Paul Fidalgo has a great contribution to Amy’s series. (That’s Amy Davis Roth, Surlyramics Amy. Just in case you’ve forgotten.)
There’s this movement, the skeptical/atheist movement. Why are we in it? Various reasons.
Some are moved by social justice and civil rights, some by a devotion to reality and truth, some who simply want a community of intelligent, creative folks, and of course there will be some who want a faction to join in order to combat a nefarious “other.”
Ah yes that nefarious other. I try to make the nefarious other be a thing rather than a set of people, but do I always succeed? Of course not.
But for some folks, that kind of factioning isn’t enough. It needs to go deeper. There needs to be an enemy. What is so deeply saddening to me is that for many who consider themselves part of this community, the enemy is women. And why? Because they’d like you to stop threatening them with rape and violence and treating them like chattel, thank you very much. I know. The nerve.
Also because women are so handy for the purpose. It’s such a quick and easy way to big up the self, if you don’t happen to be a woman – you can just remind yourself that you’re not stupid or weak or treacherous or whiny or manipulative or sly or bitchy or a cunt or slutty like those awful women.
So what I think might be helpful here is a distinguishing between those who simply operate in the skepto-atheosphere (on and off-line) and those who consider themselves part of a movement. Because you can be a skeptic and you can be an atheist and also be a rotten person who thinks little of your fellow humans who happen to have a double-X chromosome.
But I don’t think you can be part of this movement.
I know, I don’t get to decide these kinds of things. But if I did, it’d go something like this:
This movement (not merely the community of heretics, but the movement) is about lessening the power of religion, superstition, and credulous thinking because we want to live in a world guided by facts, science, and reason, because (and here’s the part I might lose some of you) we want to live in a world that maximizes human happiness, morality, freedom of thought and expression, and equality. Atheism and skepticism for their own sakes are not “causes.” They are not, in and of themselves, worthy of a movement. But we pursue these goals because we know they will bring about a society in which we are more free and equal, and in turn we will be more fulfilled and enriched as a result.
Yes. Atheism without morality, freedom of thought and expression, and equality? No fucking thank you. Yes this means giving up the delicious pleasure of bigging up the self by reminding it that it’s not like that horrible other – but you know what? It’s worth it.
So here is my opinion (not necessarily that of my employer). If you don’t share the goals outlined above, if you think it’s cool or funny or even necessary to debase or threaten women, then you’re just not part of the movement, even if you think you are. Because if making a fairer, better world is not your goal, then what are you fighting for? The right to terrorize people? The right to feel superior? Them’s small fries, my friend. You can do better.
Yes they are, and yes you can.
I love the bigfoot line. As if cryptozoology is really something that needs to keep being a big focus of skeptics’ attention at this point.
Well, this is an expanded version of the mockery we were laying down on the “skeptics” during the whole #FTBullies thing. “Let’s stop wasting time on social justice so we can get back to pointing and laughing at Christians and Bigfoot hunters” isn’t actually a mature or respectable position. Even worse for JREF, who don’t even want you mocking the Christians!
The other side of this super important question of “what is this movement for?” is “what does this movement(and its members) do?” For all that we’ve as a “movement” invested a metric shit-ton of time and energy and money on JREF and TAM, I’ve never gotten a decent answer as to what exactly JREF does that we should care either way. Besides providing a yearly social gathering with questionable entertainment, what is JREF for, and what does it do? What does Thunderf00t actually DO, besides steal private information and distribute it, and get into feuds with pretty much everyone who doesn’t kiss his ring?
You’d think that with all the passion for throwing women under the bus over TAM attendance, and all the fanboy support for Thunderf00t against FtB, someone would have at some point articulated a reason for why these people are making enough of a contribution to ANYTHING that we should give a damn about them. I know what SSA does, and why their existence matters. I have a fair idea of what American Atheists is up to. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation seems like an active force for good in making sure troops and veterans don’t get their rights trampled. The Skepchicks do all sorts of education, outreach, and fundraising in unison with other groups. I’ve seen pretty frequent competitions between PZ and other bloggers on FtB to raise pretty substantial amounts of money for various causes.
On the other hand, one of the unifying traits of the anti-feminism crowd is that they don’t seem to actually contribute anything of merit in the real world in any sort of organized way. Oh, they complain mightily that feminists are “destroying the movement” but I’m not sure what movement they are talking about. Sitting around mocking feminists until they go away so you can sit around and mock creationists and dowsers doesn’t sound like a movement to me.
There’s politics, and then there’s jerking off. And then there’s the internet, where sometimes you can’t tell them apart. Actually, there are other places you can’t tell them apart, either – ever been to a gathering of student politicians? But I digress. Politics is not jerking off, it is not self-satisfaction, it is struggle. People prepared to engage in the serious business of struggle should not have to answer to the concerns of those who only want to jerk off – whether, as we might suspect, literally in the case of certain menz, or figuratively, as in the painful ultra-relativism and oppressedlier-than-thou-ism of certain minds of academic ‘activist’.
