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.
Mitch:
To show how people like you exaggerate claims and avoid anything that disproves what they blindly follow.
To show the hypocrisy of women such as Rebecca Watson that are portrayed as leaders in the atheist community. On the other hand, to show women like Jaclyn Glenn that are better role models. The character of leaders reflects the treatment of their followers, but I realize you want to ignore that aspect.
I was just looking through the fan pictures that are posted on the home page of this site and noticed that many of the pictures of women are captioned with things like "such a pretty face", "damsel in curls", "you go girl", etc....Not a single picture of a man was captioned with something like "what a hunk", "studly atheist" or the like.....Not sure if this is misogyny, sexism or nothing at all. Just an observation.
Also, most of those are captioned by women. Oh, the misogyny, the horror, women love to caption things!
Travis, here you're tried to diminish people's concerns about misogyny, through sarcasm, and then you round up with a gender generalization.
When their concern is that WOMEN are captioning other women's photos, yes. That would be like me shitting on the floor, then getting abusive and apoplectic about there being a turd on the floor, it is inane a partially psychotic.
Discrimination is not something only men can do.
True, but a great deal of what we are talking about here is social perception, which can be beneficial and detrimental at the same time. Some of that perception is due to social norms and expectation, others based on stereotypes, and more still that truly is due to the way our brains work. Now, if you seriously want to talk about whether these have actual rationality behind them, we can; but I have to wonder if that is really your goal. You seem quite happy to focus solely on women, and ignore every other group, so we can assume that you simply consider women's issues a great deal more important than any others. How about this, let us deal with the groups that are facing systematic legal discrimination like blacks and LBGT, and leave the social engineering crap for after we have these terribly maligned groups on par with women. I hate to say it, but I will, my country has far more pressing issues as both a society and a nation, than women not being considered exactly the same as men. It ISN"T a legal issue, which is what we need to focus on to ensure the basics of equality of opportunity, we can worry about equality in outcome after we fix the former.
Now, I know this is revolutionary, and will likely boggle the mind; but in triage we treat the most serious cases first. Legal discrimination is far more prejudicial and oppressive than social perception. Also, thankfully, in my country we have some laws that are there to help prevent systematic discrimination. Are you being paid less simply because you are (Insert color/sex/sexuality here), guess what, you can contact the EEOC and have them investigate. If it turns out that it is a true case of discrimination, your employer will be fined and you can sue for a great deal of compensation! Actually, according to the law in my country, you can sue for sex discrimination in any number of instances.
So, I am sorry to say, I just don't consider women's social status in my country to be the MOST important issue we have.
How do you determine a topics importance? What issues facing your country are more important, than the equality of its citizens?
I am happy to discuss how discrimination affects women in western society, the atheist movement, and here in the forums. Equality is a important value to me, and I want to discuss it, which is my motivation for starting this thread. And I don't think it is as easy as saying it's in the courts hands now, so business as usual.
I think we could live our values, and that's what I'm trying to do here. I don't need a court to do that. You could do that too.
I think this line of yours is microagression:
"So, I am sorry to say, I just don't consider women's social status in my country to be the MOST important issue we have."
How?
"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...
"How do you determine a topics importance?"
As I explained before, by triage. Right now we are attempting to get LBGT people the right to marry people of the same gender under the law, are trying to fix a law enforcement system that routinely kills black citizens for very specious reasons, and we are the country with the VAST majority of incarcerated citizens. We have problems to fix, real problems dealing with protections under the law and a right to not be murdered by law enforcement officers, so people complaining that women are perceived by the majority of the female population to be less dependable and reliable, and less likely to commit to a career, and both of which is statistically verifiable and well established; is not quite as important as the denial of basic human rights and murder in our streets. So, sorry not sorry, it can wait until we deal with oppression enshrined by law and the state, and not just oppression by social perceptions and well-established stereotypes.
