Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
There is another “enormous problem” that you selectively ignore Mitch. When it is proven that rape allegations are false, women are rarely penalized for the lie told and damage done to the accused. Do you deny this to be true?
See what I mean?
Yes, you refuse to consider a comprehensive cause and effect perspective of the topic. Your intent on playing the feminist victim card.
"women are rarely penalized for the lie told and damage done to the accused."
There it is again.
Yes, there it is again.
You refuse to see reason and answer a simple question that everybody knows the answer for.
Your fail to reason honestly about any subject and expect that we believe you when you claim that you wish equality.
YOU ARE a sexist, yes you are.
Because you have an anti-man behavior towards any argument presented.
I think i will start a new topic about sexist's bias damaging the forum equality.
Their lack of reason is a serious matter and "all hands on deck are needed for change."
The victim lies in wait no differently than the one who would predate upon him. Both play their roles spectacularly. One remains alert to his surrounds and uses it to his advantage. The other stumbles and bumbles along oblivious to those same surrounds. In the game of chance, they both get what they deserve. Spider versus fly.
______________
One small detail about this thread that got my attention but I begged out of bringing up. There is no such thing as an atheist movement. There are some outspoken people in circulation making a buck by espousing their views but there's no efforts put forth by the various groups of belief bashers to combine forces and set goals. There's no movement without that cohesiveness.
I read a lot about how ridiculous it is to an atheist how theists can believe in gods and assume behavioral patterns based upon such belief. The reality is an atheist takes great pleasure from sniping at them. In that sense and within atheist circles, it's a recreational past time. No fault, no foul. Theists seldom get wind of it and when they do they shuck it off as simple-minded, hurtful people doing what they do.
Make a collective movement of significant (voting) force and then you can talk about a movement. Until then, it will remain a recreational past time. Make no mistake, though, the movement will not sell to theists.
Yesterday I was at work and had to help move a very heavy object. A theist co-worker and I assessed the weight of the object and I remarked that I'd be able to lift it but recently cut all my hair off and lost all my super-human strength. He took the remark as a shot to his belief. I asked him if he was serious and he came back saying I was always trashing the true stories of the bible. I told him to read the archeological record juxtaposed to the bible and he simply shook his head and went silent. A computer only a few feet away, I asked him if he would like me to print the evidence condemning the bible as the work it truly is and he walked away. Later on, he pleaded with me to go to church with him on Sunday. I asked him if he needed to prove his love for his god by channeling it through his church, or did the strength of numbers from like-minded people abate the doubts he had that god existed at all. He said he had no doubts about his god's existence. I told him he did or he wouldn't need the whole behavioral modification dance, Sunday observances, the bible and anything else he held important to boost his faith. In other words, I told him he failed his god because he held all those things important before his god - putting gods before god. He lost it. He's 63.
Atheism doesn't work as a tool for persuasion. Not on a true theist and there are many of them. People have to come to atheism under their own steam and every account I've read here and elsewhere evidences that. It cannot work as a movement. That's a wholly false concept.
"The victim lies in wait no differently than the one who would predate upon him. Both play their roles spectacularly. One remains alert to his surrounds and uses it to his advantage. The other stumbles and bumbles along oblivious to those same surrounds. In the game of chance, they both get what they deserve. Spider versus fly."
Hmmm...are you saying that a victim is equally responsible, or responsible at all, for the act? That the victim deserves it?
"3. microinvalidations: disconfirming messages
• exclude, negate, or dismiss the thoughts, feelings, or
experiences of certain groups
• may be most damaging form of the three microaggressions"
http://www.unh.edu/sites/www.unh.edu/files/departments/affirmative_actio...
I think your comment on victims fits into this category.
"I think your comment on victims fits into this category."
Yes, same can be said for misandry. So much so movements such as MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) and the Herbivore Men in Japan have emerged. After weighing the costs of the legal system penalizing men unfairly in divorce. These young men have realized the system is rigged in women's favor. They refuse to play, and rightly so.
I don't see how that negates the need to challenge misogyny in western society, the atheist community, or this forum.
You're trying to redefine the conversation.
The usual denial misandry exists; misogyny and misandry go hand in hand. If you claim your objective is truly "equal treatment" then address both sides of the problem. When you have large numbers of young men opting out of the system completely something is not working properly. Then again you can go in denial and address only the side you want to see. Carry on…..pretend it doesn’t exist…
You're deflecting agIn.
ImFree: does misogyny exist in the atheist community? In this forum?
Misogyny and misandry exist whether you like to admit it or not. If your not going to address both sides of the problem you’re wasting our time. Why are you so scared of discussing misandry’s influence on feminist claims? Why do you continue to try to avoid including it as an influence in the discussion? What are you scared of discovering?
