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.
Good point on finding a common definition for feminisim. I think there could be some confusion in this regard. Here is what I am a proponent of:
Feminism:
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; informalwomen's lib
This is what I do. I don't think it is necessary to define what I am not, which is rather like assuming my guilt, and asking me to prove my innocence. So far, I've said I'm a proponent of feminism, and have called only for equality.
With regard to addressing discrimination against men in family courts, or the black community; Advocating equality for women was the over-arching reason I started this thread. I don't have to account for all discrimination, everywhere, all of the time, in order for me to address what is happening in these forums right now.
Dismissing my concerns, off hand, because I don't share the same focus in this moment in time as someone else, neither disproves my assertion that there is misogyny in the atheist community, nor does it address evident gender discrimination is the comments. I've already said I would be willing to participate in a thread created to address these topics in the atheist community. I stand by that statement.
I can provide specific examples of members of this forum being gender discriminatory, and want to challenge them on their assumptions. It is discriminatory to claim things such as "women are naturally weaker", or "women can't take a joke", or "women can use their attractive bodies to get whatever work they want." These examples - not verbatim - are based on things actually said, among fellow atheist, in these threads.
How would you challenge gender discrimination here, among fellow atheist? How have you to this point?
"How would you challenge gender discrimination here, amongst fellow atheist? How have you to this point?"
Well, I don't read every post, so I don't always see when someone has said something discriminatory. Jeff, for instance, is someone I don't generally read, as we have had a rather long and contentious history. There has been multiple instances where we argued over math, of all things, and he has been shown to be wrong but refuses to admit it. This, among a few others, is one of the reasons I avoid reading his posts. I have spent hours arguing with him, and simply got tired of it, so now I avoid him altogether.
Now, when I do see something that I consider to be incorrect, I challenge the other person to provide evidence of their claims. It doesn't matter much to me what kind of claim it is, if you can back it up with actual evidence, then it is true. It is not so much my concern if people find something offensive, as some people find reality itself offensive, so a persons feelings about a claim take a back seat to whether or not it has evidence, in my epistemology. For instance, you referenced "women are natrually weaker" as a offensive/discriminatory comment, but biology and physiology ITSELF tells us that it is TRUE. The different physical requirements for the sexes is a standard, because that statement is biologically accurate.
Women, on average, ARE physically weaker than men; and pretending otherwise is no better than having an imaginary friend like god or Jesus.
Biologically different, does not mean biologically stronger/weaker.
"Women, on average, ARE physically weaker than men; and pretending otherwise is no better than having an imaginary friend like god or Jesus."
This generalization operates on a problematic premise; women are naturally not equal to men in physical strength.
This is a myth.
Pound for pound, a muscle in a woman exerts the exact same amount of force as a muscle in a man. Between ANY two individuals, there is a deviation in what percentage of their body is muscle - always -, and so to assert that "women... are physically weaker than a man" is neither useful, nor true.
Instead, this generalization is born of a persons need to rationalize their own behaviors, beliefs, or feelings. Eg: "I can not feel confident in my claim on natural superiority, unless I assert that there is a person naturally inferior to me. Ergo, "Women are physically weaker in general."" What does that mean in practical terms? Well, it means microagression. Things like not letting a woman carry something you deem heavy, insisting on holding a door open for her, or not letting her drive because you think she's worse at it.
"Biologically different, does not mean biologically stronger/weaker."
True, but I didn't just claim they were VAGUELY different, I claimed the difference was physical strength. So, indeed, I claimed that they were biologically less strong(as a group average) than men are(as a group average). That was my claim, do you have a counter claim?
"Women, on average, ARE physically weaker than men; and pretending otherwise is no better than having an imaginary friend like god or Jesus."
"This generalization operates on a problematic premise; women are naturally not equal to men in physical strength."
How is that problematic at all? It is EXTREMELY well established scientifically that males naturally have more testosterone, the hormone which gives men on average greater height and muscle mass than their female counterparts. Now let us talk about performance, the great equalizer, would you like to compare the top olympic weightlifters from both genders? If we see a real, true disparity in performance, would that rather conclusive evidence be enough to prove this to you?
"This is a myth."
We'll see, I will wait for your answer to the above.