"What issues facing your country are more important, than the equality of its citizens?"
Nice word play, unfortunately I already defanged this particular argument, by showing that there are groups far more maligned that women that we need to focus on first.
"I am happy to discuss how discrimination affects women in western society, the atheist movement, and here in the forums."
I am absolutely fine with that, but I expect a balanced discussion, not one that runs all over the place and uses provably wrong statistics. I also expect you to be open about how and why certain perceptions exist, and acknowledge that many perceptions are reinforced by the actions of women themselves, making it rather hard not to perceive them as they wish to be perceived.
"Equality is a important value to me, and I want to discuss it, which is my motivation for starting this thread. And I don't think it is as easy as saying it's in the courts hands now, so business as usual."
Depends on what you mean by equality? Do you mean equality under the law? Equality of perception? Equality of Outcome? Just what type of equality are you pushing for, and moreover, what do you recommend to achieve it?
"I think we could live our values, and that's what I'm trying to do here. I don't need a court to do that. You could do that too."
Well, that would depend on what values you hold, not all values are equal.
"I think this line of yours is microagression:"
I think your dismissal of black deaths and homophobic marriage laws are a macroagression. You, quite literally, keep trying to make us focus solely on women and their issues, with little to no regard to other actively oppressed minorities that suffer from truly systematic discrimination and violence. Meanwhile, you continue to pretend that the fact that I would rather deal with the rather glaring and horrendous inequalities in our society somehow diminishes the passive oppression that women suffer. Nope, no dice, I would just rather perform triage.
I don't think talking about gender discrimination in the atheist community, and this form, is in any way reducing capacity for action against discrimination on any other basis.
I'm open to you proving any of the statistics I have provided as wrong, but that is not what you've been doing. Additionally, I would reiterate my previous point: anyone is capable of discrimination. Refusing to acknowledge discrimination against women is important, because you see a woman discriminating against a woman, is simply another extension of your generalizations against women: "Women can't discriminate against women, because they're women."
With regards to what kind of equality I'd like to see: all of them? And personally, I'm pushing for a greater understanding of what discriminatory behaviors against women looks like (especially with regards to this forum), as well as increased understanding of the scope of the problem, so as to encourage change - and create a safe environment.
"I don't think talking about gender discrimination in the atheist community, and this form, is in any way reducing capacity for action against discrimination on any other basis."
And I don't think me discussing other form of discrimination in regards to priority is reducing anyone's capacity for action regarding sexism.
"I'm open to you proving any of the statistics I have provided as wrong, but that is not what you've been doing."
We, as in you and I, really haven't discussed any statistics as of yet. I was talking more about many of the numbers being thrown around both feminist and antifeminist camps, both tend to try to inflate their positions, which makes me rather dubious about their other claims.
"Additionally, I would reiterate my previous point: anyone is capable of discrimination."
Indeed, ANYONE is capable of discriminating against ANYBODY for ANY REASON. EVERYONE suffers some degree of discrimination, and enjoys a certain amount of privilege. I think the big wigs call it intersectionality, but we didn't call it that growing up, we called it taking the rough with the smooth. Generally, some of these things balance out to some extent, like out natural inclination to protect women being tied to a rough instinct that tells men that women are physically weaker(as a group) and need that protection. If we spend a great deal of time trying to abolish the idea that women are physically weaker, we may wind up taking away our natural inclination to protect them(a bad idea in my opinion), and it also ignores that women are generally physically weaker than men.
Some prejudices exist for a good reason, and we should examine the consequences before fiddling with them.
"Refusing to acknowledge discrimination against women is important, because you see a woman discriminating against a woman, is simply another extension of your generalizations against women: "Women can't discriminate against women, because they're women.""
A. I dismissed them as criticism because many of them were self-captioned. I don't see how ANYONE can really expect to help someone that is "discriminating" against themselves.
