Need more chicks?

Hey, this is a really good idea: No Chicks No Excuses is a speakers’ bureau that specializes in delivering expert women for speaking engagements. The only catch is that it seems to be entirely full of Australian women, who are spectacularly brilliant, of course, but there must also be plenty of brilliant American or European women, too. Does anyone know of an equivalent service that operates north of the equator?

Feminist hypersensitivity or masculine obtuseness?

The latest furious argument going on in the atheist community is over this panel at an American Atheists meeting in Huntsville, Alabama. The subject was what atheist groups can do to attract more women, which is a good and important question. Kudos for asking it.

Here, go watch the video before you read further. Try to see the problem that got some people rather irate.

Done? OK. Now go read what Sharon Moss and Lyz Liddell had to say about it, their subsequent clarification, and Ophelia Benson’s comments.

Listen. To. The. Women.

I’ve got a simple suggestion for my fellow men. Learn to shut up and listen. Seriously. You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth contributing to? Then don’t form panels full of men trying to figure out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise, belittling women’s suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want. You are assuming an authority and presuming that it is in your power to give it to the minority, when what you should be doing is deferring to that minority and giving them your attention, letting them speak and shape your organization.

We men have the benefit of a culture that has put us in a position of default social dominance, whether we deserve it or not. There is this bias that colors our interactions with women (and vice versa), and we are perpetuating it when we patronizingly try to explain to the ladies that we want to be more attentive to their needs.

You have to surrender your attitudes. You have to SHUT UP AND LISTEN. You have to be willing to listen to a woman disagreeing with you, without dismissing her complaints as unimportant.

I don’t know why that’s so hard to get across to people. But fellows, just imagine this: a community meeting in your town is held in which a group of liberal, well-intentioned people are trying to figure out how to deal with the burgeoning population of godless folk. They have a meeting: on the panel in the front of the room is one quiet atheist and five Christians of various denominations. And then the Christians proceed to preach about the fraternity of Christ and loving their neighbor and how important it is to find these lost souls a welcoming place in the community, and they get positive affirmations from all the religious attendees, while the atheists sit, surrounded by the condescending godly.

How would you feel? Would you have any confidence at all that this group was even interested in making you a full and equal social partner?

I know what comes next. You’ll say the atheists in that group need to be assertive and aggressive and take some authority, and that women need to do that too, so it’s not your fault. And it’s true that women could assert themselves more, except look what happens when they do: they’re too sensitive, their concerns are trivialized, they are made light of, they are mocked, in the worst cases they are called “bitches” and “man-haters”…and it quickly becomes obvious that the men in this group don’t really want women to have any authority at all, and the women quickly realize that they don’t want to be part of this community.

So we’ll convene another panel in which a bunch of men will wonder what they can do to encourage women to participate more. Round and round it goes.

So let’s get specific. You’re organizing an atheist meeting. You want more minority participation. Don’t decide that after you’ve recruited the top ten white atheist males you wanted for your roster of speakers: do it first, make a commitment to bring in women and people of color.

You’ve got Richard Dawkins signed up? Great, he’s a fantastic speaker, he’ll bring in a lot of attention. Now go after a woman of equal assertiveness, and don’t give her second billing (if you try to say that there are no women that potent, I’m going to have to slap you hard, and tell you you have no business organizing this conference, then. And then I’ll give you a list.) Design your ads to give equal or greater attention to her, and send the message that this is important.

Do you want to consciously discuss the matter of minority participation? Whatever you do, don’t put it in the hands of a speaker or panel dominated by the majority, do not give the people who already have amplified voices a megaphone and tell them to pontificate. Tell them to shut up. That panel in Huntsville should have been all women. If the subject of women was only part of the range of topics under discussion then when it came to that question, the men should have a) shut up and let the woman speak, or better yet, b) left their chairs and invited women from the audience to sit up front for a while.

This really isn’t hard. Unless you’re incapable of shutting up.

Now I predict that the comments here will fill up with people explaining that there really wasn’t a problem at that panel, there was no raging sexism on display, etc., etc., etc., all demonstrating that it really is hard for some guys to shut up and swallow it.

People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.

Justice in the UK apparently regulates all kinds of things.

The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man whom he lived with and told officials “it would make me feel happy” for it to continue.

But his local council decided his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.

A psychiatrist involved in the case even tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him “confused”.

Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was “legally, intellectually and morally” complex as sex is “one of the most basic human functions” and the court must “tread especially carefully” when the state tries to curtail it.

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.

Oh, come on. Fruit flies can have sex; it’s not something that requires a great deal of intellectual capacity to perform adequately. And I think the man understands sex perfectly. “it would make me feel happy” is a beautiful reason to do it.

And deciding to enforce unwanted celibacy on someone because they aren’t educated enough to understand the consequences while also refusing to educate him is grossly injust.

