious dissent!) is not just a social risk, but presents considerable physical danger, danger to which no one should ever be subjected.
So I whole-heartedly agree. Whether it’s a “third wave” in atheism, or whatever else that may come, we need a movement that’s inclusive… but doesn’t accept bigoted bullshit from atheists, any more than it accepts religious bullshit. And one that doesn’t tolerate violence, threats, or harrassment, period. (Well, subject to the atypical exceptions, self-defense and so forth.)
Trying to craft a movement that’s totally “unified”, by accepting unethical conduct from our own members and making no move toward remedying injustice? Worse than useless, if it could even be done. It would be making us into something that does not present an ethical alternative to religion in the first place. Responsibility first, power second.
Oh, Bob. Someone disagreed with you and you think that means they’re calling you a misogynist? Did they call you one? I missed that. A couple of people disagreed with you and you write them off. And I thought you were pro-disagreeing about stuff.
Was that too harsh?
Rove and Ayn Rand though atheists are not people I have anything but that in common with. They HAVE a movement. I reject everything they have to contribute to life on earth.
Their atheism – is a mere fact about them. We have no common cause. Rove for instance supports putting people in office who slash science, research and education programs…people who cut Thomas Jefferson and slavery out of history books, people who PUT IN GAWD WE TRUST on the money and added UNDER GOD to the pledge they now force on our children…
He and his ilk (yes you libertarians) are in league with Christian Dominionists in a political alliance…
Neither are allies in any sense of the term regardless of what they believe about God(s).
So no. There is no common ground. Nor will there ever be.
Here are the obvious points:
“I would hope we wouldn’t need to have anti-harassment policies”
I hope that I don’t need life insurance, because I don’t plan to die this year. But I have it anyway because in my case it’s relatively cheap and it provides a form of security.
I would hope that we wouldn’t need to have laws against murder, if I was hopelessly naive about everyone agreeing that murder is wrong, agreeing not to do it, and having perfect impulse control.
I also hope that none of my sexual partners have ever had an STD, but I haven’t relied on that.
Hoping you don’t need a security measure is a terrible reason to not adopt it, particularly when the cost of adoption is small.
“What I’m saying is that preventing harassment is certainly not just about sexual harassment, and it’s not just about women. It’s important to remember that. Men are subject to sexual harassment too. Women and men are both subject to all kinds of harassment, which is undesirable and unacceptable, which is not sexual harassment. It’s crucially important to remember that when framing this discussion.”
A) Is it important, actually, for this *particular* discussion? Let’s pretend for a moment, just hypothetically, that we live in a world where all harrassment is sexual and only ever targets women. Would that make a difference as to whether or not one should have a policy against it?
B) As far as I can see, no one has been advocating a harrassment policy that only focuses on women, and only on sexual harrassment. Quite the opposite, really. If you are arguing against that position, you are addressing a straw person.
C) If you are instead arguing that proponents of such policies should emphasizing the fact that the policies protect both genders from lots of problems, then point taken; that might actually be helpful. But it doesn’t change the fact that sexual harrassment against women is the particular type of harrassment of which we have had several examples come to light recently, and which brought about this discussion in the first place, so it would be disingenuous to pretend that it’s not central to the issue.
But but….. aren’t white guys the default member of the atheist movement? Isn’t everyone else some weird mod of the program?
I take the “arrogance” commentary as internalizing what the Christians say about you sciency people.
Confidence in one’s position is often confused with arrogance.
How about
NEW IMPROVED ATHEIST (SOCIAL JUSTICE FORTIFIED!)
It’s not your Dad’s atheism!
I’m in. A+. Thanks Jen for going on.
Can someone interpret that crap @328 for me?
You remember Rush Limbaugh talking about how feminists are all ugly women whom men do not want, which is why they can’t just fuck their way up the ladder like all pretty women must do in order to be promoted, since women, whether ugly or pretty, are not competent at anything?
Yeah, that.
Also, he thinks that all feminists have pink hair. Which I find terribly confusing.
The problem is that that means something else. Ask Rene Descartes.
“I would say that the young lady in question was anything but “nonsexual”, as Rebecca Watson argued, as her own comment which initiated that sequence betrayed a sexual knowledge that belied her tender years.”
Wow. Gross. Are you actually arguing that your perception of this young lady as a girl not sufficiently ignorant of sex justifies the rape comments directed at her? The young lady has to be completely asexual, with no knowledge of sex? Otherwise, what?
She joked about her ass, like her ass was about to be kicked. Of course that justifies people graphically describing the ways she will be anally raped. No innocent young lady of a tender age would use the word ass in a joke! Slut!
Perhaps you would be happier if you moved to a nice Islamic country where women and girls are kept sufficiently asexual and there’s no sex ed for kids in their tender years. Then they won’t provoke men into making jokes about anally raping them.
“Trying to craft a movement that’s totally “unified”, by accepting unethical conduct from our own members and making no move toward remedying injustice? ”
Yeah that’s how old school Catholics handled things… Should be a cautionary tale wouldn’t you think?
@jonleszczynski says:
That wasn’t directed at you, if was in response to Chris Camp.
I’m sorry, but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I detest the bigotry, but from my own experiences, I’ve seen a greater success at trying to be a positive example. The out and out fools who can’t get it are beyond our reach, but if we’re looking at this as a primarily internet movement, isn’t this more a battle to win the silent lurkers? I just want to leave my hand outstretched, and be supportive of those who still seem a bit lost. There are many who are still finding their way, who stumble upon the forums headed by those we have no buiness dealing with, who may be discouraged altogether. If we can shape the discussion, make this about subverting the idiots who make trolls look bad, is that not a win where outright secession would make that impossible? A big tent approach doesn’t necessarily mean we have to embrace everyone, it means we’re still in the tent shaping the majority. I’m in it to win it, and secession just smacks me in the face as a backward step.
Frankly I love it. Yes we need to be concerned about injustice of all types. It can be oppressive to have people suggest that all of our concern needs to be focused only on promoting secularism. The purpose of being secular in our worldview IS that we can use secular tools to evaluate and correct the what is wrong with society.
The arrogance I am speaking of is the quality I have observed in successful architects and artists. It’s not just the confidence that comes from mastery of the medium. It is the confidence in the vision of a new and different reality.
It is the difference between those who talk about doing things and those who actually make things happen. Of course when we speak of someone as arrogant we usually mean someone who has the confidence and drive but lacks the ability. I think it’s important to acknowledge the positive aspect of the trait in those who use it well.
Excellent in every way.
Atheism is not the end goal–it’s the beginning from which we can address all of these other problems.
Nice Job Jen!
callistacat said (#320.1),
Not at all – for one thing I did say the “men” were “at least boors”. In addition, I said six months ago in a post in the thread that many of them were “a bunch of p****s and have all the moral sensibilities of a pack of rabid dogs – sociopaths, if not psychopaths, all”.
But what I was trying to do with that example – one of three, I might mention – was to suggest that Watson’s portrayal of the young woman – “Lunam” – was somewhat overly tinged with emotion, that she sort of had her thumb on the scale. For instance, you might want to take a look at the actual Reddit thread – as I did some time later as a result of further discussions – which shows that Lunam continued to banter, to flirt, with some of the guys there. Pretty difficult to argue, as Watson did I think, that she was some sort of delicate flower who was likely to faint dead-away at frank discussions of sexuality – even in the face of some guys who clearly went off the deep end.
But my whole argument, in which that example was only a case-in-point, was to suggest that the one that Jen was presenting was predicated on some very questionable facts even if there may be others that might be less so.
Uh, you might want to read the Skepchick post a little more closely; her reference seemed a little more direct and sexually suggestive than just “ass”.
Not quite sure how you apparently managed to reach the conclusion that I was trying to characterize her as a slut, much less that I think that a particularly odious term. Unless you somehow think that her limited contributions, which I only acknowledged, to the “open” discussions there on sexual behaviour, even if some of it was pathological if not criminal, qualifies her as a slut. And who then is the sexist?
But in a more general sense, I think that those three examples, as well as your use of the word “slut”, illustrates a serious problem with feminism in general – at least with some of its variations. When Ophelia Benson can argue that the term “virulent feminism” qualifies as misogyny – all forms of feminism are, ipso facto, “good”: “four legs good; two legs bad” – and when Amanda Marcotte can assert on Twitter that “I cringe whenever I hear ‘I’m pro-choice but I could never abort.’ Translation: You’re free to be a slut, but I’m too good for that”, then I start to think there’s some truth to the argument that there is a very large and quite problematic component of dogma in the philosophy and ideology and perspective.
Have you noticed the veritable flood of lurkers coming out to say thank you to Jen for creating a place where they finally feel comfortable commenting. Sure, there are some well meaning folks who need a reality (or privilege) check and might be a bit put off by some harsh language, but I have read enough stories (Impobable Joe is one if I recall correctly) of folks who credit the vehement criticism as the wake up they needed.
Frankly I feel fairly confident that those who complain about the strong language and passionate arguments either won’t be persuaded in any case or are protesting too much in fear of their eroding position. I really doubt that being nice and soft spoken is going to be as effective as the critics would have you believe.
Absolutely!
Getting rid of superstition is just preparation for all the positive work that is needed if we are to survive as a species.
On your request I took a brief look and I quickly realized that modeling in my head what is required to make sense of that stuff is too unpleasant to contemplate. It’s not word salad, more like the mold growing on something on the back of the fridge.
QFT.
Well I’m def ready for the new wave of atheism!
“Taking back what is ours”…. By all means Cupcake, you can keep all your gash froth. I don’t want it.
“Dumping your tealeaves in Slimepit Harbour”….Errrr….Ok? I think…
I can haz symbol too?
Thanks! Don’t get many supportive comments over here so the ones that do come are much appreciated.
“It’s actually you that thought you owned this movement (it’s not one yet)…but what you actually had was a pair of air quotes with nothing in it but a thin thread of non-belief. ”
Whereas you have a symbol! Oh the farce is strong in this movement.
Designing the symbol before deciding on the direction. How teenage.
“The train is leaving the station”
Shame you don’t know where you are going yet and most of you are leaving on separate trains.
I would disagree strongly that FTB and Skepchick are destroying “the movement”. If anything they enhance it for me! I wouldn’t follow any of the shit’s and giggles if it wasn’t for FTB and Skepchick.
VIVA LA REVOLUTION I say! I can’t wait to see what happens next :D
There is problem that can arise with toleration of bigots. It will look bad from the outside. It is one of my reasons why I have not join the movement because I rather attend meetings and conventions with the treatment of human being, not as a maiden fair with ample bosoms that are somehow eye level with the average human who is 5’8. I didn’t know the was a major Atheist group until the Elevator news and it made me go: “Wow, I can’t get behind them because they tolerate the same bs the churches do. :(“
Great initiative, Jen! As a highly privilege individual (white cisgender hetero able-bodied male living in a rich country), count me in, whatever the name chosen.
Consider me told! Well done you!
Can I join your group? I am a wheelchair bound, Black-Hispanic, trans-gender with cerebal palsy and ginger hair. And I am occasionally homosexual. My minority list is quite extensive. I do however have a penchant for animal cruelty but all the other identifiers work for me so meh. Count me in!
Trust you, you putrid little shit? I wouldn’t live on the same planet as you if I had the choice.
I’m ready. Because I love my daughters and my lover, I’m ready. Because I stand against childish masculist fuckwits, I’m ready. Because now is the time, I’m ready.
Um…was that supposed to funny?
But eitherway, evidence is suggesting you’re a misogynist troll and a fuckwit. Not sure why your’re allowed to post here. But if you didn’t get it, we don’t want your kind around here. /thread
You can’t possibley believe in anything you just spurted out; it’s completely irrational in everyway. Or if you did, you must of been wearing a misogynist version of a white sheet while typing all that hate.
Data on broad impacts of sexism (and other isms) are available to anyone with an internet connection.
Denial of it within the atheist subset is only shocking because some of us came away from theism hoping to find a broadly opposite movement – ie one that opposes ALL the ills of religion and not just it’s more bizarre and EASILY debunked geologic and biologic claims.
As a white, straight, cis-gendered, 20-something Western male, I support you entirely, Jen. I’ve admired you throughout all of this garbage and wish you all the best.
Count me in!
100% unequivocal support. The misogynist dickbags and racist fuckwits are getting loud because they know it’s their last ditch attempt to salvage their bigoted historical floatsam from oblivion. We’ve all done a great job so far, let’s keep it up.
Evidence is suggesting your gash froth is reaching critical levels. I suggest you perform an emergency hate fap to clear any back log.
Splitter!
[I’m the one with the bag of ocelot spleens]
Fairy nuff, worrying that we are so similar in goals in posting. Only I find taking the piss out of the other lot so much more fun.
Typical response of somebody who cannot handle the truth. And then those same people want to whine when others won’t respect the facts they use to back up their opinions.
Typical response of somebody who cannot handle the truth. And then those same people want to whine when others won’t respect the facts they use to back up their opinions.
This is the typical response of somebody who cannot handle the truth. And then those same people want to whine when others won’t respect the facts they use to back up their opinions.
Sorry, but poorly placed comment by CitizenJane led me to some confusion as to how to line up my reply properly. And unfortunately this site does not provide proper editing options nor is it really setup well to make inserting comments easy when they have reached the state this argument has.
Super post…super idea! “A+”
OK, so I’m way late, but I just have to add to the applause. This is one of those posts that people will save a link of and keep referring to over time. Very well done.
You have zero understanding of what makes a person beautiful, but if you want to know what makes them ugly this steaming pile of hatred is as good an example as any. Responses like this are precisely the reason Jen has my support and that of many other people.
When us black folks got the vote in 1870 (15th amendment), we didn’t call it “Suffrage Plus.”
When women got the vote in 1920 (19th amendment), we didn’t call it “Inclusive Suffrage.”
Why not just claim the whole damn thing?
The Atheist / Skeptic Movement
The third wave is simply the period of time or the phase the movement has gone through: we’ve grown up a little. We recognize that we need to stamp out the misogyny and bigotry in our segment of society, and we are aware that there are other things that are still wrong also—we’re not perfect!—and we will deal with them as they come up.
Brilliant! I cheered at the breakfast table!
A+ – for the movement and the post!
I am already on record saying that I don’t want to share a movement with bigots and misogynists, so let me instead say that I’d would love to be part of the atheist+ movement!
Look, Jen, I don’t want to be cheeky or something, but I think you are missing the point when you are parroting all this feminist rhetoric about male privilege. I think there is a much easier explanation. It is the nerd gender gap (a term I just invented).
A male nerd is a young man with a history of intellectual pursuits, victimization by brutal jocks, and zero, zilch, nada sexual contacts with women. A male nerd has for all his life been dreaming of a nerd girl with the same intellectual pursuits, because he takes it for granted that he will never have an earthly with a feminine girl who is all about the four German K’s (Kinder, Kirche, Küche, Kleider, i.e. children, church, kitchen and clothes.).
A female nerd like you is a young woman who is way too tough, independent and sexually experienced for an average nerd. For a woman to be nerd it means to challenge traditional attributes of femininity, but there are no female jocks to beat the self-reliance out of you if you choose to challenge those values. On the other hand, a male nerd is doing that intellectual stuff not so much as a defiant statement as he is doing it because that’s the way he is, and because of this natural character of his, the jocks beat all the self-reliance and defiance out of him, sexual self-reliance very much included. The result is a self-pitying nerd with zero sexual self-reliance.
You call yourself “perverted”, which means that you are experienced enough to have developed exquisite and sophisticated sexual tastes which that self-pitying nerd feels he can never meet. The natural reaction of the self-pitying nerd is misogyny, which is probably not just due to his zero self-reliance but also to a history of being rejected by women.
The idea behind all this is, that as a nerd girl you are the fulfilment of the wishes of a whole subculture of sex-starved young or youngish men (actually, there are probably a lot of fortysomething virgin males in that subculture). You are their last, best hope. And when that hope does not deliver, they will act out all their vengeance after that chains of never ending rejections on you.
I am sorry, but these are people who don’t feel privileged or see themselves as naturally privileged. These people are lonely wankers who’d like to sleep with a real woman just once, and are convinced that everybody else is having sex all the time. It is quite possible that they are too asocial to be deserving of sex and love, but calling them privileged white men will only infuriate them for a good reason, because a wanker with no sex life other than wank mags is definitely NOT privileged in our culture. He might be stupid, selfish, and deserve no better, but privileged he isn’t.
Tim, I see your attitude reflected in many of my scientist friends and I have to say (I can tell you, a stranger, but haven’t told them yet) that it bothers me. Without putting words in your mouth, I will try to characterize based on my perception (and feel free to disagree if you believe my assessment is off). Your personal epistemology seems to be one of near, if not full, positivism, and your comments smack of scientism. I used to be a practicing scientist, so my world view was once quite similar. However, I was unhappy in the sciences and crossed borders into science education, where my views began to shift to a more moderate position (I consider myself a post-positivist who is influenced by critical perspectives). These days I am a methodological pluralist and am mostly unimpressed by people who hold narrow views of the nature of science (NOS – and evolution – are my areas of expertise).