B. Calling someone "cute" or "beautiful" isn't something I find particularly discriminatory, my wife sometimes calls me cute(a miracle if ever a thing was), and I doubt it is because she is a sexist bigot who simply wants to dismiss my existence by reducing it to an object.
C. I at no point ever said that women couldn't discriminate against each other, I said that women are more likely to caption their own photos and those of others, and that complaining about someone captioning ones photo positively is rather silly. From what I can tell, women discriminate against each other as much(and probably more) than men do.
"With regards to what kind of equality I'd like to see: all of them?"
Well, I agree that they should have equal opportunity and equality under the law, but I disagree with equality of outcome for purely statistical reasons. Until women make up at least an equal share of physics majors, I do not expect to see them making up and equal share of professional engineers.
"And personally, I'm pushing for a greater understanding of what discriminatory behaviors against women looks like (especially with regards to this forum), as well as increased understanding of the scope of the problem, so as to encourage change - and create a safe environment."
This is what has me the MOST concerned, because if you push for hypersensitivity in regards to criticism, it will wind up like so many other places which are now effectively dead due to such behavior.
Thanks Sam. Interesting that the comments remark on beauty, or status, and that women are the subject.
"Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?"
No. Moreover, positions on gender issues is as relevant to atheism as my positions on the drug law are to gay marriage. I am not sure exactly why people seem to think this is an issue atheism needs to deal with, as it is unrelated to being an atheist, and there are plenty of atheists who have disparate positions on the issue.
"There is a pervasive misogyny in the free-thought society. It's time we talked about it."
Ok, lets talk about it, then. Even if, IF, the majority of atheists WERE misogynist, so what? Would it make them less atheist? Would it somehow magically make their arguments against theism less logical? Why, exactly, do atheists have to become gender ideologues just to be atheists?
"What is the impact of a gender discrimination in the atheist community?"
I wouldn't know, I am not a member of any atheist communities. There aren't really any in my area. I live in a place in the bunghole of Texas with a church on every corner and so many Christians that we don't even have street preachers, they are unnecessary, so I don't really even know any other atheists.
"This forum?"
None, far as I can tell. It doesn't really come up, unless someone brings it up, and I think we mostly like it that way. Most of us remember the debacle that was Atheism Plus, we remember how it went so PC that it effectively crawled up its own arsehole and self-aborted. Why would any of us WANT to walk through such a minefield, especially with no real reward, isn't that the very definition of an act of idiocy?
"Do you have a personal experience of gender discrimination, and would you share it?"
Erm.... Not really. Well, I suppose I was circumcised, but I don't think that was because of discrimination but because my mother was very religious. However, it sure would have been nice if I had been consulted before they lopped off the most sensitive part of my penis...
"How has your experience changed how you view the free-thinking movement?"
Not applicable.
"Have you ever asked for feedback?"
Nope. Nor would I expect anyone else to. If someone has something to say, they should just fucking say it, that is kind of the point of this forum.
"Have you ever been called out on gender-discriminatory behavior?"
Not yet. It is kind of odd, really, as I probably have one of the most traditional marriages in existence. My wife is happy, and so am I, so I can't really be bothered to give the most miniscule amount of fucks about what anyone outside our marriage thinks about it.
"If so, what did you do, and how did you change (if you did)?"
Not applicable.
"Ok, lets talk about it, then. Even if, IF, the majority of atheists WERE misogynist, so what? Would it make them less atheist? Would it somehow magically make their arguments against theism less logical? Why, exactly, do atheists have to become gender ideologues just to be atheists?"
Being discriminatory has no bearing on someone's irreligiousness, but it does alter the environment in which that person operates. in the forums, for example, a harmfully discriminatory person could be actively denying participation to people who want to be part of the conversation. Many people leave religion for their safety. A safe environment could be a permanent feature of the atheist conversation.
And atheist do not have to be gender ideologues. Really, the problem is that some atheist ARE gender ideologues - and that is the problem.