I'm actually following the stream of conversation defined in the beginning of the thread.
Your ignoring facts that are relevant to the discussion.
How does the existence of misandry in family courts in Japan in any way reduce, affect, or discredit my assertion that there is discrimination against women in the atheist community, and this forum?
That misandry exists, does not mean that there is no such thing as inequality for women.
Gallop’s 2012 Global Index of Religion and Atheism, Japan is listed as the world’s second-largest population of those who report as “convinced atheists”, coming in at 31%. Also, over half (62%) of Japanese describe themselves as “not religious” or “atheist.”
So Japanese atheists and Herbivore men are not welcome in this forum to discuss inequality?
Mitch...
"That said, authors and scientist such as Dawkins have become de facto representatives of free-thought,"
Arguably true.
"and are acknowledged accordingly - "
Also probably true in certain circles....
"in that they are referenced",... admitted.
"cited," ...obviously .
" deferred to," ... not too sure about that..... I know forums/groups where Dawkins comes in for some harsh criticism .
" and held in high regard amongst their fans." Would you agree?" of course....
it is the nature of "fans" to hold the object of their devotion in high regard.
"Establishing that Dawkins has influence matters,"
Well its becoming obvious that it matters to whatever point you are eventually going to get to.
"because that's the first step in recognising, that Dawkins is trendsetting."
Ah ...you mean a leader.... like a sort of Atheist Pope ...perhaps.....
All well and good but as far as I know.... Dawkins is somewhat passée ....
The God Delusion was 2006 ... then came The Greatest Show on Earth in 2009.....then the Magic of Reality in 2011 ... and then An Appetite for Wonder in 2013.
So this supposed trend setter of yours has written one book about Atheism (Delusion) one book on the evidence for evolution (Greatest Show) then one book for children on evolutionary biology ,but with one chapter devoted to creation myths from around the world...(Magic) then finally one book apparently the first in his serialised biography....(Appetite)
Hardly the output of an evangelical Atheist....especially when compared with the output of say Bart Ehrman... who has to-date published more than 20 books.
Dawkins claim to fame is as an evolutionary biologist .... not primarily as an Atheist.
Ehrman is a very good and prolific writer. I like his work a great deal. Sadly, his name is not as well known as Dawkins. It really is (too) often perception and podium. Dawkins is, like it or not, perceived as representative of atheists in general. He is given the podium.
I want to look at some of the ways you have stated, Jeff, that you view – and often thereby treat – a person differently on the basis that that person is a woman.
Let’s be clear: treating someone differently on the basis of gender or sex IS discrimination!
Discrimination definition:
“The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”
Here’s what you said, Jeff. Verbatim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Everybody knows that they are doing it, but says nothing because they are woman, including me.”
“They (women) are favored more in most cases, more patience is placed towards them in general.”
“I have no resentment against woman in general, i like woman and like being unfair to woman(meaning making them like me and being nice to woman more then I would be to men).”
“Woman can take leave when they want, can take sick practically every time they want, and I have to suck it up and fill in the gaps because I am a man and do not have period's and things.”
“What happens is, that woman just abuse the natural disability to get what they want on my place of work.”
“If any man does this he would be fired, but woman get away with it.”
“I do not discriminate against woman except maybe point out at statistics that woman are usually worse drivers then man.”
“I think of myself as a true gentleman with decent woman.”
“I let them always have first things in everything and try to make them happy, because if they are happy, I am usually happy as a result.”
“I myself would not want to work with/for a woman depending on what job it is in the same exact manner that I would not want to work, with a kid, old guy or a too different person then me.”
“Woman just are different from man and it just happens that groups of man prefer man. This applies even for woman, woman would also prefer woman as part of their group by instinct.(eg gossip group)”
“Unlike most women, men can take a joke.”
“Yes female discrimination was a huge problem but in a secular country today this is not an issue anymore.”
“Let us take for example Maternity leave(which man do not get), does it matter that man don't get pregnant when the main issue is with work? If you want some work done, your main issue is to get the work done, you do not want people that cannot work, you want people that have more chances of keep working all the time.”
“But just because "woman want to work" to(which is their right) the government helps them to be equally capable as man with incentives to employers with maternity leave etc...”
“The way I see it: If you want to work, don't get pregnant to be 100% fair.”
“And if you are a humanist you should understand the damage of a fanatic extremist group like a feminist group can do. Hitler fans were also an extremist group that wanted the freedom and equality of Germans from the corrupt Jewish land owners. You know how that ended.”
“woman tend to CHOOSE safer jobs, repetitive jobs which earn less money.”