Anyway, point being: you ask for quantifiable data regarding numbers of incidences of harassment and whatnot. But here’s the thing: the data you require is mostly irrelevant to how women FEEL at atheist/skeptic gatherings – and how they feel is far from irrational. Let me try to explain.
It wouldn’t matter to me if we were able to objectively quantify precisely how many cases of sexual or other forms of harassment occur at conventions or other meetups, or if we were able to extrapolate and predict how many incidences we might expect. Even ONE incident is too many and enough to make me feel uncomfortable and wary (and we know, even without precise numbers on hand, there have been many more than one).
Then there are the anti-feminist/misogynist/racist/homophobic etc. people (you can call them trolls if you want, but I think we use that label too much – there is reason to suspect that this is what these people really believe, or at least no evidence to suggest it is not what they believe) that spew their hatred in the comments of blog posts and other online forums, or who spread their hateful rhetoric in their own blogs. As I explained before, these people are as much a part of the movement as you and me, and knowing that they are likely to attend atheist/skeptic conventions/meetups is more than enough reason for me not to.
You said, “All I am claiming is that not all feelings are sensible or valid.” This is true. But I am basing my feelings in this case on objective evidence. I’ve read the posts! I’ve even argued with some of these people! And I’ll be damned if I’m going to attend a con knowing that I might run into one or more of them. That isn’t irrational at all. In fact, I’m analyzing available evidence, reaching a conclusion, and acting sensibly based on what I see.
tl;dr: When it comes to human social behaviors and interactions and the decisions people make regarding them, you can’t expect to apply the same methods you would at the lab bench. It just doesn’t work that way. This is why the scientism I see so often in this movement bothers me so much. This isn’t physics; humans aren’t atoms.
Please go back to the dark, moist and sweaty place from which you have apparently emerged. Like a Jerusalem cricket, you are not meant to be seen by human eyes.
Yes!
So much this!
I’m in!
I too approve of this message for what its worth. Keep up the good fight!
I’m in. <3
I would like to use this on my own blog. To whom do I give credit?
I would say that the point is not that you should join us, but that we should join you, i.e. that the current crop of sensible atheists should try to move the consensus of atheism at large in the direction of social awareness and a fight for the rights of everybody.
My hope is that we can forge a social movement that would make you feel welcome; a place where you don’t have to look over your shoulder and be ready for a fight at the drop of a hat, but one where you can find allies and support.
Hey, that sounds a lot like what religions do! Point to their good works, proclaim that religion makes people good, all the while treating outsiders like crap. Does this mean second-wave atheism really is a religion??? :)
trust me…every time i see a woman or a man like you…i do troll the shit of them because they are mostly psychos that got like that due to luck of sex.
Ain’t it sad that a separatist movement will be leaving deep thinkers like this behind?
I love this idea more than words can say. I’m in, no question.
I was once a higher-up (but not the highest up) on an atheist-run message board that I won’t name because I still respect the mission even if I don’t respect certain people behind it anymore.
The first time I should have stood my ground was during the Obama vs. Clinton Democratic primaries. I spoke about the tremendous misogyny that was used against Hillary Clinton and was asked to shut up about it, and when I couldn’t get excited about Obama’s win because of the cost to women in public office, I was accused of raining on everyone’s parade.
Then there was the administrator there who was higher up than me. He delighted in calling other men “cunt” and completely ignored my every request to not do that.
The final straw was when another woman complained about the sheer amount of sex talk. Despite the creation of a thread to confine them to, we also kept getting people posting the occasional graphic image on other threads. She was brushed off as being too influenced by religious sexual repression and guys were confidently stating that there was no good secular reason to put any limits on sexually frank talk.
I tried to explain that there are good secular reasons, reasons to do with creating safe spaces for women. When that was hand waved away, it was too much for me and I left (without a “goodbye, I’m outta here!” flounce, I’d like to add).
That was over a year ago, and I haven’t looked back.
I may have to get a tattoo using this design. Would that be OK?
The number of men participating in money making sports is not hurting. Sure the men participating in smaller sports is lower, and women is higher. So what? The purpose of the college is not to give men an opportunity to play sports.
The big money making sports brings in money for the colleges. The others don’t. What is the difference if a woman gets a scholarship instead of a man? Before Title IX, men preferentially got scholarships, even to sports that don’t bring in money to the institution.
I noticed :P
I think we need to ask ourselves why people stay in churches. A lot of studies show people get a sense of belonging and are happier there, even those who don’t believe. They get community, interdependence, help from neighbors.
I don’t see how we could ever foster that sense of belonging and community, if we define ourselves only by what we do NOT believe in. Certain dedication to reason can help people protect themselves from charlatans, lies, etc. But other than that, how does it help the neighbor in need when they are down on their luck? Atheism has nothing to give them, but humanism does.
But even worse, people in this skeptical movement belittle those who want to increase the community feelings and welcoming nature and help our fellows. I think the more we don’t challenge these voices in our community, the more we will turn people off from joining us. Because when you come down to it, cold hard logic, removing fallacies, that is NOT what people are looking for to fulfill their lives. They are useful and necessary, but as I said above, only go so far and there are other problems we all deal with every day.
And especially the focus on ethics and improving ourselves and our world. By this I mean humanism , not just any non profit out there trying to do good. Really, where is the big humanist movement? Where are they out there meeting, teaching. I tried going to UU but my theist wife found them sillier than even I did. I’d love a group to meet and talk about those issues, besides reading by myself.
Secondly, regarding splits: Every movement splits, really look at the christian churches. The bigger it got, the more they split. Of course, if you look at peace and other movements, they split up into subgroups and never get anything accomplished, because they are too angry and hate each other. (seriously, i see so much anger from anti-war groups it is ironically funny)
I think in this case there is a real lesson to learn that you point out. And I think we can learn it from the history of Prohibition in the US. One guy (I forget the name) really pushed hard for it. He worked with people who drank, he ignored the voices of the Temperance and other movements that said “we don’t want to work with them”. He did anyway, because he had a goal in mind. (this is from the Prohibition series on PBS).
Maybe that is the lesson. We can split into different groups that do different things, but when it comes to accomplishing goals we still work with people we don’t like, if they share that same goal. So, protecting secular student groups? Stopping state imposed religion? Lobbying, supporting lawsuits on those issues, raising awareness, etc, things like that we can work with the MRAs and others. Not only that, but we have to, if we still share those goals. We can’t refuse to work with them on those things.
But at this point we are large enough that the dedication to reason and logic, protection of secularism, are both two goals that only make up part of what we all want, and maybe even only part of what we *should* want.
Thanks for saying that. I’m with you.
Jen,
Thank you very much.
“However, the claim that the tools of the scientific and skeptical enterprise are inherently biased is simply not the case. There is no “privileged white male” T-test, for example.”
The tests themselves aren’t biased, no. But scientific research doesn’t do itself. Someone chooses what questions to pursue, develops hypotheses, decides on a methodology, decides what data are meaningful, decides which analytical strategies and techniques to use, decides how to present evidence and how to communicate their claims. There are so many levels of subjectivity. That’s why peer review is so important. Even then, we should maintain a healthy skepticism of any study’s conclusions. And I, personally, think it is important to not put too much faith into science’s ability to reveal “truth.” I am wary of scientism.
“Screw decades of sociological research (which I haven’t even bothered to understand)! This theory that I just pulled out of my ass explains the phenomenon much better!”
“Look, Jen, I don’t want to be cheeky or something, but I think you are missing the point when you are parroting all this feminist rhetoric about male privilege. I think there is a much easier explanation. It is the nerd gender gap (a term I just invented).”
Er, this isn’t so much cheeky as condescending, IMO. “You are just parroting some unrelated nonsense, but I was able to think of the right answer just off the top of my head.” That’s how it comes across.
Besides that, you seem to be playing Dime Store Freud. I don’t buy that every misogynist involved here has the same motives, much less that that motivation is the one you seem to present here (insecurity and desperation surrounding feelings of sexual inadequacy?).
(
I’m not the worlds biggest fan of transactional analysis, but this is a useful description of what concerns me about Dime Store Freud:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe8KzXEsT04&t=7m29s
)
I’m sorry to say that this thread and countless others like it leaves me depressed not enthused.
I don’t go to cons. I have attended them in the past and while it is entirely possible that atheist cons are worse than other sorts, I find that hard to believe. The individual cases cited here and in numerous other similar threads are not however evidence of such systemic behaviour, only that for those women, in those locations at that specific time something unacceptable happened.
You are not ‘winning’. Women across the world are subjected daily to a hell of a lot worse than an illjudged comment in an elevator – women are groped regularly on the Tokyo subway, are murdered by their families for daring to choose a pattern of behaviour not sanctioned by some loon pretending to interpret the words of a long dead pedophile or subjected to judicial murder because they had the temerity to be raped.
The misogyny demonstrated when these events were reported is both appalling and real of course. The anal rape ‘jokes’ directed at a 15 year old girl, the site that illustrated a woman’s face being punched, the obsessive behaviour behind the ‘elevatorgate’ blog – and numerous others – go way over the line that I think is acceptable.
Even so, all you are presenting to outsiders is the picture of a group of privileged people who can afford to regularly attend cons with other other privileged people while you bicker about the rights and wrongs of how two people might get together for a bit of nooky (or not, as the case may be).
I understand that this discussion is genuinely about subjects of real importance. However, the appearance of the debate is important, and in the way you have responded you have allowed the misogynists and their allies to frame the way it is presented to ‘the outside world’ (in which I place myself) and the terms on which it is conducted.
You need to move it out of Blogistan and into the real world of work and politics.
Just a word of support. You’re right, and you have my admiration for taking a stand and making a difference.
Thank you so much for this, Jen. I am so in!
I’m in. Plus, the logo is cooler.
I’ve been trying to write a constructive response to this, but I can’t. I keep devolving into calling you names.
So, I’ll stick to just one point and let other do the rest.
Since you don’t go to cons, why is your opinion relevant?
More to the point, why is it more relevant that the opinions of the people who have actually attended and witnessed harassment first-hand?
I’m not even sure how to respond to that kind of comment except to say that the whole premise of that argument is ridiculous.
Its always a good idea to read a comment before you respond. You clearly haven’t done that, so there is little point in going any further.
Steersman,
I was being sarcastic when I said “slut!” Nice of you to completely twist that around and accuse me of slut-shaming I was making fun of *your* attitude that since the young lady wasn’t “nonsexual” in your mind, she contributed to the vile jokes directed at her. I can’t imagine being 15 and excited over my new Carl Sagan book and in return get this onslaught of rape jokes and being told things like blood and tears are good lubricants. Are you arguing that she provoked the comments?
Click and enjoy just how much of a failure you are, jimbo.
LOL exactgly what I was going to say. If this kind of shithead is what’s in the “skeptic” movement, every decent, honest person cannot be.
No, you’re “let’s stop talking about sexism, you whiny western white chicks who don’t suffer REAL sexism, because it’s classism that affect me!” message was received loud and clear.
If you can get that from my single comment, you should get yourself an agent, because you have a good career as a fantasy writer ahead of you.
It’s amazing how changes in consciousness really do have an effect on other minds – I was in London for 5 days and more or less out of touch. And on the train back I suddenly, for no reason, realised that arguing was an attempt to feel superior to someone else, and so I resolved to try never to argue again!
And only two hours after I get home and sort out the emails I see there is a movement afoot to get away from the one-upmanship which pervades groups based solely on the intellect! It’s so refreshing. I admit I’m not an atheist but if I were, this is the group I would want to join, just to try and do some good in the world.
Can non-atheists join? If so, count me in!
You rock in all the ways, and you’ve won all the internetz. This is something we should WANT to be a part of. No wonder a lot of people are afraid to come out as an atheist; its not the religious people I’m afraid of, its everyone else.
So..when are you and Laci Green going to write an awesome book or host a con of some sort? It would be fucking awesome.
Delurking to say I’m in. Already plotting where to put the A+ tattoo
I genuinely couldn’t figure out what point this comment was making. Here are some themes that seemed to be touched on, which I’m trying to paraphrase based on how I understand them:
– “There may be sexism at atheist cons, but it probably isn’t worse than at other geeky cons.” This is irrelevant, and also puzzling coming from someone who says up front that they haven’t been at atheist cons. “Other people are worse” is not an excuse for bad behavior, and since skepticism and atheism relate to ethics, it is entirely reasonable for atheist conventions to take ethical concerns more seriously than, say, a gaming con.
– “You can’t demonstrate that this harrassment is a serious problem, since you have anecdotes, not data.” This is a bit of a weird point, since one of the actual benefits of instituting an anti-harrassment policy at a convention is that it encourages staff to actually keep track of reported incidents, which is probably the most straight. Saying “We don’t have enough data.” is an argument in favor of making these policy changes, which is what all the fuss is about in the first place.
– “Sexism is still terrible, so your optimism seems shallow.” True, perhaps, but not a particularly useful observation. This isn’t really a disagreement, it’s just a different emotional reaction.
– “You can afford to attend conventions, which demonstrates a certain class privilege, so it’s not credible for you to talk about other people’s privilege.” Really? Do you really want to go there, to the realm of “you aren’t in the very worst place imaginable, so your concerns don’t matter”? The oppression olympics is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
– Your second to last sentence is a fragment with no clear message. All I can gather is that you’re trying to concede that harrassment is bad, but you’re getting all defensive about not wanting to hear about it anyway? Or something? “You have a legitimate concern, but it sounds all snotty and classist when you talk about it, so shut up.” Is that it?
– “Get off internet blogs and go deal with the real world.” The internet is the real world. An enormous part of “the real world of work and politics” happens online. The internet may actually be equally or more important to the culture of the atheist movement than in-person meetings and conventions. So what’s the point, again?
I used to be a Los Angeles Lakers fan. I considered myself a proud citizen of “Laker Nation”. I had a great time going to games, Laker viewing parties, and even Laker meetups!
Until I started talking about feminism.
I noticed there was often sexist comments during these events and it bothered me. When I began to voice my opinion that, as Laker fans, we need to fight sexism, I was ridiculed.
So, now I think there should be a new wave of Laker fandom. Laker fans who care about social justice. Perhaps we’ll call it Laker fans+. If need be, we’ll take over the original definition of Laker fan (one who is a fan of the Lakers) and change it to “one who is a fan of the Lakers and fights for social equality”.
Who wants to join me? No Celtics fans, please.
That’s nice. Now, run along, kid. The grown-ups are talking.
I’m so looking forward to seeing the forthcoming nuptials between her feminism – which gives some indications of some virulence – and your highly attenuated if not crippled skepticsm – a double-ring ceremony by all indications: one for her finger and one for your nose ….
I could not care less about sociological research which is unapplicable to the nerd subculture anyway which hasn’t been even around for a long enough time for “decades of research”. As regards Freud, I haven’t read him, and I am not even interested in him.
I take it that as feminists, you guys are way too much in love with your rhetoric about “male privilege” to descend to the street level. Myself, I prefer the sociological method of talking to people and comparing their personal experience with mine.
What really sucks about you guys’ attitude is that you want your own personal experience to be taken as gospel truth, but you are not willing to treat other people’s personal experience in the same way. Everybody else’s can be bulldozed out of existence by calling it names. Under these circumstances, there is no room for dialogue or even normal human decency – talking to you is like trying to convert a racist. Bye.
callistacat said (#320.1.1),
Yes, I realized that and figured the intent was to suggest that because of her comments I thought she was a slut and therefore she had those comments coming to her.
One good turn deserves another ….
Not exactly. But you might want to consider court room procedures in which one party opening up a particular topic allows the other one to respond in kind – without that actually justifying the latter pulling out a pistol and shooting the former. Or the game of chess: someone starts a particular gambit which allows a certain range of responses. Considering the frankly sexual nature of Lunam’s initial comment, and her subsequent ones (you did take a look at that Reddit thread, didn’t you?), it seems a rather specious argument to claim that she was entirely blameless for at least some of the subsequent comments.
But more of what I was arguing was that both your comments and some of Watson’s qualify as mock outrage – she wasn’t actually raped, was she? – which is of a piece with the larger issue – which I note you didn’t actually respond to – on some problematic aspects of “virulent feminism” ….
A+? Simply brilliant
I was hoping to be enlightened by the article, but just as I settled in to take in good information, the writer messed it all up with clumsy sentence fragments –
“For blogging about our events and getting local media attention. For volunteering as a board member of the Secular Student Alliance.”
I do wish the author had cared enough to do it right, and I hope she will next time. Don’t give up, but don’t continue as you’ve been, please!
Want people to take you and what you write seriously?