"Being discriminatory has no bearing on someone's irreligiousness, but it does alter the environment in which that person operates."
Possibly, but so does every other relevant factor of their personality. That is why, in general, we try to stick to atheism and not have pages of topics concerning gender, race, or politics. It generally winds up being somewhat inflammatory, as atheists are a herd of cats who are often VERY different from one another on MANY issues. We tend to try and focus on the ONE thing we have in common.
"in the forums, for example, a harmfully discriminatory person could be actively denying participation to people who want to be part of the conversation."
Unless they are a mod, NO, THEY CANNOT. They literally cannot keep anyone from posting, you also reserve the right to give and take offense within specific bounds set up in the forum rules, but you do NOT get the right to silence others because you find their views distasteful or personally offensive. THAT is what happened in Atheism Plus, and it is certainly NOT anything we should seek to emulate in the future.
"Many people leave religion for their safety."
Good for them, I left it because it was bereft of reason and evidence, but different strokes...
"A safe environment could be a permanent feature of the atheist conversation."
But should it be? Should people be so constantly terrified of saying every little thing that someone could possibly take offense at that they just not speak at all? That is what happens every time people demand a "safe space", a place so devoid of any real conversation or actual debate that it might as well be a children's cartoon. So, NO, I don't want a space that keeps me from ever being offended or get my wittle feewings huwt if the cost is everyone elses freedom to express themselves. That, I firmly believe, is the main difference between me and most people in this pig wrestling exposition. It is also, consequently, the reason why I will eventually win...
"And atheist do not have to be gender ideologues."
Really, because it sure seems like it, the way that everyone wants to fucking shove gender politics down our throats.
"Really, the problem is that some atheist ARE gender ideologues - and that is the problem."
Nope, the real problem is that some PEOPLE are gender ideologues, and then they come here and call us misogynist assholes when we don't politely ask them for a pinch of sugar to help their ideology go down.
I wonder what atheistrepublic.com is doing to ensure a gender-safe environment?
Read Forum Guideline Number 6.
Read it again.
Read it a third time.
If you have trouble understanding/comprehending what you have just read, ask.
That seems to disagree with the following (found in the description of this debate room):
"The Debate Room at Atheist Republic is a forum that urges people from both ends of the spectrum and even those in between to have healthy interactions, exchange opinions and participate in debates about any topic."
Right, it's in the group guidelines.
I'd like your opinion on a comment. I this statement sexist?
"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.”
How about this one?
“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.”
These are examples taken from our common conversation threads.
How do you know sexism when you see it? What does admin do when administrators see it? Are we responsible, as site members, to check harmful behavior?
I understand that it's harmful; what are we doing about it?
"I'd like your opinion on a comment. I this statement sexist?
"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.”"
I would say it certainly has some rather questionable statements that border on being outright sexism. I would, however, withhold accepting of his actual claim "Women tend to be preferred for x/y/z unskilled labor" until he provided the statistics mentioned, and then I would check the methodology and sample population to be sure that it was an above-board study. I would likely reject such a claim until adequate evidence was provided to be persuasive.
""How about this one?
“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.”"
Well, that is pretty offensive, so I would expect people to take offense to it. I can't think of a single group, who if was replaced with women, would find this to be anything but a broad character assassination of an entire group.
"These are examples taken from our common conversation threads."
Wouldn't know, I only read the posts I am interested in, and tend to blanketly forget all posts I find unsatisfactory or useless.
"How do you know sexism when you see it?"
I will never see a world without it, there are(at the very least) two genders, and as long as there is more than one gender sexism will be a thing. Perhaps we should focus on particularly harmful or hateful types of sexism, considering as long as we are a sexually dimorphic species, our biology and psychology is innately sexist.
"What does admin do when administrators see it?"