"Pound for pound, a muscle in a woman exerts the exact same amount of force as a muscle in a man."
Except, because of innate biological differences, women do NOT have as much muscle mass as men on average. So, biologically and naturally, they have less muscle and are therefore weaker on average to men. Is this not true?
"Between ANY two individuals, there is a deviation in what percentage of their body is muscle - always -, and so to assert that "women... are physically weaker than a man" is neither useful, nor true."
I thought we were talking about groups, but ok, what is the WORLD record for female weightlifting? For male weightlifting? Would this be enough evidence conclusively show this obvious difference to you?
"Instead, this generalization is born of..."
How about you deal with the evidence BEFORE you start trying to make up shit about me, otherwise, I will simply decide you are TOO DAMN DISHONEST to talk to.
Travis - 'where we argued over math, of all things, and he has been shown to be wrong but refuses to admit it"
Ah, one of the things that probably helped drive me towards math; not much room for opinion in math.
Indeed, I have never heard someone consider the quantum harmonic oscillator to be a matter of opinion... On softer sciences like psychology and sociology, however, opinions are as abundant as buttholes and about as useful in many cases.
http://xkcd.com/435/
Thank you, I needed a laugh today.
The Pragmatic:
"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?"
Well pragmatic the problem is that Mitch made the claim that in a secular society today woman are discriminated. Like most feminists claim.
Where we are only asking for evidence and presenting evidence of the contrary.
"That woman (legally) are in fact favored and helped in a secular society."
The concept of: the discrimination is being done more against man then against woman.
Mitch keeps not supporting his claim and ignoring any evidence we put forward to dismiss his claim.
It has nothing to do with what we think about feminism in the end.(Mitch changed the subject on it with his personal attacks)
Although I put forward the claim that a humanists can do all the good a feminist could possibly do without all the negative effects.
EG: like having a feminist claim that a woman is physically as strong as a man.(just insane)
The only way to settle the problem is honesty.
Mitch has not presented any evidence to support his claim and he refuses to admit it and keeps with the personal attacks.
Here is a link to the United Nations Development Programme's, Gender Inequality Index.
It notes that, while gender quality for women has made some gains, there is still a distinct disparity:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Discrimination/Pages/discrimination_women...
I trust this can serve as the proof you're asking for, and that you do not feel the need to resort to personally insulting me.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Discrimination/Pages/discrimination_women...
"In some countries women, unlike men, cannot dress as they like, drive, work at night, inherit property or give evidence in Court."
Again mitch, this does not support your claim. You are simply changing subject again.
Because we made it clear that we were talking about a secular country/state.
It is a fact that woman discrimination happens around the world, no one denied that.
But the subject was that woman are discriminated in a secular country/state where you still did not present any evidence/proof for that claim.
EDIT:
Also learn to quote the part of the link/source that is actually related to your claim.
You cannot expect people to read everything you link from top to bottom, especially since you have a history of not know what you are linking.
Let me give you guys a tiny sample of how it can happen. I work at a fortune 500 company in the United States. One of the vice-presidents of the corporation is such an open misogynist that he will not deal with/listen to anything a woman has to say. The head of my department (my bosses boss) is a woman, and the department is largely dominated by female employees. This mean that often I have to handle the interactions between the department and this vp. It means that one of my unofficial duties is to serve essentially as the 'male liaison' for the department. Which of course often puts me in way over my head on most issues; since I am in no way qualified to be working on most of these matters, but this is the only way we can get things done.
You should be able to file a complaint to the EEOC, because it actually sounds like he is breaking the LAW.
I really don't think being a jerk is against the law. And even if it was, getting anyone to prosecute something like that would prob be impossible.
Dark Helmet: Who is he?
Colonel Sandurz: He's an asshole sir.
Dark Helmet: I know that! What's his name?
Colonel Sandurz: That is his name sir. Asshole, Major Asshole!
Here, I am going to make other statistically true claims about the sexes:
Men statistically have more hair on their back, chest, and face.
Women statistically have larger breasts than men.
Women statistically have wider hips than men.
Men statistically have deeper voices than women.
Men are statistically more physically aggressive than women.
Women statistically live longer than men.
Would you argue any of these points? Because, based on the argument above, I think you might.
Right...