You’d best write it well and have humans (NOT the PC) proof read it before release. Sheesh.
Come on, folks. Share the good stuff, not the dreck. ;)
How ’bout, “A Whole”?
I am just stepping out of the lurker shadows to show support for the concept of skepticism-based social activism.
If anyone is planning anything related to this in Boston please include me: Tehmailleman@yahoo.com
Very well said! I too am fed up with being accused of being ugly, or a man-hater, or ‘over-reacting’ to harassment, in a bid to make me shut-up and go away.
Atheism has nothing to do with any of the values you claim.
It is simply lack of belief in God, that is what the atheists always through back at me.
You are going to have to change the definition of atheism…which I always knew could not stand on its own.
Once you get rid of a belief in god there is no reason any kind of inequality. As such, Atheism should leave us with equality, understanding, and evidence based conclusions about society.
Jen, the only reason I’m not standing behind you – I’m already standing in line behind Natalie.
Thanks very much for writing this, Jen!
“As regards Freud, I haven’t read him, and I am not even interested in him.”
Uh, “Dimestore Freud” is an expression. What I was saying has nothing to do with Sigmund Freud, whose work was largely pseudoscientific anyway.
What “Dimestore Freud” means is that you come up with psychological theories for why someone says something, without addressing what they actually said. When they argue against you, you accuse them of having some psychological problem, based purely on flimsy speculation about their personal history and motivations, without actually addressing what they said.
And you are doing it again.
Let’s be clear: you actually don’t know me, you don’t know why I do or say or believe the things I do, you aren’t really paying attention to what I said, and yet you are telling me you already know what I think.
So good riddance and fuck off. Come back when you develop the patience to listen to other people, and to not compare them to racists just because they didn’t believe something that you gave absolutely no evidence for in the first place.
Wrong.
There is no requirement that one must agree with all the ideologies you mentioned before they can be an atheist. In fact, they have nothing to do with each other. Bigotry against religion is justified, and should be encouraged.
http://www.meetup.com/GreaterBostonHumanists/ no good?
You’re nuts.
I really enjoyed your note – thank you. In general I like to bypass labels unless there is clear understanding of what they mean to both sides – but I think you have put your finger on the point of disagreement, and it is genuine.
The positivist position and metaphysical naturalism are the philosophical underpinnings of science, and they have contributed greatly to our understanding of the world. Of course it is not a religion (scientism is often used by anti-science folks). It does not yield “objective” truth (if such a thing exists and could be perceived by flawed humans).
It is, however, the only way you can know that you reliably know anything about the natural world. It is the core of the scientific/skeptical movement, and to move beyond it is damaging to the integrity of what it is.
Even when the very best of people with the very best of intentions try to associate it with humanist goals (and especially if they are shared goals, for then the danger of bias increases) – it cannot be done and should not be attempted. This is the (IMO) valid criticism of the “freethought” movement.
With respect to your risk calculations – I think you CAN have a valid point. One real “run in” with a murder or rapist is more than enough for one lifetime. But a terrible truth is that there is no path of no risk, and our visceral responses can lead to actually risker choices. Again, analysis can be helpful, as all risk IS a comparrison. Despite what we feel, is is wiser to act based upon information we can know. There is also a point of diminishing returns. We can hopefully protect the real safety of our environments, but never realistically make a place where everyone “feels safe” or is isolated from people we might both think are rude.
A final point is that we ARE atoms. Yes, we are fascinatingly complex with emergent properties that we cannot practically predict – but we are sociobiology in terms of biology, reduced to chemistry and finally to physics. Knowing what we are is a vital step in making ourselves and our world better.
I’ll review you last note, but won’t reply as this can get long. If you want you can find me at timothygmd127@aol.com.
Although we disagree, you are obviously intelligent and pleasant. I appreciated your time.
And I don’t want Freethought Blogs claiming to represent me.
THANK YOU. I had been quite discouraged by the whole business. I am a 50 year old lesbian, so I have some not inconsiderable personal history in the GLBT movement as well as the feminist movement. I often feel that at least the GL’s have fought some major battles and won, while the B’s and T’s are still struggling with some ugly stuff. But women (and feminist men) seem to have to go through the same tap-dance decade after decade.
It was personally disturbing to read about the casual rape jokes, ridiculing a woman’s looks instead of her ideas, and that “dyke” was used so much as an epithet. So many atheists have our backs as GLB (and sometimes T) folk that this was especially stunning and disappointing.
I’m in with this. I absolutely agreed with Natalie that there are more important issues that engage me– GLBT rights, women’s rights, classism, ableism, transphobia… one group that does this, that applies skepticism to these issues, that understands how theological is far too often used to oppress and dehumanize, well, I’m all in.
The is my first comment on a blog or anywhere since I posted a picture of myself with Richard Dawkins on the subreddit, Atheism, and got tons of very sexual comments from my fellow redditors. There was nothing sexual about my picture, it was just me (a 44 year old woman), smiling at Dawkins while he signed my book. I deleted my post and walked away. Thanks, Jen, you and others like Greta have gone through so much more and you still soldier on. Thank you.
Luke Weston:
What do you mean . . . “IF?”
https://hfaconference.wordpress.com/venue/harassment-policy/
Please note that this is a general anti-harassment policy (for the upcoming Humanists of Florida Association conference: “Humanism vs. Theocracy”).
Who are you disagreeing with here? I don’t think anyone was saying that.
An argument can certainly be made that a skeptical atheist must, if the skepticism is being applied consistently, accept certain other ideas, such as the rejection of racism, sexism and homophobia. However, that’s not the same as saying that you can’t be a racist atheist. Indeed, there’s no reason why an atheist should necessarily be a skeptic at all.
That’s kinda the whole point of this, you know.
What makes you feel that FtB is claiming to represent you?
Wow– and it’s also heartening to see that the Readercon organizers took such decisive, truly serious action against the harasser. This needs to be the norm.
Bravo! Atheism can’t be just about moving beyond religion—we must strive to move beyond *all* repressive power structures, not just step into the vacuum created by their demise and continue on with ‘business as usual’.
I approve of this message!
“It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime. We can criticize religion and irrational thinking just as unabashedly and just as publicly, but we need to stop exempting ourselves from that criticism.”
Well said. I’m a white middle-aged male now, so I fit the stereotype you describe, but I had the benefit of being raised by an intellectual feminist single mother, so I guess I don’t quite fit the mold. I think it is a shame that anti-harassment policies are even necessary in a rational movement, but it is even more shameful that they should be opposed. Those who would oppose such an idea are subject to their own emotional pleasure in oppressing others and lack the rational facility to contribute meaningfully. We don’t need them, but I’m sure there are many religions that will welcome them with open arms.
http://asystemofrandomtangents.wordpress.com/2012/08/21/well-said-jen/
Rather a long answer so I blogged it rather than invading the thread.
I quickly whipped together a vector version of this (as that is primarily what I use for graphics work). I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons and credited you, but it needs more “licensing” information or it will end up deleted after a week. If you could give a release for use, I’ll update it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atheism_Plus.svg
Wow, you guys are amazing. So glad someone is FINALLY doing this. Not atheism, which lets face it is a bit dull, it is only saying there is no god, but more like secular social justice. Not humanism which mostly seems to be about being all nice and touchy feely without the inherent religion. I’m not touchy feely, most of what goes on in this world makes me DAMN angry, and in this I can finally see something I can get on board with.
Although now I’ve been on twitter – wow, so apparently wanting to combine being athiest with skepticism and humanism – taking the best of all these noble movements and creating something which would fight for social, political and economical change for the better of the whole world, and OH MY GOSH use evidence to tell us what will work – is apparently the same as creating a national front group? So much viritol against an idea that we should try and be nice to people? WTAF. Yet to see a tweet deriding the idea that wasn’t made by a white guy – if anyone does find one, do let me know!
Awesome.
Godsdamnit, I was going to chime in with just one word, “awesome”, but I see Doug just did that.
Beautiful post.
A+
Well, let’s review:
Translation: bitchez lie and over react. Here, let me – who wasn’t fucking there – decide for those silly bitches what really happened.
Translation: western bitches don’t experience REAL sexism.
Translation: classism is more important than sexism, cuz it affects me!
Translation: stop talking about sexism and totally ignore the HUNDREDS of thank you comments because I want you to shut up.
Yeah, we’re totally wrong about you.
It’s been about 5 years for me too since I started following the atheist and skeptic community. As an animal rights activist myself I had an interest in the social justice intersections but never really found a sensitivity to such ideas. Still, I figured that gave me a job to do but the recent hullabaloo over TAM made me realize what a boy’s club it really was and I started to lose interest. Until now.
I do think the time is right for a reboot and thank you so much for this post, Jen, and all the supportive commenters. It gives me hope for a more positive and constructive direction. I’m in, I’m ready, let’s fuck shit up! I love the A+ label and look forward to contributing to it’s success! Onwards!
I belong to many groups, where skepticism, atheism and feminism are only a few. And much as I do personally preach skepticism within the atheist community, atheism within the feminism movement and feminism within atheism and skepticism, I neither expect nor suggest that people who are interested in one of my areas of interest should also engage in other areas.
This is a practical example of grouping. The more qualifiers to belong to a group, the more specific the group, and the smaller the group gets.
Create any group you like, there is no authority to defer to.
And for that reason, atheism is a larger group than feminist atheism, or skeptical atheism, or skeptical feminist atheism, and if anyone manages to draw enough attention in a very large group, they are going to get shat on from great height by a very large group of people.
Smaller groups are nicer. Fewer assholes. In fact, build the groups just right and you won’t have to hear a critical or disrespectful word ever again.
Wasn’t talking to you, that was for Christopher Camp.
“But you might want to consider court room procedures in which one party opening up a particular topic allows the other one to respond in kind But you might want to consider court room procedures in which one party opening up a particular topic allows the other one to respond in kind.”
Bloody hell, you’ve got to be kidding. Oh and “virulent feminism” only exists in your head.
“Subtle way sexism controls our society? There is nothing subtle about the patriarchy. http://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2012/pdf/StatisticalOverviews.pdf
Way to go, Joe. You preach on to all your fellow men about why being a “feminist ally” will get you laid!!! Well done.
You’re really ringing the revolution bell there, the ruling class is shakin’ in their boots with all your change and sex advice.
Aw, that’s so nice! Now, pat her on the head and give her a cookie!
Steersman said, “Considering the frankly sexual nature of Lunam’s initial comment, and her subsequent ones…. it seems a rather specious argument to claim that she was entirely blameless for at least some of the subsequent comments.”
Please show me the comments that you think were “flirty” or sexual. She was bantering with the people who were actually being decent to her and calling out the sickening behavior toward her. This is what she had to say about the joke that you think don’t make her entirely blameless for the the sexually explicit and rapist shit directed at her:
Lunam:
“I said it as a childish alternative to bracing myself. That does not give people the right to say those sorts of things to a little girl. I shouldn’t have to walk on egg shells thinking of what to say because I don’t want to harassed, but thanks. You haven’t seen the messages I have been getting, and I don’t think those three words merited all of those comments.”
You are flat out lying. Just give it up already.
I really admire all the idealism in here. But, I just want to bring up a point. The third wave of basically anything is always bad. Third wave feminism, the third period of the COMINTERN, third wave of ska, “third wave of democracy,” etc. It’s just best to stop when you’ve reformed yourself to the level of needing a third wave.
Right? It’s like, a religion or something is being built when a epistemological viewpoint rooted in skepticism has nothing of value bringing the people of the viewpoint into a relationship with the universe. Since nothing is inherently shared in the group whose epistemology is rooted in skepticism, a culture of groupthink will need to occur in the reality of the void!
My personal brand of atheism, for instance, is rooted in a little thing called dialectical reasoning (dialectical materialism). It is an atheism applied to the universe in order to bring me into as much of a understanding of the universe as possible.
Indeed. It’s called socialism. Or, Marxism rather (many non-Marxists like to steal and appropriate our word).
Perhaps because that would actually require some risk and/or cost, when ideas keep to yourself are soooo F___ing free.
Jen – I apologize for trolling. I think it is really valuable that you have put this article out. Stay solid, sister!
WOW Christopher, you are a real piece. “Aside from this, I cannot really take this seriously. If you actually have to state that you *actually* feel *safer* walking down the street than xyz, then you are simply addicted to feeling threatened and in the habit of attributing victim status to yourself. That is to say, unless you live in a scary city where people get shot and assaulted at every turn.” You are absolutely disgusting. Check this out: http://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2012/pdf/StatisticalOverviews.pdf
The truth is that no woman can feel safe when walking down the street anywhere because of how violent our society is, and because of the patriarchy.
I do agree that atheism doesn’t constitute a movement, however. Social justice work could come out of it, sure. But if you are taking a rational epistemology and infusing it with social justice, then you have described the ingredients of Marxism. Might as well become engaged in the revolution. Though you, Christopher, will get your ass handed to you by any comrade for being a misogynist (and probably for many other reasons as well).
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve hear all say and I’ve been arguing with fundies on yahoo answers.
i know where you re coming from…i m a 55 yr old feminist/atheist…i have been banned from an atheism group on fb by a young misogynist shane phillips…and just read in another group a idiotic discourse about women s reproductive rights and responsibilities…..omg….i thought we had fought this fight but it will never be over
callistacat said (#320.1.2),
Actually, no; it’s called an analogy, a perfectly respectable method of logic and reasoning and discourse.
Really? Considering the rather large number sects within feminism – so many that feminism looks to be in a real horse-race with Christian-ism with its 38,000 different ones – it seems not at all beyond the realm of possibility that several of them might justify the pejorative adjective. Consider these quotes of some putative leaders of various branches of the former which show some similarities with some of the latter, notably the WBC:
Barbara Jordan:
Judith Levine:
Valerie Solanas:
Robin Morgan:
Virulent? Ha! Some might call that being charitable ….
Yay! I love this post! This is the kind of atheist community I want to be a part of!
This is a great idea, and I’m glad to read that you’re doing it.
While you’re still at the beginning stages, please—I cannot emphasize this enough&mdashplease go out of your way to bring in people who are not well represented (if they are present at all) in the current movement. Bring them in on the ground floor so that they can have a powerful role in building the foundation of the organization and shaping the direction it will take.
So many feminist organizations begin with a group of heavily privileged women (straight, white, cis, currently able bodied, middle-to-upper class, college educated, etc.). They build it up, and then invite others to join as a way of increasing their diversity. But when women of intersecting marginal identities show up and see a) how few people like ourselves are present, b) how there is little to no discussion of how the issues at hand affect us (because it’s often in a different way), and c) how our struggles aren’t seen as a vital part of the core of the organization, and instead are consistently deprioritized (as if standing with us against the oppression we face wouldn’t help all of us).
So before this organization you’re building begins to coalesce, actively figure out how to bring in people you don’t already see in your ranks. Women of color (including indigenous women!), women living in poverty, mothers, disabled women (with a variety of disabilities, who can have input on different kinds of accessibility for internet content, physical gatherings, etc.), trans women, queer women, pink collar workers. Don’t just invite them—find ways to support them so that they can (and will want to) participate.
And as you’re growing the number of people, consider this: In male-dominated arenas, there is a point at which there are enough women present that men can claim there isn’t any bias against women, because they’re obviously represented! It’s just that women aren’t as interested/smart/dedicated/talented/etc. as men are, so they haven’t earned a place there. *eyeroll* There may be women present, but they’re never so in great enough numbers to be able to shift policies and behavioral norms away from the sexism and misogyny that infect them.
In Women and the Leadership Gap, Leslie Bennetts writes that female representation in positions of power seems to max out at 16%. So what percentage is necessary before women’s perspectives become and integral part of the culture and outcomes of organizations?
Drastic under-representation in positions of power obviously hurts women (see: your entire post). Please don’t re-create the same dynamic and marginalize women (or anyone else) who are already disempowered by the kyriarchal power structure.
Phew, that was a lot. Thanks for reading, though, and for considering what I’ve written.
callistacat said (#320.2),
While I’ll concede there weren’t many of them – 3 or 4 out 27 including the one of “three words”, and that they weren’t particularly risqué apart from the latter, they still suggest a level of sexual knowledge inconsistent with her subsequent characterization of herself as “a little girl”:
But I did say “[not] entirely blameless for at least some of the subsequent comments” which you managed to strawman into “[not] entirely blameless for the sexually explicit and rapist shit directed at her”. I had suggested earlier in this thread and stated in a comment in the post by Rebecca Watson that some of the “men” there were “a bunch of p****s [who] have all the moral sensibilities of a pack of rabid dogs – sociopaths, if not psychopaths, all”. Does that look much to you like someone who is condoning “rapist shit”?