I would suppose that would depend on the admin. Most of our admins are very good about being fair but firm, but I don't know them well enough to assume all of them are exactly the same. Moreover, as it comes down to what we personally find offensive or sexist, opinion will likely vary between individuals. We call this phenomenon individuality, and believe it or not, we really don't want an overarching ideology to come and take it away making us a hive mind.
"Are we responsible, as site members, to check harmful behavior?
As a site member, you only have what responsibilities you choose to have outside of the guidelines. If you decide that you are responsible for calling attention to instances of sexism or other such behavior, then you absolutely should report it, you are even welcome to comment on it. This is not a concentration camp, we value differing opinions and beliefs, even the ones we don't necessarily like or agree with.
I understand that it's harmful; what are we doing about it?
Generally, we avoid starting conversations that will inspire sexist comment or criticism. That way, we stop the problem before it ever starts. Sadly, people can't leave it alone, and have to continue bringing it up once or twice a month. I would almost consider it fishing for misogynists, putting out the bait and waiting for one to say something fucking stupid, that way you can get them banned. It would be funny, would be, if it wasn't just another example of people using rules to silence their opposition.
Hi Travis,
I've thought a lot about your post, particularly the last paragraph.
This latest iteration of the subject likely started when I posted the following:
" "Unlike most women, men can take a joke."
Would be interested in seeing the data to back up that assertion, Jeff. :)"
At the time, my purpose in posting that was less about feminism as it was about highlighting what I viewed as a "do as I say, not as I do" situation. It, as threads often do, took a different direction.
I've been participating in the forum for some time now. Many threads have multiple iterations. Many threads could fit being called bait or fishing. Perhaps there are folks who are doing this now, perhaps not. Although I don't recall this particular subject coming up as frequently as once or twice a month but perhaps I'm incorrect about that. I guess we could go review all the threads for the last couple of years but, well, we both probably have more intriguing things to do :-)
You have said that it is sad that folks can't leave the subject alone. I don't think it's sad, I think it's telling. I think it indicates a substantive amount of interest in it.
I absolutely agree that there are a lot of societal problems about which we should concern ourselves. It's getting better over the centuries but there is still work to do. I'm not convinced, though, that these things need to be queued up and addressed one at a time. For instance, I can spend time and energy on marriage equality, homelessness, education, AND gender equality all at the same time.
You have brought up excellent points about other forms of inequality. I wholeheartedly agree that some are further behind on the spectrum of resolution than others. What it seems I differ with you on is disagreeing that we should cease to pay attention to one in deference to another.
Atheists are indeed a herd of cats. It, however, has been my observation that a common behavior amongst those who identify as atheist is the propensity to question the status quo. I find that behavior admirable. I think that behavior should be extended to subjects other than religion and god.
When it comes to my feminism, I question the status quo. When I find it appropriate, I comment about it, question others about it, focus on it. I do those things not because it is baiting or fishing, but because, among so very many other things I do the same for, it holds importance.
Cheers,
LN
"Hi Travis,"
Hi.
"I've thought a lot about your post, particularly the last paragraph."
Thank you for your time and effort.
"This latest iteration of the subject likely started when I posted the following:
" "Unlike most women, men can take a joke."
Would be interested in seeing the data to back up that assertion, Jeff. :)""
Ah, I must say I would like to see that data as well, as I personally know more funny women than I do men. Hell, you know my wife has one, she is still married to me, after all. I think it takes a rather profound and encompassing sense of humor to be around me daily without losing ones mind, my personality certainly isn't sunshine and roses.
"At the time, my purpose in posting that was less about feminism as it was about highlighting what I viewed as a "do as I say, not as I do" situation. It, as threads often do, took a different direction."
It happens, we all go on tangents at times, I just worry about bringing in divisive issues that have destroyed groups and multiple web forums in the last couple of years.
"I've been participating in the forum for some time now."
Keep it up, you are one of the few posters I read on a regular basis.
"Many threads have multiple iterations. Many threads could fit being called bait or fishing."