“It is a well-studied statistic that woman tend to study and aim for stability rather than risky jobs.”
“Only feminists come up with those stupid claims.”
“Just because I am a man then I cannot have an unbiased opinion about woman? It's quite the opposite Mitch, It is because I am a man that I can have an unbiased opinion about woman rights.”
“If a woman fails she can always use here attractive body to get what she wants, Woman have more choices. A smile is enough to get her a job as a waiter or receptionist.”
“A man is less likely to get a girl just by his looks then a woman, too.”
“Bah, chances are that if a woman fucks up they close an eye about it, but if a man fucks up he gets fired.”
“This is no bias, it is a well know fact that woman have more options when they fail their studies. Hostess/waitress/woman receptionists tend to be preferred over man is a statistical fact. Those jobs require little to no school just a pretty face.”
And lastly, you Eve joke, which is too large to feature here. I’ll have a separate post on that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These phrases appear throughout a number of your comments, Jeff. I have done my best to ensure that each is captured in its entirety, in its context, without becoming excessive in length.
These are direct examples of how you personally demonstrate your unequal treatment of people who are women, on the basis that they are women, directly contradict your comments on your personal commitment to equality - which you say you live by.
These comments fall within the definition of Microagressions.
‘Microaggressions’ definition:
• are verbal and nonverbal behaviors
• communicate negative, hostile, and derogatory messages to
people rooted in their marginalized group membership (based
on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.)
• occur in everyday interactions
• can be intentional or unintentional
• are often unacknowledged
Here’s three common forms of microagression…
Three Forms of Microaggressions:
1. microassaults: “old fashioned” discrimination
• name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful
discriminatory actions
• likely to be conscious and deliberate
2. microinsults: subtle snubs that communicate a covert
insulting message
• convey stereotypes, rudeness, and insensitivity that
demean a person’s identity
• are frequently unknown to the person
3. microinvalidations: disconfirming messages
• exclude, negate, or dismiss the thoughts, feelings, or
experiences of certain groups
• may be most damaging form of the three microaggressions
And here are the classifications, or types of micro aggression…
Types of Gender Microaggressions
1. Sexual objectification
2. Second-class citizenship
3. Use of sexist language
4. Assumption of inferiority
5. Restrictive gender roles
6. Denial of the reality of sexism
7. Denial of individual sexism
8. Invisibility
9. Sexist humor/jokes
10. Environmental invalidations: macrolevel aggressions that
happen on systemic and environmental level (unequal pay;
glass ceiling; media images)
The project where I sourced this information comes from a University of New Hampshire initiative, which was funded by the NSF.
Here's the source:
http://www.unh.edu/sites/www.unh.edu/files/departments/affirmative_actio...
Mitch seriously, it will not work, your personal attacks have just no hit on me.
Start defending your claims about woman being discriminated.
Every single thing I said, i stand by it, and seeing them one after the other make them appear as if that is the only thing i said, which is the effect you wanted.
Discrimination definition:
“The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”
None of the things I said are part of that definition.
None of them are unjust and not based on statistical evidence, so cut it out already.
It does not work.
"These are direct examples of how you personally demonstrate your unequal treatment of people who are women, on the basis that they are women, directly contradict your comments on your personal commitment to equality - which you say you live by."
Yes I act as a gentleman with woman while differently with man so?
Seriously you are ridiculing yourself,
Support your feminist claims you linked instead of copy pasting from this biased rubbish site that claims that "almost every time a female colleague tries to speak,she is interrupted by a male colleague".
Please support that claim. else your source is as biased as you are incapable of debating.
Jeff, I've provided you the raw statistics about women and economic opportunity, access to jobs - especially high-level positions - and representation in government, although that was in a different thread.
The problem is not that there is no evidence of gender discrimination, instead, the problem is that your discriminating is keeping your from honestly reviewing the evidence.
Gender bias, BTW, also exists in the scientific community so prized for its statistics:
http://www.nsf.gov/attachments/134059/public/PNAS-2012-Moss-Racusin.pdf
Here's some evidence
"Jeff, I've provided you the raw statistics about women and economic opportunity, access to jobs - especially high-level positions - and representation in government, although that was in a different thread."
Yes you did. so?
Your statistics do not support your claims and I offered to debate them, but you just ignored each an every one of them.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
"The problem is not that there is no evidence of gender discrimination, instead, the problem is that your discriminating is keeping your from honestly reviewing the evidence."
The problem is not that I discriminate, instead, the problem is that you failed to support your claims or even debate them.
"The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student."
Most Science fields are a specialization type of job, and it has been studied that man in general fend better in specialization jobs then multi tasking jobs.