However, it seems to me that your interpretations of the meaning and consequences of the word “blameless” is a little suspect and quite problematic. Consider a case in which I decided to play goalie in a hockey game without the proper protective equipment and got a puck in the mouth. Even though the puck would have been intentionally directed at me, am I entirely blameless for subsequent injuries? Or, how about if I’m in a car accident – not my direct fault – but I suffer extra injuries because I wasn’t wearing a seat-belt? Seems to me the court tends to reduce the compensation paid in such cases because such individuals were not entirely blameless.
Likewise with Lunam: I would think it rather improbable that she didn’t know the “community standards” – such as they are – in play on that blog and that she initiated the “game” – or at least a particular gambit in it – so can’t very reasonably fall back on being “a little girl” if the game got a little rougher – a little more sexually explicit – than expected. That some of the other players went off the deep end into “rapist shit” is a somewhat separate issue on which those “community standards” and questions of free speech might have some bearing. But “entirely blameless” – and the somewhat manufactured outrage coming from Watson in consequence – seem a not particularly credible argument.
A little late to the party, but I just wanted to shout out my “Fuck YES!” from my metaphorical rooftop.
YES YES YES YES YES. THIS.
I cried when I saw that the con coming up in Dallas has free childcare. I fucking cried. That let me know that I matter, too, and that my kids matter, too, because we are all important to building a humanist, atheist society. My kids get to know that they’re not just something to be shunted off elsewhere when Mommy wants to go hang out with likeminded people and hear cool things. A+ indeed.
Wow. I had no idea that childcare was THAT vital. Noted, and as a volunteer, I’ll see what I can do.
Wow, way to welcome a guy who might be just trying to voice some support.
This Audre person must be new around these parts. Tis Himslf doesn’t have anything to prove in the being-an-ally department.
Great post and I love the concept – I will no longer support any atheist/humanitarian groups if they don’t support social justice and equality. If such groups can’t handle the fact that straight-white-male isn’t a default setting for human beings and that people outside that narrow definition have additional concerns to address, let those groups fizzle out and fade away.
Hello Jen,
I am late to the party and have not read all the comments, but I just wanted to tell you this:
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!! I’M SO HAPPY!!!!
This is everything I have come to identify with. Atheist, Humanist, Skeptic, Feminist, Equalist. A+ !!!!
I can’t wait to attend an A+ conference and wear an A+ pendant. I’ve never wanted to do either before.
Jen, you are my hero. Hugs and high fives!
Having a conference with no childcare would make it completely impossible for me to come. It would be like inviting a quadriplegic person to a conference on the 100th floor of an elevatorless building.
The Richard Dawkins Foundation has provided free childcare to atheist events before. I’m not sure how one goes about requesting funding but I’m sure it’s not harder than a few emails.
what a waste of bandwidth. kill yourself and get it over with.
*points and laughs at bubba* Awwww, who’s a cute little troll trying to sound all manly and macho! its’ so cute when you pants-pissing cowards try to sound scary.
You know, if you were just nicer, we’d be one your side. But you’re asking for it, acting all testerical and irrational.
Fail.
You’re entire post is just one gigantic fallacy.
This opening paragraph is a sweeping generalization of epic and obnoxious proportions.
Is there anything inherent in feminism that would require the characterizations that you made? Anything at all?
The only requirement for the label of “feminist” is that you believe in the social, political, and economic gender equality. That’s it. By definition.
You just said that feminists don’t do well in the community because of a whole host of reasons, and bolstered those reasons with examples of mostly one person. Even if your interpretation of those examples or the facts surrounding those examples were not in dispute – what you said is absolutely an egregious error in thinking.
You have essentially insulted me, and hundreds (possibly thousands) of other people that you have never met or interacted with – based on your characterization of a few who happen to have a shared characteristic that has no direct tie to your accusations.
Further, you are saying that these character flaws (apparently shared by all feminists) is the reason they do not do well; as an comment on a blog about the years of experience of a feminist deeply involved in the movement who is explaining her mistreatment.
So, your answer to this seems to be – well, since you are a feminist you must suck in these ways so you should expect it? Or are you saying that, no this mistreatment did not happen? Or are you saying that, this mistreatment was not mistreatment?
I’m glad you posted, because, my friend – you are the problem. You’re the problem because you have essentially stated that all feminists suck in response to someone saying that she has been subject to mistreatment.
What should my reaction be to someone who would insult me – think less of me, of my intellect, of my ability to contribute – because I believe in socioeconomic gender equality and therefor call myself a feminist?
I would like you to be open to the idea that perhaps you are being unfair and that your reasoning is flawed. I would also like you to be open to the possibility that you are seeing what you expect to see. The stereotype of the over-sensitive irrational “feminist”, I’m sure exists somewhere in reality but assuming that of everyone who calls themselves a feminist is just confirmation bias run amok.
You might want to start by actually engaging with the author of the blog post you are commenting on, instead of someone completely different and discussing the merits and flaws in her ideas instead of making blanket insults.
I think you’re exaggerating.
I have had a deep respect for you brother and was glad to see you post here!
I don’t know if a new movement is needed or if the rest of us just need to speak up a little louder against the ones treating others poorly. I don’t and won’t put up with this kind of behavior. I am in favor of doing what we can to weed out those idiots or give them an opportunity to fix a bad habit they were taught since they were little and don’t realize that they need to see where it is wrong, just like they did with religion. There is no doubt it is a creepy and scary behavior.
To the authors of feminism, I vow to be even better at correcting this kind of behavior around me, even more than I actually already do. Great job on this article, I am motivated!
I don’t think our movements need new names, we just need to do better at reinforcing better attitudes and behaviors. If everyone does what they can near or around them, it will have an impact.
NO.
Affirmatism – makes it sound anti-skeptic and full of people who somehow require constant “affirmation”.
I think A+ works really well.
There are other organizations, such as humanism, that are not as centered on atheism that are very involved in social justice. Unitarian Universalism is also FULL of atheist, secular humanists, deists, and agnostics who are very involved in social justice.
A+ shouldn’t be competing with those, but fill a compartment for those who are social justice oriented, but also not fond of the trappings of religion-like organizational structures.
I can see such a movement exploring the ways in which religion is counter to social justice, and dogma allows for human rights abuses and the like.
Many atheists are atheists for MORAL reasons – straight up. This would be a great niche for them. It’s also less offensive to those who see an atheism movement as JUST the lack of belief in a god or gods; with any discussions either than church-state separation and philosophical naturalism being “off topic”.
…as if discussing how many religions treat women and how those dogmas effect women and men socially and psychologically, is somehow “off topic” to atheism.
I’ve spent enough time coming to terms with my atheism – really, moving on to build a new perspective after the old one has been discarded is a worth while endeavor.
No, I won’t take sides because I don’t have enough information about what’s going on. I can make a judgement, sure, I can as I support this camp or that, but in the end I don’t see how it would help. I will offer and lend support where it is needed and deserved. But to put all eggs in one basket is a little narrow minded if you ask me. No offence intended to anyone, but I don’t read everything, I don’t know everything, and I fear I will never get all the info I need to make a truly objective decision on something so arbitrary as “side-choosing” when I don’t have enoughn information to make an informed decision. Besides I hate tribalism.
Just my standpoint, make of it what you will.
Someone once said; “Lawyers or doctors often tell me ‘Wait and see.’ By the time I go to a lawyer or a doctor, I have already waited, and I have already seen.”
That’s the way it is with misogyny in the atheist movement. When other atheists said spectacularly awful things to writers I respect and cherish, I saw. When someone published their home addresses, I saw. When the hundreds of oppressive comments contained threats, I saw. And while I did respond at the time, I have also been waiting for something like this.
I don’t mind much if someone describes me as a Humanist. Humanism espouses all my social values, but doesn’t focus on atheism which is also important to me. Atheism is defined as nothing more than the absence of a belief in God, and that’s fine. I support anyone who does not believe in God defining themselves as an atheist. Over the years I’ve described to Christians as an atheist, but then had to explain to them that atheism is quite compatible with humanitarian values.
What I like about the A+ expression is that it focuses on atheism, and highlights humanistic values without trying to force a change in the basic definition of an atheist.
Many commenters have gotten rather testy about “being told how to define themselves”. Nobody has to change the way they define themselves, but along comes a definition that fits me better than the ones I’ve been using. I’m with that. So why is anyone threatened by it?
So, three days late, here’s another logo idea:
http://rejiquar.com/static/std/1807c67f6b463771e1a2b27228ed7aca.jpg
Consider the intermittent two days’ worth of effort my way of saying, About time…
haha, yes, if not for their belief in God all these misogynist atheists discussed in this article would be goodafj;leajef;ladjfa I can’t believe how dumb you are
“Virulent” just means “extremely infectious.”
So, thanks for demonstrating why A+ is needed: so that decent atheists can separate themselves from the bigoted sad sacks like you.
Bye-bye!
Sally Strange said (#320.1.3.1),
“Virulent” also means:
In the context of some manifestations of feminism, I would go with door 2 or 3 with some genuflecting to portions of 1a. Largely because the evidence – you know, the stuff you’re supposed to have in spades but don’t – that I provided gives some justification for thinking that might be the case ….
Sally Strange said (#320.1.3.1) [repost for continuity],
“Virulent” also means:
In the context of some manifestations of feminism, I would go with door 2 or 3 with some genuflecting to portions of 1a. Largely because the evidence – you know, the stuff you’re supposed to have in spades to support your dogma but don’t – that I provided gives some justification for thinking that might be the case ….
An article about the safety of women in the atheist/skeptic movement without a single statistic about safety but just countless anecdotes and stories?
That’s the reason I won’t be part of your A+. Not because I support sexism or racism, not because I want women to be endangered but because you’re consistently dedicated to talking about issues based on anecdotes and personal experience and “feel” instead of hard data. (and because people like Richard Carrier say if I don’t join A+ then I’m siding with sexists and racists)
I wouldn’t be so bothered but I actually want women (As well as all people) to be safe and you’re doing a shit job of protecting them by obsessing over anecdotal reports and not putting your effort into systematic accumulation of data which is what we as skeptics ought to know is what you need to do in order to seriously address a problem.
Prove me wrong and post the new data FtB/Skepchick has accumulated on harassment/danger in the skeptic movement over the last year, and what effect their efforts have had on those numbers.
Please.
Sally Strange said (#320.2.1.1),
Says she while wrapping herself in the cloak of purity-of-essence known as feminism. Which is looking a little tarnished and tattered and threadbare to me …
Given your willingness to concede at least that some MRAs had some good points, I expected better of you than for you to think, apparently, that feminism is immune to various pathologies of its own ….
But I wasn’t planning on going anywhere – are you saying that you’re now abandoning the field?
Also before you write me off, ask yourself if there’s ANY other issue involving safety that you would address with such sparse attention to data.
Would you really write a 3 page article about homeopathy that contained no data about the efficacy of homeopathy? Would you rely on countless anecdotes about how friends of yours had received no benefit from homeopathy as proof it doesn’t work? Would you dedicate multiple paragraphs about your own personal experience with homeopathy as evidence of how ineffective homeopathy is?
Of course not. And by the way its an insult to my intelligence to accuse me of blaming victims/accusing people of being liars when I ask for evidence when I (and you) would ask it in any other subject that wasn’t so emotionally volatile.
“…they still suggest a level of sexual knowledge inconsistent with her subsequent characterization of herself as “’a little girl’”
She’s fifteen. None of the quotes you provided from Lunam sound remotely like she was being sexually flirtatious. They sound like she was being sarcastic and trying to have a sense of humor in respose to the torrent of comments from men graphically describing the ways they’d like to have sex with an under-aged girl. The analogies you gave were just silly.
I still don’t get why you believe any young girl who has knowledge of sex is somehow fair game for harassment, or how it is inconsistent to have knowledge of sex and still be a child.
“I said it as a childish alternative to bracing myself. That does not give people the right to say those sorts of things to a little girl. I shouldn’t have to walk on egg shells thinking of what to say because I don’t want to harassed, but thanks. You haven’t seen the messages I have been getting, and I don’t think those three words merited all of those comments.”
Did you miss this? Or do you believe she *should* have to walk on eggshells?
As far as your quote mining to justify your strange view of what feminism is, here is the defintion:
fem·i·nism
noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
That’s it. The way you cherry-picked some comments to vilify feminism looks eerily similar to the tactics used by religious fundamentalists against atheism.
^ Hahahahah! *Hits PRTSC, crops the screen capture, posting it on facebook*
Religion is not the reason for all evils. Just some of them. And nor is religion the cause of most wars, just some of them. And yes, the world would be better without theism, but the world’s problems also wouldn’t be all resolved simply because religion is no longer.
Jim said (#394.0),
Generally agree with you about the A+ comments, but that one seems a little problematic. While it is probably true that there is a dearth of factual evidence of “harassment/danger in the skeptic movement”, it seems that there is a great amount of evidence in general which no one really seems to dispute. But, for examples, this blog by a woman has a fairly well populated and detailed section – This Is Sexual Harassment – on the topic. And Ophelia Benson had quite a good post on the issue – The Phenomenology of Harassment – the other day.
Seems clear to me that there is a great amount of low-level harassment and propositioning and groping going on. But the problem seems to be in deciding what definitions are applicable and what levels can be criminalized and what standards of evidence are to be used in meting out justice. Just talking about “accumulation of data” tends to both highlight and obscure the question as to how that might be done – maybe, as suggested in a video on Ophelia’s blog, some women need to be wired for audio and video and act as “bait cars” ….
Difficult problem but one not likely to be solved by relying on dogma or by riding off in all directions ….
callistacat said (#320.2.1.2),
I think we need to at least put that on the back burner for a bit as we seem to be going in circles, in part because I think you’re ignoring what I’ve said. But your statement there highlights, I think, part of the problem. More specifically, one might reasonably ask what evidence you have as to what constitutes harassment and how many statements or comments of what type are necessary before the conversation qualifies as that – pretty subjective otherwise. In addition one might argue that the degree of sexual knowledge one has is a primary determinant in deciding one’s level of maturity. And unless you want to argue that her relationship with her boyfriend is entirely platonic – a stretch given the number of teenage pregnancies – I would say she is likely to be quite a bit more than just a child. For either of you to claim otherwise seems rather disingenuous at best …
Really? Ok, try this one on for size:
You think maybe the Germans who ran the concentration camps and the Japanese who engaged in the rape of Nanking and the Americans responsible for My Lai didn’t do so out of, or as a consequence of, patriotism?
If all feminists worked entirely on the basis of the definition you provided then I don’t think there would be much of problem – in part because it is then essentially equivalent to humanism: equal rights for all. But the fly in the ointment, the shadow between the dream and the reality, is that it, they – both feminism and patriotism, get corrupted by all sorts of other motivations and perspectives and values: hence the necessity for the other adjectives, some more pejorative – and accurate – than others.
Seems to me that you really can’t credibly deny those branches, those combinations, when Wikipedia talks about Valerie Solanas as a “radical feminist writer” and Ophelia Benson talks about “difference feminism” and Greta Christina talked of the “porn wars” that was fracturing feminism itself. Feminism, as defined, certainly seems a noble and credible and worthwhile goal – it has been the source of a great many social benefits. But failing to recognize those other aspects and factors tends to cause more problems than it solves. And trying to graft feminism, with all that fractiousness, onto atheism/skepticism looks like a very good recipe for disaster ….
When it comes to the subject of harassment at cons of in the atheist community at large, there are no statistics. The reason is that nobody has freakin bothered to look into it.
Part of the reason why we’ve been arguing for sexual harassment policies is to institute proper procedures for reporting and logging of incidents, so that we could get some actual hard data.
That was part of the whole problem with DJ Grothe’s comments. He claimed no recorded cases of harassment, when there was no procedure for recording such cases. It’s no wonder that no one can remember a case of harassment when everybody’s so eager to forget all about it.
We can’t cite statistics that don’t exist. The proper response to a lack of statistical data is not to then conclude that there’s no problem. Rather, it’s to institute policies that will allow you to gather such data.
Yet, when we propose exactly that, lots of people come out of the woodwork , trying to prevent it from happening. Why is that?
Came from reddit. Was promised (via good odds) openly offensive comments (ala bracin’ mah …) Expected intellectual beat downs of those offensive comments. Found only applause. Left disappointed.
There is ample data about harassment and danger to women in society at large, in the workplace, and in the military. Why it would be different in the skeptic community? Is adherence to any ideology a guarantee of good character?
Do we need to re-study every possible demographic to find out that they are like other people? Like, Oh, sure, women in the military are often raped and women at college are often raped but women at conferences should just ignore it when some stranger grabs their boob?
I saw what happened online to that kid with the Carl Sagan book. Just reading that Reddit thread was enlightening. And women I know who are online a lot tell me their experience is very different from mine.
We’re not doing double-blind studies on the efficacy of a new drug here; this is a different sphere. “This stuff is going on, fellows, and please join in making it socially unacceptable to treat women like objects.” OK, I can do that. Regardless of what label you wear or don’t wear, that shouldn’t be a hard call.