Eye of the beholder

The other day, this comic was posted on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Would you believe those crazy conservatives at the National Organization for Marriage — those blinkered bozos who think letting gays marry will destroy the fabric of society — posted it on their forums?

i-09df8fb0688d9b9b09c10e4c8a6815b5-reprotech.jpeg

It’s rather strange — the comic shows a bunch of kids who are aghast at the weird old fashioned way babies used to be made. The humor in it is that you have to realize that they aren’t at all horrified by their technology, but find the old ways incomprehensible. It’s actually mocking the rigid antiques, but NOM just thought it was saying something awful about future developments. Today’s comic is on the same theme.

Zach Weiner handled it beautifully. It turns out the NOMers were hot-linking the image, making it easy for the SMBC crew to swap in a new image promoting equality, so the NOMers discovered a liberal message from Thomas Jefferson and a rainbow tainting their blog.

I’m smarter than that. I am not hot-linking the image at all, so Weiner won’t be able to change it on me when he discovers that I have a very different interpretation of his cartoon.

It’s obvious. The cartoon is telling us that in the future, scientists will resurrect, or build robot duplicates of, Isaac Asimov to teach our children about sex ed. I, for one, welcome our Asimovian sex instructors, and am pleased that Zach Weiner won’t be able to modify the illustration above to praise Arthur C. Clarke, instead. Neener neener.

Now that’s misogyny

I’ve often wondered what it would be like to have a conversation with an insect — a creature that shares no moral or rational assumptions with me. Now I’ve seen something close, at least, a fellow named Seth, discussing his obligations to his partners in sex. Basically, he feels none. It’s a long ranty comment, and much of it is more explicit than I’d rather post here, but it amounts to insisting that pregnancy and abortion are all the woman’s responsibility, because it is her fault that she demanded a penis enter her vagina.

You want a man inside you, it’s up to you to deal with the mess left behind. I won’t bitch at you if you have an abortion, but you don’t get to demand ANYTHING from me, certainly not child support. If you don’t like the mess, don’t invite me to the party.

How’s that for fair?

It’s a marvel of twisted logic, and really had me wondering if Seth was a virgin.

I have to agree, though, that his demands are fair, as long as it’s not his fault that he’s having vaginal intercourse, and as long as he was honest and specific in his expectations with his partner before hand. Who would then, of course, refuse to have sex with him, ever.

A death in Uganda

Uganda is currently undergoing conflict over civil rights: a number of influential Christians in the country, under the influence of American evangelicals like Scott Lively and Rick Warren, have been pushing to have homosexuality condemned and people who love other people of the same sex arrested or executed. It’s an ugly place where the dreams of the Christian right are actually being realized, but of course our evangelical leaders are denying their responsibility. Just last night on CNN I caught a bit of a nauseating interview with Joel Osteen, the smirking prosperity gospel pitchman, and he came right out and smilingly declared homosexuality a sin…but his wife just loves Elton John, so it’s all OK. Rick Warren is also similarly a moral coward who will happily trigger the landslide, but refuses to involve himself in the consequences.

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

Our good, kind, sinner-loving, sin-hating Christianist monsters have more blood on their hands now. David Kato, a Ugandan civil rights leader who fought for tolerance for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, has been beaten to death. This event followed after many death threats, and after the publication of a hit list in a local magazine.

The fight against the bill has also pushed Ugandan activists to the fore, raising concern for their privacy and safety. These deepened in late 2010 when a local tabloid called Rolling Stone, unconnected to the US magazine, published pictures, names, and residence locations of some members of the LGBT community, along with a headline saying, “Hang Them.” Kato’s photo appeared on the cover, and inside another photo appeared with his name.

Couple religious certainty and an atmosphere in which religious leaders are assuring everyone that certain people are less than human, damned, or criminal, and this is what you get: vigilante injustice. And Uganda loses another force for justice and humanity.

Do ask, do tell…with a poll

I’m so used to our do-nothing Democrats accomplishing nothing that I’m pleasantly surprised that they actually managed to repeal the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy afflicting our military. Congratulations, gay servicepeople!

Unfortunately, now we have to worry about marines’ legs falling off, and Fox News has gone whining to popular opinion with a poll (big numbers there, we probably won’t budge it much).

Will Ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Affect America’s Ability to Defend Itself?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/18/decide-dont-ask-dont-tell-military-gays/#ixzz18V7Ahe00

No — Being gay is about someone’s sexual preference, not their patriotism, acceptance of duty and their love of country. 40.84% (11,224 votes)

Undecided — We’re in a war in Afghanistan, and I’m not sure that this is the right time to undo something that will affect our men and women in combat. 5.28% (1,451 votes)

Yes — At the core of an effective military is trust, and allowing a lifestyle that might cause some members of our military to feel uncomfortable cuts to the heart of that trust. 52.6% (14,455 votes)

Other (post a comment) 1.28% (352 votes)

Expect further meltdowns and hysteria from the crazy religious right in the next few days — I’m already getting a buzz from the poor old Illinois Patriarchy Institute. We’re undermining the military by allowing the gay people already staffing our armed forces to admit that they exist!