So it is understandable that there is a bias among students, in the same manner that there is bias in hiring a man baby sitter.
This mentality that every job has to be equally fitting for both male and female is a flawed black and white mentality.
So just because most geniuses were men, then mother nature has discrimination against woman? right?
OR the most logical conclusion, that man specialize better in 1 subject since their brain is more focused on specialization.
There are jobs that woman are statistically better then man, but you do not see man complaining that there is bias towards that job against man.
It is just silly Mitch.
Women 'better at multitasking' than men, study finds:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24645100
We do not blame this study for discrimination against man or any of it's implications like jobs, bias, etc.. because unlike feminist we(humanists) accept reality and look to improve the situation rather then finding someone to blame.
"The problem is not that I discriminate", no... that is EXACTLY the problem.
Again ignoring everything i said and pushing like a mule in the conclusion you wish.
I must be discriminating woman for all your claims to be correct after all, right?
Whatever I said has no value if I am biased right?
You do not need to address any argument, but just commit a genetic fallacy and you think you won the argument.
Mitch seriously, I met unreasonable theists that debate better then you do.
Description of Genetic Fallacy: (so maybe you learn something)
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.
Examples of Genetic Fallacy
"The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a facist program."
Lets start here, because you've yet to explain some of your statements:
“If a woman fails she can always use here attractive body to get what she wants, Woman have more choices. A smile is enough to get her a job as a waiter or receptionist.”
Does this statement reflect a value of equality, Jeff?
Since all my argument hinges on you being discriminatory, - as you say - lets clarify whether or not you actually are. This should be simple: show me how this statement does not reflect discrimination, and this conversation is settled.
Lol very simple.
The context of that argument was that for best jobs from the worst jobs, woman have more choices.
You took that claim a bit out of context there.
(worst jobs= little or no qualification needed since we were talking about people who fail in their career there)
We humanists accept the fact that woman are more attractive for men then men are attractive for woman.
So if a hotel owner has a choice between choosing a woman as day receptionist(only English qualification is needed) or a man, the vast probability is that woman will be chosen as a welcoming approach to guests.
value of equality> no because woman are not equal to man in level of attraction to the opposite sex.(this is a fact)
Does that mean there is discrimination?
There is no discrimination here, it just that woman have a trait that man do not have, thus they are more suited for the job, thus they have more choices.(for best jobs from the worst jobs)
Also it seems to me that you have a problem with the definition of Discrimination.
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:"
Or take yours
"Discrimination definition:
“The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”
Basically it is saying the UNJUST or not based on merit but race, etc..
You are forgetting this important thing.
The decision here is based on their merit(a trait more then men) rather then just because they are men.
So it is not unjust, it is just.
Why do you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, not an electrician? even if they have different race, sex etc...?
Because traits, merit matters.
You are ignoring all those because of your bias and accusing me unjustly of discrimination without supporting your claim.
"We humanists accept the fact that woman are more attractive for men then men are attractive for woman."
Are you speaking on behalf of Humanists, or on behalf of Jeff?
Please refrain from making presumptions about a person, or persons, based on their gender.
If you could personally commit to doing that - or additionally to asking "How is what I said discriminatory?", and considering the answer you get - you'd be helping resolve the problem.
Again ignoring 9/10 of my reply and focusing on what you wish to be true.
I'am getting bored of you inability to be honest with yourself and others.
""We humanists accept the fact that woman are more attractive for men then men are attractive for woman."
Are you speaking on behalf of Humanists, or on behalf of Jeff?"
Are you seriously denying the fact that men put more emphasis on physical attractiveness then woman?
Is it possible that you do not know that? Or are you just bashing your head to a wall because you do not like the answer?
"Men had less attraction towards women with low physical attractiveness"(then woman towards man)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402851/A-womans-beauty-r...
"Please refrain from making presumptions about a person, or persons, based on their gender."
I won't refrain anything, I will say what I think are the facts, you like them or not.
"Men had less attraction towards women with low physical attractiveness"(then woman towards man)
That is why employers choose woman as day receptionists in most cases when there is a choice.
"How is what I said discriminatory?"
It is not, just understanding reality better then you.
Understand that there are things which woman are better at, and vice versa, instead of claiming such stupid claims.
This is the problem with feminists, they are mostly extremists and with extremism comes extreme claims.(like yours).
Expecting that woman and man are physically/emotionally/etc.. the same.
THEY ARE NOT, get it into your thick head.
Additionally: Kudos to those who have thrown in to make this conversation real, and meaningful. Yet I know there are many more who are saying nothing.
I'd like anyone who is reading to weigh in.
What you permit, you promote.
Pages