Note to all: don’t follow that first link. There’s no evidence, only a personal account buried in a bunch of Rebecca/Amy victim-blaming. No reason but trolling to call it ‘evidence’ and set it alongside Ophelia’s post.
For instance:
YOu’ll bewritten off because youre are either a liar or completely ignorant of the subject matter. Therefore, your opinion is worthless. Have fun with the bigots you chose to lay down with. Enjoy the fleas.
Very true, which suggests a modification of Jim’s analogy with homeopathy.We know that homeopathy is useless in every area where it’s ever been studied and the basic principles are horribly flawed.
Now we’re suggesting it shouldn’t be used to treat a new disease and up comes Jim to say “Hold on, you haven’t proven that it’s ineffective against this new disease. All the studies were done on treating other diseases, so until you provide a study on this one, I will assume that homeopathy works just fine and you’re being irrational if you think otherwise.”
In every area and demographic where it’s been studied, we’ve found that sexual harassment occurs and is a real problem. Why would we assume otherwise when it comes to atheists?
And if you think it’s not that big a problem, why not support the reporting procedures that will give you the data to back it up?
Do you have to practice lying through your teeth or does it come naturally to you?
Excellent post, Jen. And thumbs up for the Atheist+ idea. Really important for us to see that this movement goes way beyond not-believing-in-a-god-or-gods and that we should try to make this the best place possible. Which means taking out A LOT of garbage.
And now every time I say “garbage”, the image of a not-so-Amazing Atheist comes to mind.
Stop making shit up about Toronto, thanks. Atheism and feminism are both needed and big fucking deals here. As for the latter, there’s a damn reason SlutWalk came out of this city.
Sincerely,
An Atheist Feminist Who Lives In TO.
I agree with Jim (#394) and George (394, 1). I didn’t see any evidence to suggest that non-believers are any more or less sexist or potentially offensive than any other group. It’s a little pie in the sky, don’t you think, to expect all atheists to be good people, just like calling yourself a believer doesn’t make you a good person. Quite the opposite in many cases. While working toward equality is commendable — as it always has been — you aren’t going to get it by proclaiming that you have invented a new movement and requesting that these offensive atheists play nice. If you want a perfect society, or even a movement, free of offensive people, you are on the wrong planet.
Advocating for human equality, mutual respect, and progressive change are not, alas, inherent in atheism, which is simply an expression of the absence of belief in any deity/ies. Yet, many of us atheists do have and articulate beliefs that motivate us to choose affirmative terms such as Humanism and Humanist which are historically and currently linked to struggles for human advancement to move us all toward universal equality, liberty, democratic engagement and empowerment. Such visionary goals for humanity are shared by many, but sadly not all, who choose for themselves many other labels such as agnostic, atheist, freethinker, materialist, naturalist, nontheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, etc. While these other terms can and do express other important ideas that many of us share, they do not all point toward the improvement of the human condition. Even as we work on our own diverse biases, we can hopefully also reach many others – nontheists and theists alike – with positive messages and examples fostering mutual respect and egalitarian relations among all people. Realistically we know that we may influence some but not all with such efforts, but without these endeavors we’d simply preach to the progressive atheist choir. To foster respect toward all, we must strive to challenge others and encouraging them in ways that model the values we seek to spread – a fairly difficult task, but a worthy one that can and often enough does change opponents into allies.
Ding ding ding. Congratulations. Right on the first try.
Now, think about that for a bit.
We don’t. That’s the point. If we thought all atheists were nice, friendly, wonderful people simply because they were atheists, there’ d be no need to have this discussion.
We aren’t exactly “requesting that they play nice.” Rather, we’re saying that if you don’t want to play nice, you’re part of the fucking problem. We’re saying that we’re not going to join up with people who are assholes and pretend that we have very much in common with them. Just cause we’re both atheists doesn’t mean we’re allies.
The point is precisely to point out that rejecting religion doesn’t in and of itself make you one of the good guys. We’re trying to be the good guys and we’d like to associate with people who are also interested in making an effort to be the good guys.
Where, exactly, did anyone ‘ask the offensive atheists to play nice’? All i see if a hell of a lot of opeople telling the “offensive” atheists to go the fuck away.
Thanks for that, but I would add that A+ is an attempt to address sexism, as opposed to not addressing it and hoping it goes away. That’s what movements do. They don’t (claim to) cure social ills at a swipe, but they start. You won’t get anywhere unless you start.
Oops, hit “Submit” too soon…
It isn’t an indictment of all other non-plussy Atheist movements, it’s a statement of something important to us. And I say “us” to include even me as a d00d, because I’ve been looking for a way to address it. Sexism makes things worse for guys too.
I can’t express how much I like this idea. I don’t tend to get much involved in things, (I’m a passive activist – yuck yuck yuck), but I would really like to get involved with this.
Thank you for bringing up free childcare! That’s a great example the kind of support I was talking about. It’s something that most event organizers don’t even consider, and yet it’s crucial to many people who can’t attend without it.
If we want to be truly inclusive, we must go to the people who aren’t represented and ask them what we could do for them that would enable them to be a part of the movement and to allow them to participate in the way they’d like to.
I’m a little late to the party (had to dig out of a thesis-writing hole just to get here), but sign me up for A+ or whatever it’s going to be called. I’ve *been* ready to feel safe and welcomed in this community, and I’m glad to see others are just as tired of waiting. Anyone who can’t dump their prejudices and come along, leave ’em to rot.
Pteryxx says (#394.2.1),
Simply unbelievable: now you must anathematize certain sites and put them on a proscribed list lest the faithful have their faith corrupted? Are you saying that A-plusers have so little skepticism that they are unable to weigh the case presented on their own? That is the membership criterion to be admitted to your new clubhouse?
Rather unfortunate, particularly considering that another section in that post – American Patriarchy At Its Finest – should have been enough to warm the cockles of the heart of the most dogmatic feminist (somewhat of a redundancy):
Seems to me that you might want to reflect on the Biblical aphorism [The Horror!] about separating the wheat from the chaff ….
Speaking as an able-bodied, white, male, heterosexual atheist, I think you have hit the nail exactly on the head. The sense of elitism I’ve seen from some of the most outspoken atheists has put me off, and I too hope that such behavior represents their last gasp.
If you were trying to play for audience sympathy, I think you kinda blew it with that comment.
Here’s a hint: if you want to come off as the impartial observer, try not to make comments that expose your bias. It ruins the effect.
LykeX said (#394.2.2.1),
I did say “somewhat of a redundancy”. But I figured that I was actually being somewhat charitable there. I mean, “Marxist feminism”? “Radical feminism”? [think Valerie Solanas] “Difference feminism”? And all of those are based entirely on factual evidence? If so then why so many splinter groups within feminism? Like religions, they can’t all be right; maybe none of them are.
Seems to me there is plenty of evidence to justify the argument, the hypothesis, that there’s a fair amount of dogmaticism that goes along with the product known as feminism.
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women
That’s what feminism is. Do you disagree with that? Do you think there’s anything irrational or dogmatic about it? If you do, then feel free to go fuck yourself. If not, then what’s the fucking problem?
The fact that some irrational ideology might include feminism is no more a condemnation of feminism than the fact that Stalin being an atheist is a condemnation of atheism.
There are several different currents within atheism. Does that mean that they’re all wrong? Or does it simply mean that we need to apply a little thought to making our distinctions?
Do you really disagree with feminism, or are you imply disagreeing with certain political movements that happen to be feminist?
Are you going to join a religion just because some atheists are assholes or are you capable of seeing that they’re separate things?
Or maybe some of them are, to varying degrees. How are you going to find out? Are you just going to reject them all because they happen to share one characteristic? Is that very rational?
Maybe this is just me being a guy, maybe as a result of my gender and sexual orientation I have blinders on, but are’t you being a little hard on those heterosexual white(?) to whom you refer to so (forgive me for thinking of it as such) derisively in your article? for the most part I would say that the leaders in what is now known as “The New Atheist” movement are veryin tune with most of feminist and human rights thought. I can even remember Hitchens, dawkins, and Harris speaking about them directly. As for the first wave of Atheists, more heterosexual white males (Am I just imagining the snear?) I will grant that many were nothing more than products of their enviornment and the overiding, and thankfully, antiquated view of women, minorities, and sexuality, but aren’t you forgetting people like Ingersoll, who, in the mid 1800’s was a champion for women and their rights? He spoke about them in nearly every address I have read. I understant that there are sexists in atheism, although I dont understand how someone with enough common sense to see that there is no god can have so little as to be truely cheauvanistic. But do you really think there are no sexists in feminism? or in the LBGT community? are you going to keep them out as well?
Some would even say Christianity WAS an infiltration by people trying to exert their political will…just a thought
You have a good point. I think sometimes in the Atheist community even though we rally under the common flag of free thinking, there has to be a point we must come to terms with what society has programmed into our psyche. I feel Atheism should not only be a movement to question the logic of religion, but the logic of our societal roles. I feel sexism is a societal role that is unfortunately accepted as a form of indoctrination and can not only be seen in the Atheist community, but all communities.
If Atheism is to be true to its core belief, the movement needs to question not only religion, but question society and our roles as individuals in relation to each other.
My concerns is that if I don’t jump on board, or agree with any or all of this, that I will be labeled as against women (impossible being I am one). My issue is this. I have seen women scream equal rights, and then turn around and use their attributes to get ahead. I don’t see where being an atheist, and being a woman should be linked.
If your interested in exploring some new ideas on this issue, I urge you to check out this talk.
sigh.
*sigh* Women absolutely can be misogynist, even to themselves. See the Quiverfull movement, or FGM for example; or GirlWritesWhat defending men beating their wives.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/08/whats-so-wrong-with-men-beating-up-women-really/
There’s no justice. Just Us.
Applause!!!!
The more I read about this I more I realize that…this is just a joke for those that lack true self confidence and have little emotional self control…
yeah, totally, if only all these ’emotional’ women would just shut up and take the misogyny directed at them there wouldn’t be any problems, right?
I didn’t say anything about women did I? But YOU ASSUMED it…
Having lived on both sides of the fence…I have an insight few do…
What I said applies to both genders, if you think it applies to you. Well maybe you should take time to re-evaluate your own view.
Nonsense.
You commented on a thread about misogyny in the atheist movement.
Your comment is clearly stating that you think people speaking out about misogyny “lack true self confidence and have little emotional self control”
If you think i’ve misinterpreted what you wrote (which, you have to admit, is pretty freaking vague) please feel free to elaborate on your original comment.
“If you think i’ve misinterpreted what you wrote (which, you have to admit, is pretty freaking vague)”
Yes, you misinterpreted what I said. It was meant to be non-specific(especially in terms of gender). I saw no reason to be divisive or to use a narrow scope, and the only thing I clearly did was use broader terms to describe broader issues.
Are there any other of your own “interpretations” which offend you that you’d like me to clear up?
Jen –
Thank you for a well-written dope slap – I needed that. I’ve been sitting on the sidelines, vaguely aware from Rebecca’s postings that some male con attendees act like rutting pigs when away from their home sties. Reading the comments to this post makes me realize that the problem is much more widespread, and much more dangerous, than I thought likely.
I like the idea of “Atheism+” and I hope it evolves as a positive agent of positive change. I don’t yet know what I can do personally to assist, but it’s time to stop lurking and be a part of the change.
how about “people will always be dicks” and leave it at “atheism”.
You’re absolutely right. There’s hardly any point in even addressing threatening, minimizing behavior that ensures minorities have no place to safely enter the atheist movement. Can’t win, don’t try. /sarcasm
Yeah, I am quite lucky in the sex department, living with my (also)feminist boyfriend of 5 years. It’s fab, with the mutual respect, lack of holding each other to ridiculous standards of conventional attractiveness(brains being the sexiest parts c:) and to gender roles etc, the sex only gets better, and it was pretty darn good to start with.
…What, I’m supposed to hate sex? Man, that’s funny!
Beth:
I see no justification for your concern in Jen’s OP.
If you don’t want to join A+, you don’t have to.
There are those of us that feel one of the logical consequences of atheism is approaching issues of social justice with a skeptical eye, critical thinking and scientific inquiry.
Many of the issues facing women’s rights (in the US at least) are given tremendous strength through religion. If you remove the religion what’s left to support peoples’ beliefs? That’s the natural link between atheism and feminism. Substitute any discrimination strengthened by religion and you’ll get the same answer.
Why, yes! Looking back at every Civil Rights movement ever, it was a similar line of thinking that totally changed things. You freaking genius, you.
Steersman, I need to know something.
You quoted this as part of your evidence:
Are you aware that [Deleted User Name] was a) referring to the Sagan book and b) was the “really amazing boyfriend” she refers to in the last one you quoted? She banters with the “really amazing boyfriend” throughout the rest of the thread. Read it.
Also… if you really think that the banter she displays is abnormal of 15-year-olds, I’ve got a story for you:
About 5 years ago, back when I lived in Georgia (I live in Florida, now), I was hanging out with some friends at a Starbucks. One of them (I’ll call her “Sarah”) brought her younger brother, who was (at the time) in Kindergarten (the first year of school for 6-year-olds, for those who aren’t in the US).
At some point, I asked another friend, whom I’ll call “Jason” for the story, what he did over the weekend. Without stopping to think, he said “dude! I met up with [a girl he was crushing on at the time] and she gave me a blowjob!”
Every single one of us shushed him: “woah! There’s a little boy here. Not cool!” “Sarah” herself gave “Jason” a rather nasty look… until her little brother piped up and said “oh it’s okay. I know what a blowjob is.” He then proceeded to describe it in rather graphic detail (leaving out what it felt like, since, as he said, he hadn’t experienced one yet).
At the time, I thought this was quite abnormal.
It’s not.
Kids these days (for the record, I’m only 25, and I just turned 25 this past May) know a hell of a lot. It’s extremely normal, at least in my experience, for 15-year-olds (and younger, and older) to have quite a lot of knowledge about sex and sexuality that even I didn’t have at their age (and it wasn’t that long ago that I was at their age).
That is not an excuse for the comments Lunam was getting. I really don’t give a shit if she had posted a nude pic of herself with the Sagan book nestled right between her legs (ignoring, for the moment, the fact that this would be illegal). She’s fucking 15 years old. You just don’t respond the way a lot of those guys responded to her, circumstances and context be damned.
Period.
If you just look at the comments sections on all of these A+ related FTB articles, you can see how misguided this entire effort is.
Strip away the names of the posters and just read when the people claiming to support each other are saying to each other about this. It’s shameful to see people threatening others for “failing” to think precisely the way they do.
A+ is divisive at it’s root, creating an us-versus-them culture of elitism with sentiments no different than any religious movement who believes they’ve got it right this time.
The larger atheist community has it’s problems, but the effort should be made to change that community, not try and force the creation of a new one. Supporting A+ makes the atheist community weaker by taking those who would fight for changes to the way the community works internally and fencing them off in their own little area where they will only talk among themselves.
The presumption of authority over a way of thinking, and the gathered presumptions about people who aren’t just leaping on board (IE: If you don’t immediately think A+ is the best thing since sliced bread, you’re a racist, woman hating, white male neanderthal.) can lead to nothing good, especially not productive activity toward a world that is generally better for everyone to live and think in.
Which is the entire point. We want to create a division between the atheists that care about equality and social issues and those that don’t.
I don’t really see the problem with this. Do we really want to be inclusive at all costs? Are there no principles we will refuse to sacrifice? Personally, I think there are several such principles. There’s no requirement that we agree on everything, but if we’re going to work together, we do need to agree on a few of the basics.
E.g. if you can’t agree that women are human beings and deserve the same respect and consideration that men do, then I don’t want to associate with you. We’re neither mates nor allies.
On the other hand, if you do agree that women deserve such basic consideration, then I don’t really care whether you call yourself A+, Humanist or Jim, the Magic Elephant. You’re on my team.
Plenty of good things are divisive. When we criticize religion, that’s divisive. When we point out the travesty of the Catholic Church’s handling of child abuse, that’s divisive. When we tell people that, no, they didn’t really see a UFO, that’s divisive.
The entire skeptical/new atheist movement is based on the idea of telling people things they don’t want to hear. The founding principle it to point out when people are wrong, not just shut up to keep the peace.
Why, all of a sudden, is it such a big problem to be divisive?
Have you read any Sheila Rowbotham? She was a well known feminist in the UK back in the 70’s, and I am sure I recall reading that she and others had comparable problems with some parts of ‘the left’ in britain. Within unions or socialists and others, there were factions of misogyny and social conservatism who impeded the advance of feminism to equal pay for equal work, equal treatment, etc.