True, but I worry when it is a topic that CAN get users banned for criticism someone might find to be sexist/racist/homophobic. I am not homophobic, but even I can make statements that could be considered homophobic to someone that is oversensitive. I find the naked bodies of other men to be repulsive, it is part of the reason why I am straight, but that doesn't mean I hate homosexual men or would deny them the right to marry. Yet, to some people, my repulsion to naked male bodies is homophobic. So if a sensitive mod decided to ban me for my comment, which I really don't think most would, I would still be screwed. Perhaps I am being too paranoid, but I do worry, I would hate for us to deteriorate as a forum in a mad rush to satisfy over sensitive ideology...
"Perhaps there are folks who are doing this now, perhaps not. Although I don't recall this particular subject coming up as frequently as once or twice a month but perhaps I'm incorrect about that."
Recently, say since February or March, it has come up a few times. Sometimes it was tangents in a different topic, but it has come up some.
"I guess we could go review all the threads for the last couple of years but, well, we both probably have more intriguing things to do :-)"
I'll pass, that sounds like a lot of work, and I just don't really want to do it. :-)
"You have said that it is sad that folks can't leave the subject alone. I don't think it's sad, I think it's telling. I think it indicates a substantive amount of interest in it."
I find it concerning, because I saw what has happened to youtube. I used to love going on youtube and watching atheist videos, now some of the the people who used to make great atheist videos, spend almost all of their time vlogging about feminism or anti-feminism instead. Perhaps it is unfair of me, but I am somewhat resentful that this subject has hijacked the brains of some of my favorite people, and now they spend all their time arguing about this and not really getting anywhere.
"I absolutely agree that there are a lot of societal problems about which we should concern ourselves. It's getting better over the centuries but there is still work to do."
There will always be work to do, we ALL have some base intuitive and biological prejudices, we must always endeavor to examine and temper them to reality.
"I'm not convinced, though, that these things need to be queued up and addressed one at a time. For instance, I can spend time and energy on marriage equality, homelessness, education, AND gender equality all at the same time."
I am not saying that YOU shouldn't, I am saying that when you have a set amount of resources and time, one should spend them where they are MOST needed. This means that we should pressure the government to resolve the greater injustices first, that's all. Besides, I am not sure many of the issues discussed are ones that could be solved through legislation and regulation, many seem to be rooted more in society. To change social views of something requires less legislation and more demonstration, let me explain. The diminished frequency of severe racism and homophobia isn't because of law, but because strong and assertive black and gay individuals confronted opposition and openly overcame it. They did not attempt to either censor or silence the opposition, they simply destroyed their arguments, and changed peoples perceptions of them over time through integrating positively.
"You have brought up excellent points about other forms of inequality. I wholeheartedly agree that some are further behind on the spectrum of resolution than others. What it seems I differ with you on is disagreeing that we should cease to pay attention to one in deference to another."
Let me explain, as you seem to think I am proposing that you ignore lesser inequalities, and I wasn't. Let us say you have a set amount of attention, time, and money(which I am willing to bet all of us do). In such a situation you spend such resources in accordance to need, not who screams the loudest. In between the homeless man and the homeless pregnant lady, I will choose to help the pregnant lady more than the man - not because I hate homeless men, but because a pregnant lady NEEDS more help, and the consequences of her not getting it could be dire. It is not about ignoring the less oppressed, it is about giving the MOST oppressed the appropriate amount of attention, but it seems women's issues is simply DOMINATING the conversation.
"Atheists are indeed a herd of cats. It, however, has been my observation that a common behavior amongst those who identify as atheist is the propensity to question the status quo. I find that behavior admirable. I think that behavior should be extended to subjects other than religion and god."
True, skepticism should be applied to everything, even that which we agree with. As a matter of fact, if we desire for something to be true, we should be all the more skeptical about it.