Some time ago I visited the JREF forum to see what organized “skepticism” was all about. Apparently it’s about doubting everything, as long as religion, libertarianism and social justice weren’t mentioned. Someone could announce they were an atheist, against libertarians, and for social justice as long as they didn’t go any further than a one sentence announcement.
If that’s organized skepticism, then I’ll remain disorganized.
The thing I found particularly annoying with the JREF forum was the libertarians telling everyone how libertarianism was all about “liberty” but apparently only in the abstract. They stayed away from anything do with with equality. The government was the only drag on liberty and, as soon as it was greatly restricted or abolished, then there would be tranquility throughout the land, everyone would prosper, and the darkies would sing in the fields all the live-long day.
Just a secondary thing… but if Fidalgo wants to support women (and more power to him, and to them,) then perhaps he should use the language in a way that includes all women, not just those with particular chromosomes. I know it’s “just” a rhetorical flourish, but it’s a clumsy and hurtful one.
The idea that atheism, secularism and freethought are means to an end of social justice and generally making human life suck less, is quite frankly so blindingly obvious that I continue to be dumbfounded that so many people have such a difficult time with it.
I misread, and thought that someone would FINALLY be giving me some practical advice on how to battle the nefarious otter that lives in the river behind my house. He’s FIENDISH! Keeps chompin’ on my rutabagas!
Note: none of the above is true
Always be kind to otters!
Yes!
I know, right? So why do we have people ‘in the movement’ who are so contrary? Are they just closet theists who are afraid that if they were part of a religion they would be forced to be sheep rather than wolves? Are they just amoral/immoral jerks who think that being part of an the movement gives them cover and an excuse? Are libertarians more drawn to the movement because they confuse lack of belief as justification for selfishness?
I really need to get back to work, but it is so good to be having discussions about what draws the FTB community together, rather than to be fending off ‘others’ in every thread.
I think if you’re serious about social justice and equality the appropriate and most effective avenue for that is in contributing to the numerous movements dedicated to the issue or through joining and participating in existing political parties.
I have some sympathy with the people who claim this to be “hijacking their movement” and very little for people who claim it is unimportant. Sometimes movements have to be focussed on single issues to be effective.
The best example of this in the skeptical community has been the work in combatting the anti-vaccine crowd of a few years ago. Would that even have been possible if it was spending its time as it does now with arguing about feminism? I doubt it.
This was not purely the skeptical movement nor was it “focused” or without arguing. I remember the sorts of arguments that lit up most forums across any group discussing this topic. Everything from parental rights, to social responsibility to shady practices by pharmaceutical companies.
This was not a concentrated effort by any one community but a series of battles, arguments and allegiances where a few clear voices rose above the din to continue to push the issue.
Of course, but my argument was that the skeptical movements contribution would have been diminished. Not that it should claim all the credit.
@8
You are the otter of your own fat.
But is [are?] ‘that nefarious other’ a thing or a set of people who hold particular opinions (or a set of people who don’t hold the ‘true’ opinions, which leads to frightening logical consequences) or both? It’s very easy to forget that while the nefarious other only exists because people believe it, it is not identical with the people who believe it. it’s also important to remember that belief in ‘social justice and civil rights…reality and truth’ are not themselves social justice and civil rights or reality and truth and that people can behave just as badly in their name when they think they are inspirations or consequences of atheism or scepticism as when they think they are aspects or consequences of what god wants.
Really? Just as badly? I don’t know that that’s true. I don’t know that people really act just as badly in the name of civil rights as they do in the name of what god wants.
I should have excised ‘civil rights’ when I quoted the list perhaps. All the same, people can behave just as badly when they act in the name of any grand abstraction- social justice, reality, truth- even civil rights in the ‘big’ sense- the U.S.S,R, and contemporary China both suppressed ‘small’ civil rights, like due process of law for individuals in the cause of the ‘big’ civil rights of the abstractly defined working class- as when they act on behalf of god. Perhaps even worse.
Some guy just tried to shoot up the Family Research Council, so yeah, people can act really badly in ‘defence’ of civil rights – they’re not a Magic Badge of Goodness.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/family-research-council-guard-shot-by-gunman-in-dc/2012/08/15/e420527e-e719-11e1-a3d2-2a05679928ef_story.html
Roger – I know – I wasn’t forgetting the Soviet Union and China. But they weren’t in fact acting in the name of civil rights; they considered the concept of human rights “bourgeois.” (I can remember flinching when people talked contemptuously of “boozhie culture”…)
I think part of the point of civil rights/human rights is to resist monstrosities done in the name of grand abstractions.
Dave, sure, but it was only the “just as badly” that I was questioning. I don’t think they’re all the same.
To pilot:
Since religion is one important source for some forms of anti-equality there is a reason to act for social justice and equality from a specifically atheist position. And there is the matter of the movement losing or failing to recruit members of discriminated groups when the movement does nothing to ensure equality for members of those groups within the movement.
Why is combating discrimination against women a highjacking of the movement but fighting anti-vaccers isn’t?