I see where you’re coming from, but one of the purposes of feminism is to address sexism. Feminists, who also happen to be atheists, and their supporters are certainly free to fight it and also fight to reduce the influence of bad apples from the atheist movement (and I fully support that) without inventing new movements when “New Atheism,” if we take Jen’s timescale here, is still in its infancy, while the “first wave” of atheism has thousands of years of scholarship behind it. Seems too soon to be conjuring up new movements based on some anecdotal evidence about some bad experiences with unbalanced individuals who could just as well exist in any movement.
LykeX said (#394.2.3.1),
I much prefer callistacat’s previous quote of the definition for feminism:
And I said in that discussion that that principle entails a noble and credible and worthwhile goal. But the definition you quoted conflates callistacat’s definition with a whole slough of other ideologies – Marxism for example – which are quite a bit less credible and which are quite a bit more problematic. Although one might reasonably argue that even that bare-bones principle is still somewhat of an article of faith, but one I’ll happily subscribe to.
Tsk, tsk; is that how the new atheist-plus-ests engage in rational argument? No reference to porcupines? You’ll have to turn in your membership card before it’s even issued ….
Good questions, but in the context of feminism your last question there highlights my argument that the brand of feminism that seems to be the core of your new and improved atheism (A†) has been taken on board without much reflection, thought or analysis. More specifically, it looks an awful lot like the “radical feminism” that is championed here by, among others, Sally Strange – a bit of a spark-plug for the topic, even if she periodically misfires. But considering that she herself has conceded that “the few isolated good points that MRAs have are indeed good points”, I would think that Atheism-Plus would look a lot more credible if it made some efforts both to elucidate the brand of feminism it espouses as well as to evaluate and give some consideration to those “MRA good points”. Rather than, in the latter case, of condemning all criticisms of your feminism as misogyny – which tends to give some credence to charges of dogmatism.
Yes, it is quite true that each of them may have some relevance and value. But since it seems that feminism of one sort or another plays a rather large role in your new “Atheism-Plus” – some might argue that it wants to be, or already is, in the driver’s seat – it also seems that you are the ones who have to make the case for the particular brand of feminism that is to hold sway. And particularly as it relates to those “MRA good points”.
In the kerfuffle over whether or not to add/change sexual harassment policies that was generally referred to as an anecdote. As more and more such stories arose, it was pointed out that the plural of anecdote is not data. The mind boggles at what would happen to our criminal justice system if such people were put in charge.
Oh, I always love answers like this. Because as we all know, Google will automatically know from such simple search terms everything we need to know, gather relevant data, sort it out from all the chaff, and present it an an easy to digest format. Just what the working atheist on the go needs.
Seriously dude, don’t be such a tool.
Thanks for the welcome, Happiestsadist. I was going to take issue with your tone, your language, and your apparent misapprehension of what I said. But I think I’ll just leave instead. Feel free to throw some more scatalogical vitriol at me; I promise I won’t be back to read it.
What?
The one and only problem is the annexation of the “atheist” label to front a political movement.
I don’t think there is reason to start a new movement. Atheists are already vocally against discrimination. Change it from within. By being open, I think you unwittingly unleashed the worst instincts in some of them. My comp is really slow, so a this moment, I cannot offer solutions I think will work. However, there are others who will not take a stand with you.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a thing being divisive, but you left out the rest of the sentence. The division is not the problem, the open displays of elitism and intolerance that are defining A+ are. The language being used in these threads/forums/blogs/whatever should be enough to cause anybody to wonder how they could ever support it.
The irony that we sound like two zealous religious camps fighting over pointless crap shouldn’t be lost on anybody. Some of the post-and-reply exchanges read like the transcript of a couple of twelve year olds screaming at each other over Xbox Live. That these sorts of exchanges are being mistaken for intellectual discourse is disheartening.
A+ relies on the fact that all “just plain atheists” are a collection of somehow intellectually compromised bigots and that atheism needs new people at the wheel.
First, and most importantly, the basic assumption is false. By analogy, the atheist-bigots in the community are the West-borough Baptist Church of atheism. They claim to be acting in the spirit of free thought and reasonable ideals, but they’re clearly doing it wrong. Why give bad thinking so much credibility that you have to abandon the larger idea and leave the bigots alone exactly like they want you to do?
Second, atheism is an old and complicated idea that has no governing body or purpose-determining group. Nobody “runs or owns” atheism, least of all people with hurt feelings who claim they do. Being “more passionate” about ideas does not make ideas any more credible or cause them to be deserving of consideration above similar ideas. All of this infighting is completely wasted effort. A lot of really smart people fighting about something that will go absolutely nowhere. This is a fight to captain a boat that doesn’t exist.
You kind of proved my point for me. You can call yourself whatever you want, but you and I believe the same things. We’re on the same team. Do we need to manufacture a movement every time something comes up on “our team” that we find uncomfortable?
Atheism lacks a set of uniform principles and this is one of atheism’s greatest strengths. Individuals coming to the same reasoned conclusions independently of one another is the most powerful sort of affirmation. A+ seeks to pre-define things for atheists on all issues, which leads to the sort of dogmatic thinking we’re supposed to be against. Many people involved with A+ are already singing the “It’s our way, or the highway” tune so cheerfully marched to by the faithful.
When the dust settles and it comes to light that A+ is intolerant of certain people because of new disagreements, are we going to need to make an A++? We should probably get on top of designing a logo for A++, since the divisions between people in A+ are already solidifying.
If you are actually a member of any of these minorities other than red head I’ll eat my hat. If you mentioned mentally challenged I might buy that. At any point did anyone say that being a part of this “club” meant being part of a minority. Thing REAL hard on this. Ok, times up. The answer is no. The condition for being a member is giving a flying fuck, which you obviously do not. Perhaps you just feel hurt because being a troll is not considered part of an oppressed minority?
We should be intolerant of certain things, like sexism. It’s not ok and I have no problem being intolerant of people who exhibit sexist behavior.
As for elitism, I’ve never understood why that was necessarily a bad thing either. Treating women with respect is better than being a sexist asshole.
Seems to me that you’re just throwing out buzzwords, trying to hit on buttons commonly shared by the liberal-minded.
If you mean “just plain atheist” as someone who is an atheist but specifically does not agree with the basic ideas of social justice, then yes. That’s pretty much a given.
If you mean “just plain atheist” as someone who does not identify as A+, but still agrees with the issues, then we’ve already been over that, so I can only assume you’re just not listening.
As for the rest, I’m having real trouble figuring out what you think we should be doing. Quite frankly I don’t get the problem. I mean, this whole bit:
I don’t get it. What are you saying?
Where could I see the proposed anti-sexual harassment polices?
Depends on who has the policy. Different organizations might have different policies, according to their needs. While certain general guide-lines apply, it’s not one-size-fits-all.
There’s a real-world example of a policy here and there’s an open-source policy here, which can be adapted to whatever.
I seem to recall a thread somewhere gathering examples of policies enacted by various atheist organizations. Does anyone have an idea about that?
Does Atheist Plus care about men’s rights to?
I don’t see why not, as long as we’re clear that it’s men’s rights, not Men’s Rights, which is something else entirely.
Really, much of feminism is already about men’s rights, since oppression of women is always coupled with a very narrow view of what it means to be a man. Misogynists are often terrified of doing anything that might hint at femininity, to the point of crippling their own self-expression.
It isn’t a zero-sum game.
I feel like I have been waiting years for someone to come up with this! I’m in.
Atheism Plus : More than just a lack of belief in gods.
I’m sure that’ll encourage more allies.
I suppose the rest of us who define atheism differently are A-.
A+ is not a “new definition of atheism” of anything like that. It is what it says; atheism plus something else. Atheism still has the same definition.
If you’re going to disagree, at least base your critique on something we’re actually saying, not just pure fantasy.
Nate Hevens says (#320.2.1.3)
I thought it likely that it was the book, but the context wasn’t really all that helpful in confirming that. But I did take a look at the 27 posts of hers that I could see and none of them led me to the conclusion that [Deleted User Name] was her “really amazing boyfriend”. But I could be mistaken, although I’m not quite sure what relevance it has.
That was sort of my point, that Rebecca Watson’s portrayal of her as some totally innocent naïf savaged, verbally if not physically although Watson seems unclear on the difference, by a bunch of Neanderthals was not particularly accurate and was not taking due cognizance of that level of sexual knowledge you refer to.
Not to mention that it suggested that she had an axe to grind and wasn’t much interested in a detailed analysis of the problem. For instance, while I could have emphasized this a little more in my first post, it seems to me that, as she suggested in her conclusion to that article, she was trying to portray the entire “atheist community” – or a very large portion of it – as largely equivalent to the “douchenozzles” described in her article – trying to tar a rather large portion of that community with the same odious brush.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I’m trying to “excuse the comments she received” – at least in the “forgive” sense of the word – as I’ve said, several times as a matter of fact, that some of the “men” there were “a bunch of p****s [who] have all the moral sensibilities of a pack of rabid dogs – sociopaths, if not psychopaths, all”. But maybe in the sense of “explain” or “understand” you might have a point. And in which regard, “community standards” and that relatively high level of sexual knowledge in teens and pre-teens which you spoke both have some significant relevance. In which case it seems important to differentiate – something that tends to be rather difficult once we let emotion cloud our judgement – between crude expressions of sexual desire and ones which suggest a desire or willingness or intent to abduct and rape.
I wish the user name wasn’t deleted, because then I could show you specifically, but he eventually notes that he is her boyfriend and she confirms it in the thread. I should also note that I swear she had more than 27 posts in that thread, so I’m wondering now if a lot of context (especially on the relationship between her and [Deleted User Name]) was removed for some stupid reason.
Her point, as is mine, was that it doesn’t matter. Like I said… the girl could have posted a picture of herself naked, and it still wouldn’t matter. Lunam’s sexual knowledge is irrelevant to the treatment she received on the thread.
I actually haven’t read Watson’s post on the thread in a while, so I don’t recall specifically how Watson characterized Lunam, but if she did try to suggest that Lunam was roughly equivalent to the high class, innocent virgin women of teh Victorian era, then of course she’d be wrong. But I don’t recall Watson characterizing Lunam like that. I think Watson ignored Lunam’s sexual knowledge, specifically because it makes no difference.
Just because Watson didn’t go out of her way to ensure that all of her readers knew she was only talking about a specific group of men does not mean she wasn’t. Honestly, always pointing out that you’re not talking about everyone is tedious and rather annoying. Most readers should have enough common sense to be able to see that the blogger is only talking about specific people without it having to be pointed out.
For example: if I post about asshole Christians giving me shit for my atheism, and go on to note how their giving me shit can be pulled from the Bible, it should be obvious to readers all over that I’m only talking about those specific Christians and that’s it. Thus, I’d regard posts like “yes, but not all Christians do this!” and “why are you painting with a big brush?” as troll posts. Because that much should already be obvious.
I know. I know you aren’t saying this specifically. My comment was a general comment.
But, see I don’t believe that the sexual awareness of someone who is under 18 matters in these issues.
Let’s go back to the story I told about the Kindergarten boy. Let’s say one of his teachers had decided to give him what he had been able to describe in so much detail. Would the fact that he had pretty damn good knowledge of that act mean anything at all in the court case in which the teacher would rightfully be accused of statutory rape?
I don’t think so. Again, I go back to the my original statement. Ignoring the fact that it’s illegal, Lunam could have posted a naked picture of herself and it still wouldn’t matter. She’s was 15 years old. Adult men do not have the right to post the kind of comments some of them did post to her, regardless of her sexual knowledge.
And for the record, Lunam did not appreciate those comments. I believe her last post on the thread ran something along the lines of “that moment when you realize you’ll never be appreciated as an atheist because you’re a woman” or something like that. It really was unacceptable behavior from those specific men who responded the way they did, regardless of how she responded. That was Watson’s point, that’s my point, and that really should be the only lesson to take away from it.
Things like this make me ashamed for my fellow males, the woman hating men seem to forget their moms are women, their daughters are, or will be, women. What the hell went wrong with these guys?
So as a straight white middle-class man I was misinformed when I thought that Feminism was focussed only on women’s rights?
So when there is a woman-only quota for a job I want next year, I should actually be thankful to feminism for excluding me from a job because ‘much of feminism is already about men’s rights’. Translation: “As a man you need to suffer a bit because we had to under your hegemony!!”
I think I’ll stick with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris thanks…
I have only recently become aware of this really strange bubble of existence known as the atheist/skeptical blogosphere…and I’m glad I haven’t wasted a lot of my life wading through the sixth-form champagne socialist ramblings instead of getting out and living my life. There is a hell of a lot of handwringing here over ‘social justice’ and other such mantra.
This quote: “If you mean “just plain atheist” as someone who is an atheist but specifically does not agree with the basic ideas of social justice, then yes. That’s pretty much a given”
is quite an alarming indication of the level of intellectual prowess on this subject, the inference being “if you don’t agree with what I say, I’ll label you as a racist/sexist/anything-ist.
Sounds like totalitarianism to me.
Have fun in your puddle of cyberspace while the big boys do the talking.
Bye.
PS. I have to add my 2-pence worth to this searingly immodest quote from the author: “I was exactly what a Boy’s Club wanted. I was a young, not-hideous woman”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and judging from the photo at the top, I’d rather keep my eyes closed!
Bye.
It’s more like “As a man, you need to get used to not being considered automatically superior to any woman.”
There’s no doubt that some men will be worse off when they don’t get the advantages that they’re used to. However, that’s no more to the point than saying that the son of the boss will be worse off if he has to actually earn his promotions like everybody else and doesn’t get on the fast-track just because of his dad.
Personally, I’m a bit undecided on the idea of quotas/affirmative action. Ideally, they shouldn’t be there, but I recognize that they may be necessary as a temporary way of breaking through ingrained prejudice.
You’re not very good at this. What it means is that if you express that you do not agree with an ideal, such as “racism is bullshit”, then you’re a racist. If you specifically disagree with the notion that women are humans and deserve the same respect and rights as men, then you’re a sexist.
It’s not a matter of what I believe, it’s a matter of definitions. You will have defined yourself as such, I’m simply pointing it out.
And “totalitarianism”? Are you out of your mind? Is anyone forming death squads here? Do you see anyone proposing a one-party system and the implementation of thought-crime legislation?
Well, actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were delusional enough to answer yes to those questions, but that says more about your mental equilibrium than anything else.
Yes, you were grossly misinformed. Feminism is the advocacy of social, political, educational, and economic equality between the sexes. That’s been its definition for over 100 years.
If you find such a thing as a woman-only job quota somewhere, please let us know where you found it. Better yet, contact a civil rights attorney and file a lawsuit, because quotas are illegal. Of course, people who whine about “quotas” are usually as ignorant about affirmative action as they are about feminism, so I’m not surprised you don’t know that you won’t be harmed by either – unless you were counting on your status as a white male to trump everything else.
Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the office where I can collect my winnings for being born to a poor white Canadian man?
I’ve decided I’ve taken enough shit from people who assume everything comes to me for free that I should probably take advantage of the things I’m constantly accused of taking advantage of. Does it matter that my dad has no money and no political or business connections? From the sound of things I was absent that day when they handed out free trust funds to all the white guys.
If anything, I get less because I am who I am. I am eliminated from consideration for all manner of grants and scholarships because I have light skin and a penis. Not to mention, I am constantly told my arguments about any number of issues are invalid for the same reason. Do I complain about it? This is probably the first time I’ve considered making an issue out of it outside my own head instead of trying to understand why it is that way and think of how we can change the endemic culture of racism and victim-hood we live in.
Lyke, you are an absolute master of word-craft and a hypocrite. You’re intentionally twisting what is being said to fit what you want to think about the speaker. Read your own live journal entry from June 21st and let me know how that entry isn’t just a complaint about the sort of activity you’re engaged in now. …or is it just that it’s not a problem when you do it?
To the issue of, “Anyone who disagrees with A+ supporters is labelled as racist/sexist.” isn’t a request for permission to BE racist or sexist, it is the pointing out that one side of this conversation presumes a level of infallibility in regards to a small set of personal issues and when others fail to hold the same opinion on that issue they’re attacked for it. I don’t even need to expand on that, because you can see it all up and down the A+ blog comments sections.
I have a simple answer for you, Grey:
Class is another site of oppression, and it effects white people, too. In point of white, poor white people tend to be made invisible while society focuses on poor people of color because the latter narrative better fits the racist idea that people of color cannot do for themselves, or refuse to, and therefore they are poor. This isn’t at all to erase the plight of poor POC, which is very real, but it does lead to poor white people being completely ignored by society because to admit that there are a lot of poor white people would be to admit that we have a huge problem with class in this society, and we simply do not wish to do so.
So, you have been marginalized because of your class. It doesn’t mean that you haven’t benefited from your race and gender–for example, every time I, a white woman who was a single mother on welfare, tell someone that I was on welfare, I am likely to get something about either a) controlling my sluttiness (unlikely now, since I have been happily married for a few years–a privilege afforded the straight) or b) well, it was made for me, not, you know, those lazy people. They mean black people (in the US). I was marginalized because I was poor and was further marginalized because I was a single mother, but I was at least granted less suspicion because I was white.