"When it comes to my feminism, I question the status quo. When I find it appropriate, I comment about it, question others about it, focus on it. I do those things not because it is baiting or fishing, but because, among so very many other things I do the same for, it holds importance."
I never said that it wasn't important, I implied that it is getting way more attention and resources than other more egregious issues, which I find to be rather strange. I also think we should examine everything everyone says, really look into it, and make sure something IS an issue before we make it one. One thing I don't like about some of the most vocal feminists at the moment, is that they use some information that is either exaggerated or simply false, and even a cursory examination of their sources indicate a willful intention to deceive people into believing that a problem is bigger than it really is, which I find disturbing. I also realize that many of the social perceptions that keep women from being seen as reliable career-oriented employees, also keep them from being incarcerated in some situations where a male would be, and it also makes us prioritize the safety and wellbeing. If we "fix" the former we may take-away the latter, and I am not sure that is a very good idea,to be honest, and I am not a big proponent of men and women being treated EXACTLY the same. I think prioritizing the heath and safety of women is a good thing, and I don't think we should treat them exactly the same as a man, because they are different both biologically and psychologically.
Call me a sexist, bigoted, misogynist, asshole if you like; but I will still save a woman before I would save myself, and I think that it SHOULD be that way.
Cheers,
LN
Right back at ya' bud.
I appreciate the respectful tone of your post, the way you've pointed out how it is possible to spend time and energy on a range of issues, and how you identified a value in atheist for challenging the status quo.
Well structured, reasonably argued, and rounded with a personal value.
It's even a digestible 6 - 7 paragraphs, of a couple/three lines a piece.
Bravo!
One can but try.
How it is:
http://xkcd.com/385/
Hey Nyar, glad your back. : )
It is not uncommon for those in the privileged class to point to an extremist in the opposition as a reason to rollback/prevent further encroachments on their privilege. We all know that women are systematically discriminated against, and it should be stopped.
I am a little concerned about the concept of "privileged classes", these concepts are often used as a pretext to dismiss and delegitimize entire groups of people because they are perceived "having it easier/better". It also tends to place intrinsic VALUE on a persons statements based on purely superficial factors, like a black transgendered lesbian woman's opinion is somehow better or more reasonable than mine simply because of the same kind of discrimination we are supposedly fighting against.
@Mitch, @Jeff and @ImFree
An attempt to mediate, at the risk of pissing people off...
I think that the you have different opinions of the meaning of the word "feminist".
Jeff and ImFree, you despise feminists because you seem to associate feminists with the militant psycho-feminists, the ones that gives about the same pleasant feeling as Hitler and seem to be driven only by personal hate. And you don't want the debate of discrimination to be one-sided, but instead get the discrimination of men recognized as well, like for instance in custody battles.
Am I right?
Mitch wants to discuss gender discrimination against women and he defines himself as a feminist. But Mitch has an other definition of what "feminist" means. He isn't saying that he is a militant psycho-feminist that wants eradicate or enslave all men. I'm guessing here, but that is what I think.
But Mitch, you haven't acknowledged the discrimination of men and instead want to keep to the original subject of the thread. That makes it sound as if you're denying that that form of discrimination exists at all.
I think you need to define what "feminism" is, and perhaps there are several different types of feminism?
Perhaps the debate about discrimination can't be held in a one sided manner?
EDIT:
Wikipedia lists these types of movements and ideologies within "feminism":
1.1 Liberal
1.2 Anarchist
1.3 Socialist and Marxist
1.4 Radical
1.5 Cultural
1.6 Separatist and lesbian
1.7 Black and womanist
1.8 Chicana
1.9 Asian American
1.10 Native American
1.11 Multiracial
1.12 Postcolonial
1.13 Third-world
1.14 Standpoint
1.15 Libertarian
1.16 New Age Feminism
1.17 Post-structural
1.18 Postmodern
1.19 French
1.20 Environmental
1.21 Transfeminism
Pages