All those statistical claimes are based on physical/behavioral attributes, which are - in most cases - directly measurable.
The problem with the "men are generally physically stronger" assertion, is that it operates on a traditionally, and modernly, male-dominated definition of "strength". Basically, what men have done is rig the game - so to speak - to ensure a monoply on the concept of strength. I'm fairly certain this concept is even perpetuated in the bible.
So, "Men are physically stronger than women" is a useless assertion... unless you have a specific, personal need that that generalization is tailored to maintain.
And I'd ask you to stop slandering me with accusations of dishonesty; everything I have said, I've meant. I have not misrepresented anyone, or anything, and am not attempting to deceive anyone.
"All those statistical claimes are based on physical/behavioral attributes, which are - in most cases - directly measurable."
Indeed, so is physical strength.
"The problem with the "men are generally physically stronger" assertion, is that it operates on a traditionally, and modernly, male-dominated definition of "strength"."
The problem with the "men generally have more facial hair" assertion is that it operates on a traditionally and modernly male-dominated definition of "hair".
Do you see how weird and tortured the above sentence sounds?
"Basically, what men have done is rig the game - so to speak - to ensure a monoply on the concept of strength."
Really? So now language itself is a patriarchal conspiracy meant to oppress women because the concept of physical strength is based on how physically strong you are, and men are biologically rigged to have more muscle mass than women? Do you have any idea how paranoid and stretched that sounds as an argument?
"I'm fairly certain this concept is even perpetuated in the bible."
So is the concept of rain, so I guess rain can't exist because it was in the bible.
"So, "Men are physically stronger than women" is a useless assertion... unless you have a specific, personal need that that generalization is tailored to maintain."
Is the assertion true? You are not actually addressing the evidence, you are arguing semantics, and simply pretending to read the mind and intentions of anyone that disagrees with you. This is not how either conversations or debate is done, this how religious apology is done, so I can only assume that you are an ideologue based on your tactics.
"And I'd ask you to stop slandering me with accusations of dishonesty; everything I have said, I've meant. I have not misrepresented anyone, or anything, and am not attempting to deceive anyone."
So, your long attempt to poison the well by assuming the nature and intentions of my argument without actually addressing it was not either deceptive or misrepresentation on your part? I think you know better, as does everyone here, so how about you address the substance of the conversation instead of nit-picking definitions and pretending physical strength is an ill-defined concept with no basis in reality. Better yet, I will rephrase my question, so you will stop semantically trying to dance around the issue.
So:
As an aggregate of the group of people with XX and XY chromosomes, who naturally has more muscle mass?
"As an aggregate of the group of people with XX and XY chromosomes, who naturally has more muscle mass?"
Men.
I think I've indulged a tangent here. None of this justifies unequal treatment of women, or discriminatory statements against them - in this forum or the atheist community in general.
It was inappropriate for me to speculate on your rational, or motives. I apologise.
"Men."
Thank you for answering.
"I think I've indulged a tangent here."
Only if your definition of a tangent is a relevant factor concerning a comment or statement I made that you considered to be sexist. I made the comment that men are physically stronger than women, on average, and you took exception to my comment for a reason only known to you. I merely responded to your criticism of my claim by providing a reasoned argument to support it, which is generally what is done in a conversation between reasonable adults.
"None of this justifies unequal treatment of women, or discriminatory statements against them - in this forum or the atheist community in general."
Well, a true biological difference in muscle mass is a good reason to have differing requirements in athletics, which would be unequal treatment by definition. I wouldn't consider the unequal treatment in this circumstance to be a terrible thing, would you? So some unequal treatment is justified, and even to be desired, we are mainly discussing what kinds are suitable at this point. As far as "discriminatory statements" are concerned, you said my claim about the unequal physical strength index between men and women was discriminatory, so I can deduce that much of what you and many find to be discriminatory is more based in opinion than actual reality. Indeed, it took a complete and total deconstruction of your argument for you to so much as admit that men have more muscle mass than women. This makes me quite concerned that you may be more concerned with feelings than evidence concerning this topic...
"It was inappropriate for me to speculate on your rational, or motives. I apologise."
I accept your apology, and I ask you to refrain from speculating on either in the future, as that is not a good way to frame a reasonable argument.