Poverty has different effects in different situations, but it is still a point of oppression, and I’m sorry that you have to live with it. Does all of that make sense?
Grey, there is a fallacy in your premise that is sometimes missed in this conversation when this point of view is express. You are not “guaranteed” some set of privileges because you are white and have a penis. You are just far more likely to have experienced a set of privileges due to that fact. And the privileges are not simply wealth and power, but a range of privileges from less social distrust, more likely to get jobs, less “harassment” from authorities, less violence in your home and neighborhood, more likely to get good nutrition to the monetary things like more likely to come from a family with means for school, vacations, homes etc. With regard to racism the fact that whites outnumber blacks in our country means that even though these problems affect african americans disproportionately, there may still be more actual numbers of whites who are poor or suffer from some of the same types of difficulties. With regard to sexism, the fact that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women mean that the disproportion in disadvantages works out to actual numbers who are affected.
If it were an “equal playing field”, women, minorities and white men would all suffer poverty, malnutrition, unequal pay, legal problems etc etc in roughly equal amounts and we could simply work on universal solutions to those problems. But for the time being, women and minorities still do suffer these inequalities disproportionately and the system tends to reinforce itself to the status quo so programs to try to level the playing field are necessary and fair even though you will never run out of anecdotes where some white male suffers something similar and doesn’t have a “special program” to help him out.
Just wanna say (as a straight, white, normal-bodied male) that you totally got it right and that I always cringe when I see stuff like those rape-postings. We definitely need this.
Inclusive Atheism FTW!
@912 and 913.
I wholeheartedly appreciate the great responses. I really expected to arrive back home to find my monitor had gone up in flames.
Jennifer – Being that people are comprised of many facets that have stereotypes pertaining to them, it’s easy to assume that everybody in a very general sense will carry with them some identity-baggage they don’t deserve.
My problem arises when my collection of very generalized stereotypes causes people to point a finger at me as an individual and say, “You have done this, and you don’t deserve this, and your kids can’t have that!” when absolutely none of that is true.
I’m not going to walk up to random Mexicans and ask them to cut my lawn, nor would I want to, because that would be offensive, rude and just wrong even IF it is the case that a disproportionate number of landscapers are Latino. Why is it okay for people to invalidate my opinions and effect my opportunities based on generalizations about who I am based on 2-5 check boxes on a piece of paper?
I believe I understand you’re telling me this is just how the world works, but why am I supposed to suck it up and deal while others aren’t?
Bill – Lovely answer. I am not guaranteed privileges, but the assumptions that (as above) move from the generalizations concerning my race/gender makeup contain the assumption that I have in fact received them (and that I continue to receive them).
No financial aid office at a school, for instance, wants to hear that I’m a stay at home dad in my 30’s who – now that his kids are in school all day – wants to get his academic career back on track. All that matters is that I’m white, and I’m male.
Do I just have to accept that I’m a statistical outlier in the white male population, and therefore screwed?
I would argue with most of your “non wealth or power” privileges. Almost all of these carry with them a presumption of unwarranted persecution that I, as a white person, am responsible for. I might give you less harassment from authorities, but the rest of those are huge issues for the “invisible white poor” that Jennifer was talking about.
(I think she’s on to something there with the idea that we like to ignore the existence of poor white people.)
Let me just say I consider myself a feminist, though I fall into the specific group you highlight (middle class, white, hetero male).
And with all due respect, I don’t think we need a ‘new wave’ of atheism. We are atheists because we don’t believe in God. The end.
Some people that don’t believe in God are ass-holes, some are not. Just like some theists are ass-holes, and some are not.
We don’t need to splinter off into a separate non-ass-hole group, because it won’t solve anything, nor does it stop the ass-holes or non-ass-holes being atheists.
If people are sexually harassing someone, then those people need to be dealt with by the law. If the law won’t deal with them, then that’s the direction our efforts should be exerted in. Political pressure to make all women (and men) safer, regardless of their views on the question of a deity.
I am sad to hear that women are being treated this way, but let’s deal with the issue, not the issue in a specific group of people.
Can you clarify? This doesn’t make sense to me.
Read ben’s posts. Selfishness, ignorance, arrogance, clueless privilege and rank dishonesty and bigotry. that’s what’s wrong with these guys.
It is like this girl is reading my mind!!!! This is the foundation of San Diego Skeptics 2 years ago.
“Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists. It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime. We can criticize religion and irrational thinking just as unabashedly and just as publicly, but we need to stop exempting ourselves from that criticism.”
Thanks for posting the Policy – we are going to adopt it for our local group.
What is extremely funny is that my group evolved out of the Burning Man subculture. As someone who comes from the burning man community it is interesting to view how we handle this kind of thing. The burn community is very sexually open and can be very aggressive in certain ways which some women would find objectionable. However coupled with that I have noticed that myself and a lot of other men (and women) very jealously guard this sexual freedom that women feel in this community. It has been my experience that as soon as some guy starts acting creepy, then it is a very short time before several of us have conferred and acted on it. I see it happen on a regular basis. It happened just a few weeks ago! So while women are not harassment free they see that there is a voluntary police force which acts quickly to protect them by either kicking the guy out of the community or having a very long talk with him and then watching his behavior closely for many months after such an incident. Us men especially value that fact that women feel more free and sexual and we don’t tolerate anyone fucking with it for obvious selfish and non selfish reasons. :)
TO me it comes down to the platinum rule which Emery Emery likes to mention on his podcast a lot. “Do unto others as they would have done unto them.”
If you keep creeping girls out with your behavior it is not up to them to grow a thicker skin. It is up to each person of any sex to first test the waters, communicate with the person and find out what they are up for. You don’t walk up to strangers and make sexual advances – you walk up to people and get to know them and find out if they are sexual people into having that kind of thing go on. It seems to me that a lot of what is fucking irritating to me about this whole scenario is that some people seem to want to have the right to go around propositioning girls at any time under any circumstance. The way to make girls feel hot and sexy is not to have a parade of assholes constantly hitting on them. So to me this comes down to what kind of world environment you want to live in? Do you want to live in a world where guys can hit on girls whenever they feel like it, but the girls are always on the defensive? Or do you want to live in a world where girls are more sexually open and much more likely to feel comfortable with doing something sexual?
Grey @915: First, thank you, truly, for not being a JAQer or a troll. Oftentimes I reserve myself from making comments like the one I made to you because so many people have hostile intent, and you proved yourself better. Thank you.
Now:
I think that this is a problem of perception. When people say that you have privilege, they are not saying that you have all of the privilege in the world, or that you have done anything wrong, or that you and your kids don’t deserve anything, et cetera. It can often feel that way when you first have it pointed out to you, but all it means is that, in some way, if not multiple ways, society views you with less skepticism than others (to borrow a concept from Ta-Nehisi Coates’ phenomenal piece, which I recommend everyone ever to read). It doesn’t mean that being a white man guarantees you anything tangible. What it does frequently guarantee you is that, in a situation with someone who is identical to you excepting, say, that they are nonwhite, or female, or what have you, you will likely be taken more seriously. You are less likely to be viewed with certain negative stereotypes. I know it doesn’t feel like much privilege at times, but believe me, those who are in your shoes with one extra check, or two, against their social status, notice the absence of those little niceties. To go back to my example of my experience as a single mother on welfare, my (accurately, inasmuch as it exists) race didn’t make me money (although it may well have gotten me a job), and it didn’t get me a home when I was homeless, but it meant that, to those who saw me hard-up, I was just a hard-up lady who might have made some bad choices but who deserved a shot. Had I been black (in particular), I would never have been afforded that kind of assumption. The way that people perceive you does affect your self-perception, and microaggressions can be death by a thousand papercuts. Whiteness (possibly) did not make my life financially easier, but it certainly paved the way for me to be perceived as legitimately in need and willing to work. That’s important. I had the benefit of the doubt.
I think this is, again, based on your perception on what people mean by privilege; see above. I would likely be less charitable if, say, you entered this thread talking about how minorities don’t have it that bad instead of talking about how you do. There is a difference there, and if someone tells you to check your privilege, then you have probably said something that indicates your ignorance on what it is like to be a [fill in the blank], and you need to consider that your ideas of that experience are obscured by your privilege. If someone came into a thread complaining about how all poor people are lazy and saying that they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, then you would be fully justified in telling them to check their privilege as well. The statement often comes with great irritation at having to explain some basic concept for the billionth time, but I would wager that you feel similar frustration about your economic situation, so that may make it more understandable when people tell you that your perspective is skewed. It is. So is mine. Theirs are in other ways, I’m sure, but they have more experience with being disadvantaged in some way that you haven’t experienced. We would all do well to listen.
As far as your opportunities, although it does personally affect you, and that is a difficult thing to handle, the bottom line is that affirmative action functions to give minorities an opportunity to take a toehold in a society that has largely disadvantaged them. To return to the poor white whom we so frequently neglect, and for whom I personally support all of the financial aid (I actually believe in universal higher education access), there are a lot of them. However, when taken as a proportion of their racial demographic, poor whites are a much smaller fraction than poor people of color. This is an example of how class and race intersect: class matters, regardless of what other axes of oppression the person experiences; however, the fact that POC are much more frequently victims of class oppression should give pause to people who want to boil things down solely to class. You can try to tear down class barriers, but part of the work of doing that is giving POC a way out of poverty. That’s why affirmative action exists. It’s an imperfect solution, and doesn’t do anything for poor people who are legitimately oppressed by our class system but have no other distinguishing characteristics.
Far from it! No, no, no! The bottom line is that we are all in this together, and you cannot isolate one fight from another. You can and should work as much as you are able, given your individual situation, for economic equality; however, to fight for economic equality is also to fight for racial and gender equality because poverty disproportionately affects women and people of color. To fight for gender equality is to fight for queer equality and trans equality, because gender equality requires gender expression and sexuality to be liberated. To fight for racial equality is to fight for immigrant rights and the rights of indigenous peoples because race is more than black and white, and immigrants and indigenous peoples are harmed by racism as well. You can extend this to any given disadvantaged group because, in the end, all rights are human rights, including yours. This isn’t you versus everyone else; this is you with everyone else, if you’re willing. And why not? We’ll happily have you.
I’ve just heard of A+ today and started researching. I’d find it easier to embrace if I weren’t being hit with the same stereotypes of atheists right-wing theocrats throw at me. Have you seen the A+ Facebook page? It has a pro-Creationist graphic as its profile pic.
And I was so interested in the pluses, even as the recounting of the trollish behavior of a few jerks was being offered as the common state of the Atheist male, until I came upon critical thinking and skepticism being offered as separate things from Atheism. I have met atheists who fail in these at times, but I have never met an atheist who did not hold them as essential. In fact, no one could become an atheist in our society (in our world for that matter) without holding them as ideal. Atheism (even for children of atheists) demands questioning. I have only heard the claim that atheists are as irrational as believers made by believers until now.
If the A+ movement is not an intentional attack on atheists by stereotyping us as immoral, irrational bastards, then I see some value in some of what’s been said. But, yes, as an atheist male, I feel attacked.
This doesn’t make sense. Social justice is the very last thing right-wing theocrats are working towards. It’s a stretch to equate them based on your interpretation of a web graphic.
Then I’d strongly suggest reading up on the last 1.5 years of history involved here that’s led to the decision to start A+. Because, not only do such atheists exist, they really, really hate that people discuss anything that isn’t of personal interest to them. And they definitely are not interested in learning anything from anyone who doesn’t tell them what they want to hear.
Interesting that you jumped from asking us if we think you (that being anyone not involved in A+) are “immoral, irrational bastards” to saying you feel attacked for being a male atheist.
If you agree that being attacked for being an atheist of your gender is wrong, then surely you agree that atheist women being attacked for the same thing is wrong. And if so, then there is no conflict between you and A+.
I recognise the concern, but I don’t think this is the right solution. The Third Wave was a disaster for feminism, providing an extensive and unfortunate theory that’s very distant from the mainstream in ways that don’t actually help it achieve it’s ends (too much Foucault, and too many ties to other very specific activist groups with vary particular demands for both the language everyone else should use and the theory they should operate from). If your Third Wave Atheism is intended to link up with Third Wave Feminism, I can’t wish you success. If you were to instead have a fairly minimal, theory-light statement of what kinds of things you expect in a movement (e.g. “Women and men are hurt by gender- and hetero- normativity, and efforts to weaken or end those normativities help people better meet their potential”), your idea would probably get a lot more support (as a moderate second-waver myself, I’d give something like that a thumbs up).
The more specific and demanding one’s theory, the more one drives good people out of a movement, even if one’s theory is well-intentioned and quite effective at driving bad people out too. Figuring out how to navigate both interests well is pretty tricky.
(I am almost certain you don’t remember me; we met very briefly on that Creation Museum trip after a SSA conference some years back, and I haven’t commented here before (and only occasionally read); I’m a philosophy blogger, among other things)
Illuminata – You missed almost every point I made, I suspect for an unnecessary defensiveness. My experience as an atheist is usually as the only atheist in the room. It is usually believers who accuse me of being irrational or unimaginative or immoral. I calmly explain to them why they are projecting, wrong, and operating on mistaken stereotypes that have nothing to do with belief in deities. In researching this movement, I have for the first time had the same accusations made from people who say they are nonbelievers. So I contributed the observation expecting discussion.
I have also always supported, not particular Feminisms, but feminists who fought for equality and freedom. Which is to say: I am a skeptical humanist. But the sex-negative theories that jibe so well and carry so far with our Christian and Corporate culture, miss an essential point: it is those societies that are most insistent about suppressing lust that are most vicious in suppressing women.
As a curious person always interested in social progress, I’ll still follow the A+ movement to see where it goes, but so far I see nothing but inconsistency toward atheism and hostility toward men. And I won’t troll you by continuing this when I haven’t seen any reason for me to be involved. Goodbye.
Oh for fuck’s sake! Why do they always leave when I want to respond?!?
*temper tantrum*
>:(
:(
Michael Odom…
Hi. I’m a man. In fact, I’m a straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied man. I’m from a lower-middle-class family, I’m going to college (but on student loans), and I even drive my own car (though my mom owns it).
Guess what. Men like me (and perhaps like you and me… I don’t know where you stand as far as privilege) are not being attacked. You know who’s being attacked? People who try to pretend as if privilege isn’t a thing, while simultaneously perpetuating it. People who try to deny the existence of a rape culture, while, again, simultaneously perpetuating it.
A+ exists because after gently suggesting that guys not corner women in hotel elevators at 4 o’clock in the morning, Rebecca Watson received rape and death threats from some atheists. After responding to a backwards Imam’s claim that “women dressed immodestly” cause earthquakes by performing a science experiment called Boobquake, some atheists absolutely refused to see Jennifer McCreight as anything other than her breasts. After wondering why there had been a drop in female attendance at TAM, DJ Grothe went on to blame women for feeling too scared to attend, subsequently refused to institute an anti-harassment policy, then instituted a secret one that nobody knew about. Then Amy Roth was basically harassed out of TAM 2012 in tears.
And that, Michael, is only a sampling.
It seems that there is a portion of the atheist community that really doesn’t like women unless they exist solely for the purpose of looking sexy.
Hence, Atheism+.
If you did not perpetuate any of that (or worse), and if, in fact, you agree that all of that is a problem (which it is), then guess what? You are welcome as an A+! And we would be absolutely ecstatic to have you (also, that sentence came out sarcastic, and it wasn’t intended to be… I’m just don’t know how to word it so it doesn’t read sarcastically).
Unless you’re “skeptical” of the problem’s existence (which should be very hard since it’s all in the public domain and easily accessible), or you in fact contributed to the above or anything close, you are not the one under attack.
I promise.
So, instead of responding to the question I asked you, you invent defensiveness on my part and invent hostility towards men where none exists.
So, in reality, you were not asking any questions in good faith, you just wanted an excuse to fall back on sexist stereotyping and had no actual intention to learn or discuss anything.
You are exactly what we don’t want.
Good riddance.
I just noticed that I haven’t thanked you yet for starting this.
Thank you, Jen! Thank you so much!!! :)
I also dislike the fact that some atheists are misogynistic, bu where did you get the idea that being an atheist should imply being a good person?
I think it’s important to make people realize that atheists *can* be good people, but that’s about it. We should fight misogyny because it’s wrong, not because atheists should know better.
It blows my mind that people who are skeptics or atheists for good reasons would be overtly misogynistic or racist, etc., let along misogynistic/racist/whatever at all.
I mean…that seems like you’re applying your skepticism as unequally as if you’re a Christian who’s a particle physicist or something. You’ve gotten free of your religion, but you think women aren’t worth as much as men?