It is easy to forget there is a listening aspect to meaningful dialogue, when valuable conversation stands to be short-circuited via insensitivity toward minorities. Insight needs diversity of informed opinions, a state that is impossible to maintain when potential participants are not confident their voice has respect.
For us Canadians in the room, here's some recent developments in the class action lawsuit against the RCMP:
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/more-women-alleging-harassment-want-...
Mysogeny, apparently, throughout the police force.
Maternity leave;
If she pushes that subject too hard she might loose that case and make it harder for all woman then.
I am willing to grant Maternity leave but on the clear definition that it is done not on fairness but on a humanitarian perspective, where help is given to children to have at least one of their parents at home.(to have a healthy upbringing)
It is not technically fair to give woman money just because they CHOSE not to work.
(excluding rape victims. etc...)
I find it a huge outrage that feminist ignore that maternity leave is an unfair gift to women, and expect it as some divine right to have and abuse at their will.
As the major said:
If you want to work keep "your legs closed."
This is a subject that can easily be abused.
EG:
Woman can have a child every year and keep being paid for work she never does.
This hinders the economy and the particular job too.
It is fundamental that woman understand the difference between a right and humanitarian aid, and thus not push their luck.
"As the major said:
If you want to work keep "your legs closed." "
My reply to the major would be, "if you want women to work, keep your dick in your pants."
Since starting this thread, the purpose of which was to promote gender equality by challenging discrimination against women here in the forums, I have learned much: facts don't necessarily sway positions, personal attack is generally permissible, and equality for women is largely unsupported in this specific atheist community. Arguments ranging from natural duty/superiority of men, to the characterization of seeking equality for women as a radical cause, right on through to personal integrity attacks, victim blaming, and direct insults; nearly everything is permissible in the effort to disenfranchise women, here in this forum.
And I suspect I have been spared the worst of it, because I'm male. Most surprisingly of all, however, is how people watch this disenfranchisement of women, and allow it. Sexist jokes, and out-right sexist comments go almost entirely unchallenged; this community is consequently destabilized, as discriminatory language goes largely unchecked in a way not afforded other types of discrimination.
CyberLN, you are the notable exception in this regard. You have been a continuous, rational, and unflagging supporter of gender equality in this thread. As a poster, and a woman, you are best positioned to interpret this on-going conversation, and I have benefitted from your feedback greatly. Thank you.
As we stand right now, as a community of atheist, I do not think this forum is safe.
Misogyny does threaten to erode the atheist movement. This is a very real possibility.
"And I suspect I have been spared the worst of it, because I'm male."
Perhaps from others, but not from me, I never make any assumptions as to the race, age, or sex of the person I am talking to. This is the internet, people can say anything they want to, so I treat everyone the same regardless of what they may or may not claim to be. I address what you say, not what you say you are, because honestly, I don't really care what you are. A is A no matter who you are, and A is not NOT A regardless of who you say you are, so what you are is about as useful to the conversation as what type of undergarment you prefer.
As we stand right now, as a community of atheist, I do not think this forum is safe.
Safe? Do you fear that the community as a whole is going to issue violent physical threats or attempt to rape someone? I would hope you have more sense than that, but if you are using it in a more metaphorical sense in that you are exposed to opinions and ideas you don't like, then maybe you should go surf the atheism plus community if you haven't been banned yet just for being in possession of a penis.
"equality for women is largely unsupported in this specific atheist community."
How dare you insult us all with such an unsupported claim?
"And I suspect I have been spared the worst of it, because I'm male."
Frakly, out of all the dishonesty, exaggerations and absurdities you have claimed thus far, I am starting to doubt that you are actually a man lol
Even a monkey knows that the male is usually physically stronger then the female.
jeff - "Frakly, out of all the dishonesty, exaggerations and absurdities you have claimed thus far, I am starting to doubt that you are actually a man lol"
Notice the misogyny in just the above statement. The implication that dishonesty is a female trait.
Sounds more gynophobic(fear or mistrust) rather than misogynist(hatred) to me, but I take your point. It makes me wonder, however, just how much gynophobia is confused and mislabeled as misogyny; and if that might account for much misogyny is perceived in society. I think a lot of men are fearful and distrustful of women, it isn't that they hate them, they have just been burned before...
yeah, maybe
Pages