I’d really expect atheists and skeptics to be LESS misogynistic.
I keep hearing about this issue all year long, and it’s like GEEZ, it’s deal with it NOW. It’s completely unacceptable and indefensible. No woman anywhere should be uncomfortable going to any type of atheist event because she’s a woman…I mean that should go without saying, and I’m tired of being horrified by DJ Grothe or Dawkins or whomever poopooing it at best. I mean even if you’ve never personally seen it, it seems like you’d go “hey, that ain’t okay, what were you thinking?” if you’re Dawkins, and “let’s get to the bottom of this and make sure TAM is great for everyone” if you’re JD Grothe, right?
Anyway AWESOME post as always!
This was excellent posting. I’m a Jewish woman who has been following the events of late, starting with Thunderfootinhismouth.
I’m a radical feminist who fights for equality for all.
The internet is a space that is similar to the public space women had to fight to get in in the 60’s. The internet is a new space, dominated by men and their ideas, their privilege.
Women in every corner of the net, women of every community that includes men are probably going to have to make a new movement, a subset, because men will not check their privilege and don’t want women to have space online.
I applaud what you’re doing with the new community.
I keep re-reading this post, and it just gets worse every time.
I see a insecure child complaining about the bad encounters in her life. Blaming other for her perceived “exclusionism”, which from your writings I can only assume is a common tread in your life and one which is not limited to the scope of “atheism”.
It would seem that since a few have come to embrace what “blaghag” thinks is a “new wave of atheism” with the slight clue that it COMPLETELY goes against everything they previously claim to not to support. They are not ready to be “free thinkers” and should probably seek out the nearest evangelical church to join.
Women, gender, civil rights are all well and good, but catering to whining immature person looking for attention claiming to be a victim of their own their own “interpretations” which offend them.
I support A+ because the logical conclusion of atheism is that all of life is related and this requires respect for our fellow man hand other animals, regardless of race, orientation, religious or philosophical background, culture, nationality, or gender. I support A+ because being cool to people is sexy. Be cool to people, it just makes sense. Then they have a good reason to be cool to you.
It’s all over bow baby blue.
You idiots are on the cusp of completely fucking an entire movement. Atheism is simply NOT feminism – end of story. (omg I used caps, I must be a bad writer and a troll! Ban me, ban me!)In a few years from now Atheism we ll be as fractured as the Church.
Well done to all of you – goodnight and goodbye!
@Gareth #933 – Whaaa? And I thought it were all those racists, sexists, ableist, homo- and transphobic assholes who were fucking up atheism.
Thanks for setting things straight. It’s the people who are fed up with assholes and don’t want to associate with them anymore, who are the problem. I’d never have guessed on my own.
@Garth 933: “You idiots are on the cusp of completely fucking an entire movement. Atheism is simply NOT feminism – end of story.”
Absolutely right: atheism is not feminism. Hence the +. Atheism remains what it is; a lack of belief in any god or gods. The + indicates something has been added to it. In this case, a value set already shared by many atheists (me included) but explicit within this group. Why is that such a difficult concept?
Good for you.
Bravo !
Very excited to read this. I’ve fallen behind in my reading but so glad I finally got to your amazing post! And since I’m simultaneously reading current things and this, I can say wow this may just spark more conversation ;-)
What you describe already exists, and is called humanism. In oversimplified terms, humanism is atheism plus a rejection of other supernatural things plus a system of values based on reason. Humanism is pro-equality in many ways (feminism, gay rights, anti-racism etc).
First of all, let me say that as a philosopher obsessed with issues of perspective, your call for a new wave of atheists that “applies skepticism to everything” is refreshing. Certainly one needs to be able to step outside of one’s own frame of reference to hope to see such matters in an objective, non-biased manner, and systematic skepticism is the best way to consistently challenge your own frame of reference, to challenge your own perspective. That being said, statements such as “Though these people claim to love reason, no amount of reason will ever get them to admit that they’re wrong” actually seem to detract from your argument. Entirely unnecessary tostate that the people who hold different views on atheism and gender relations from you are OBJECTIVELY WRONG for doing so, as whether or not they are “right” in the beliefs they hold is a subjective judgement based on the system of values which the judge already possesses. Simply put, they are wrong only according to YOUR set of values. According to theirs, they are not being irrational. In fact, their set of values (what they value in relation to themselves) probably sees your objectives as “irrational” and “wrong”. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am also a feminist and (believe) that I hold similar values to you. I certainly do not agree with or try to explain anything that anyone has said one way or the other. However, you hurt your own movement when you claim a love of rationalism and then are irrational in your accusations of others.
Wow, two commenters in a row who are out to “simplify” all these complicated issues for us. Aren’t we lucky.
I think the issue is as you say that there are a lot of people that have picked this as an issue because it effects them or they see it as effecting them. I won’t even go into the issues of sexism and sexist actions some “important” local speakers on the issue of atheism have done in the past but know they have a poor ability in general to understand criticism of any kind.
I don’t live in a secular state but the people that shout the loudest for our need for it don’t actually hit on the real issues that effect our country. They attack a prayer before the opening of government business, the mentioning of a god in the preamble to our constitution but not the problems of our highly catholic education system and the issues therein.
They have picked their boogie man and decided to go for it rather than the actual issues of real import. The real problem is that when you call them on it, you are shouted down as a fool. I understand that there is a certain amount of political capital that any such group can bring but wasting it on an issue as small as a prayer when you essentially have to be catholic and straight to work in over 80% of schools in my country is shocking.
Inserting one’s own issues into a movement can be a dangerous thing. It stands a definite chance of diverting attention from the main purpose of the group. Dogma is not freethought and may in fact, divide the efforts of the group into two less effective factions.
I am proud to call myself “feminist”, but not the extremist kind who would put the issue above that of freethought. Some of us would prefer that the divisive type would just go start their own in place of co-opting the purpose of others. Perhaps extremist atheist feminists should turn feminist groups to atheism instead of the other way around.
I am in disagreement with this post for a few reasons, but the most prevalent reason is that it censors and self polices itself in order for admission. This is a death sentence for any new movement.
“It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime.”
I didn’t start out having much ill-will towards feminists. I thought they were a bit humorless, but were mostly legitimate. Eventually I found atheism, which led to skepticism, which led to applying skepticism to everything I saw, read and heard. When I applied it to feminism, the numbers didn’t add up, as it were. I began to receive virulently insulting and dogmatic comments whenever I tried to ask questions about gender topics. And daring to question mainstream ideas about rape was like stepping into a blast furnace. The responses I got were the exact same tone as when religious people would tell me how offended they were that I wouldn’t just allow them to believe whatever they wanted without ever questioning it.
I learned through my experience that I am not allowed to question feminism, I am not allowed to suggest maybe men have legitimate gender issues too, or else I am being very offensive. Feminists, I learned, argue like conservatives, creationists and objectivists. The nouns would be different, but with each topic, I would encounter the same personalities and arguing styles over and over and over.
Maybe the reason, Greta, that atheism is so pissed off at feminism is not just because it’s a Boy’s Club. I will grant you that people of any group can act like monsters when they’re righteously angry and anonymous. I am not saying the harassment isn’t real. But do you ever listen to them when they tell you where that anger comes from? Or do you make your own assumption, one that keeps you from having to ask if you’ve tied yourself to an intolerant, dogmatic ideology?
You seem to be dismissive of this anger from the atheist community. You call it misogyny and look no further. Closing yourself off from listening to your opponents’ actual beliefs leads to nothing but continued frustration. When I get insulted, my first impulse is to get defensive. But that’s not useful. So instead I ask myself, ‘Is this insult true? If it’s not, do I fear that it is? And if it is true, do I need to change?’
You’re doing yourself no favors by saying, ‘This community is suddenly being all mean to me and I don’t understand why. So rather than try to see where they’re coming from, I’ll run away to where no one says mean things.’
alexreynard @ #946
A few things:
1) This is Jennifer McCreight’s blog, not Greta Christina’s.
2) Righteous anger and rape threats are two very different things. A great way to actually view the motives behind anger is to see how it’s being acted upon.
If a male is acting upon his anger towards a female by threatening to rape her, you can bet that anger stems from something that isn’t at all righteous.
3) Where did you ask these questions? I ask because my experience was the exact opposite. When I asked feminists about this stuff, they took the time to give me the links and the tools I needed to educate myself on the issue. The only time I ever got flamed was when I applied skepticism to a particular statistic about how often women get raped by people they know. They were right to flame me because I was mis-applying my skepticism, basically doing what Creationists do: “I’m skeptical of the existence of that transitional fossil your shoving in front of my face right now”.
Now, maybe I was basically being treated well because many of the feminists helping me out belonged to the erotic art site Suicide Girls, but I don’t see the feminists here at FtB acting any differently. It’s really easy to tell the difference between a troll and someone honestly curious, mainly because the latter will accept once shown the evidence, while the former continues to “apply skepticism” regardless (again, a lot like Creationists).
Of course, there are feminists who absolutely refuse to answer questions and, perhaps erroneously in some cases, label as “troll” anyone and everyone who asks, but it’s partly because a lot of people ask the exact same questions that have been answered time and again. These questions are why there’s a Feminism 101 blog (a really good resource, BTW).
My advice to you would be to a) bookmark that blog, b) don’t assume your experience is universal, and c) just as you would rightly be insulted by someone defining atheism by Mao and Pol-Pot, you shouldn’t define feminism by its fanatics.
I think I know why you’ve received such “virulently insulting and dogmatic comments” to your questions. It’s because you’re a fucking moron.
You’re like a creationist wondering why he’s receiving such a mean backlash when he’s just asking a perfectly reasonable question like “if human came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
That’s what you sound like.
No, really, that’s how you’re coming off.
Understand that the impression you’re giving off is pretty much the same as the one you get when you hear a creationist talk about how the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.
The only person who can change that is you. You can change it by doing your fucking homework. Maybe try googling “feminism 101” or something like that.
Try reading posts like this. In short, rather than crying like a little baby about how people are being mean, try to understand why people react that way.
I’ll bet even money that you’ve been behaving like a jackass. I know I did.
Alex Reynard #946,
For whatever reason your response struck a chord with me. It is well-phrased and uses a measured tone that I appreciate. I’ve mostly been following this whole thing on Twitter, where such an opinions certainly can’t be expressed as delicately. In fact, #atheismplus has pretty much been the worst corner of the internet that I’ve ever subjected myself to.
I guess where I don’t see you eye-to-eye is that I don’t see where people within Atheismplus (Aside from Carrier!) and other feminists have earned anger. Disagreement on lots of things is healthy. But I don’t understand the angry response many people have had to the formation of a new female/minority friendly ‘tribe’ within the atheist/skeptic community. It seems previous experiences and prejudice against feminism have prevented opponents to seeing the potential benefits of an internet without harassment and bullying. It seems there are some serious grudges that only the person with the grudge can let go. To these folks, A+ is an opportunity to brush off the pitchforks and flame-throwers. I say this as someone that didn’t follow anything related to atheism at ALL until I stumbled upon this post within a day of it coming out.
Regarding your charge that female-bodied feminists create a hostile environment… Among the feminist community, it seems like it would be a *top* priority to provide safety and community to rape survivors. Asking the feminist community to “be rational” about mainstream ideas about rape is just doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. One-on-one conversations *might* be a reasonable time for this after you’ve known someone a LONG time. But asking someone you don’t know very well to reconsider something so totally full of pain and emotion is really an incredible thing to ask.
I guess a big reason I appreciate your response is that I’ve been in the same place as you. It was another issue (how more frequent nudity can desensitize humans to cleavage and other displays of skin can cause us to lose our abilities of reason), but I remember being disappointed when my comment wasn’t approved on the blog. I got over it. It’s their space to curate however they wish. Maybe they didn’t want men commenting in whatever tone I used or maybe it wasn’t sufficiently relevant. I don’t know, but I got over it. I can’t see how this anger against A+ is in anyway justified.
Hopefully that was helpful. The last attack (#948) seems a bit unjustified to me, but maybe I didn’t read hard enough.
Best,
-Eric
Late to the game here, but I just want to chime in as another atheist feminist who supports your work and wholeheartedly agrees.
I’ve been an atheist since I was 15, although I tried being Catholic for a year in college and failed (couldn’t make myself believe). I came out at 20. I’ve been following Dawkins’ work on atheism since 2003. Hitchens is a hero of mine, but he was often wrong about women (a champion of our rights, but also a bit of a pedestal-putter, which dehumanizes us). I was shocked and disappointed by Dawkins’ response to the Elevator Incident. After all his effective argument regarding “feminist-style consciousness raising,” I thought he was more enlightened on this point. Oh, well.
I’m happy to call you an ally! Solidarity!
Wrong, you can’t save the atheist movement. Sexism has taken over the whole thing, and now it’s gonna eat itself from the inside. In a matter of years there will be no more atheist, and all those people will turn to the next movement; rollerstaking. In five years tops, you’ll tell people you’re an atheist and they’ll answer; “athe-what???”. YOU’RE DOOMED!!! DOOMED
Sounds like a good plan. Reform Judaism took those steps many years ago….supports feminism, homosexuals, etc. It’s sad to see atheism isn’t as progressive as religion.
Of course, there are many decent atheists out there. You’re right: you can be good without God. However, when you’re running around attacking people because they believe differently than you, oppressing women, discriminating against homosexuals, etc. it doesn’t matter if you’re an atheist or theist. You’re not a good person.
I’m sad to see the irrational hatred and blaming of religion by many of the “new atheists”. Religion doesn’t exist in a vacuum and neither do people. As you are noticing, when you get a bunch of people together with a shared cause, they can be real assholes. The lowest common denominator can triumph. The fact most people have been theists, hence most of the asshole movements have included religion in some shape or fashion, does not make it the fault of religion – any more than these attitudes you mention are the fault of atheism.
Atheism I can support…even though I’m a theistic Jew – but this evangelical attacking of others that believe differently under the heading of new atheism, I cannot. Neither can I see those people as any different than evangelical fundamentalists within Christianity.
I support people’s rights to believe or not believe…whatever it is they believe as long as it doesn’t harm others. I can agree that no one can say for sure there is a God and there is absolutely no proof there is. At the same time, I am inspired by religion. When I am walking down the street with my kippah (Jewish head covering) on, I’m not attacked by Muslims….not attacked by Buddhists….. The only people who ever attack me is the occasional Evangelical Christian (most of them don’t attack Jews) or the new atheist.
Nice post and I agree with you.
Diggers Photo Repair
I was talking about a boob joke, but now I’m persona non grata for caring about sexual harassment. I used to receive numerous comments about how hot and attractive I was, but when I politely asked for people to keep the discussion professional.
Professional essay writing is the work that you will have to do. Of course, you will need to be in communication with your hired resume writer, as they need to gather information on your work history and education, but that is about it.
news release services
I’m in! Can’t wait to hear more about your new org.
The problem will not be addressed by a new label, movement, or blog site. Atheism is not a religion, and though it may attract joiners, it is not a panacea for good behavior. Ostensibly, we are looking at two fundamental drives in the human psyche: those who seek to belong, and those who seek to become. Just as various religions attract joiners or becomers, so too will any social group or ideology– even non-theistic ones. There are Consensus religions, and there are those of Immanence. There are those that bestow an identity, label, and community on anyone who is so inclined, and there are those that will hand the tools over to the individual to find out for themselves. There are some that will promise both and there are those that will suss out the “believer” and zen slap them into a different mindset of “thinking” for themselves. Atheism, as a movement has both. It always has and it always will whatever fancy new label, branch, or add on cause we attach to it. It all depends on the individual. their psychology and aptitude.The prime objective for most informed atheistic voices has been to speak out, inform, and encourage others to speak out as well. Very often that initial speaking out is ad hominem, harsh, rude, ugly and visceral. The internet allows this with anonymity and impunity. This is often met by the same from the other side, from those on the same level of discourse. Both, we can only hope, will see the futility of it and seek ways to improve their argument. Either way there is some form of education and dialogue going on. which is good and productive — even as both retreat to their entrenched way of thinking. It is a process of individuation. While there will always be those who stagnate on that level, there will also be those who evolve. Enlightenment, of any stripe, will never be a mass movement. It is always up to the individual regardless of the label or group they assign or align with.
A hijacking is a hijacking. You’re a terrorist, and nothing more. Most people could care less about your sex, or sexuality or anything else about you. Atheism is for anyone. The atheist movement was gaining some real ground until it became polluted with nonsense like ‘privilege’ and ‘rape-culture’. You have caused more damage than you have built
@ellisdee
Funny how issues that don’t affect you can seem like “nonsense”. As it happens, that’s a big part of what privilege is all about.
You’ve just demonstrated why we needed that discussion in the first place. Good job.
So, how’s the A+ movement coming along?
How did this shitty dumpster fire turn out? LOL. the A+ “movement” was a sad fucking joke.