Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism

[mick1le2pick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR7F_I

 

[Gnug215]

Swell, this is still going on?

Yay for the atheist/skeptics community!

 

[australopithecus]

Thunderidi0t strikes again.

 

[Epiquinn]

Thunderf00t is the only sane person in this mess.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Yawn. Both sides are exaggerating.

Here's a good response to TF:



To PZ&Skepchick, stop crying and blowing things out of proportion and stop ignoring sexism when it's on the male side. A male brain is NOT a "female brain damaged by testosterone" for example and "white males" aren't always "privileged" in every single situation.


Speaking of "dividing the house of atheism" we're already there. The most we should be focused on is secularism and even that is disputed by people like SE Cupp, an atheist religious rightist who seems to happy with her de facto inferior status for being athiest.

 

[televator]

Thunderf00t is the only sane person in this mess.

That was sarcasm, right?

About TF, I'm actually embarrassed now. When I see him "debating" creationists at events, I think of it as a lunatic Vs a drama queen. He's a goddam sideshow now, and he goes out there under the banners of atheism and skepticism. Makes me wanna put a bag over my head.

 

[Moky]

Jesus Christ, leave Rebecca Watson the fuck alone. Honestly, she didn't ask for all of the shit thrown on her, she made a side point, then that fuck tard that is Richard Dawkins decided to weigh in on it. Honestly, it was all men who attacked her, all the women were like, 'The fuck is this and why are we mad at her?' God forbid someone asks you to have a bit of tact. And now we're surprised that feminists are so pissed off and created offshoots like Atheism+. I bet my entire bank account that Watson was probably very friendly until this debacle happened and in this case, it was not her fault, it was the fault of people like Dawkins who blew this shit out of proportion and showed exactly what it is that they care about, considering that what was blown up was a minor side point that was just a 30 second mention and all she said was don't ask people out on an elevator because it's extremely uncomfortable(this on its own would get an essay response to explain WHY it is that way).

I hate seeing people say, 'Dawkins is a feminist', no he is not for FAR more reasons than the above, advocating for women to enter the science field does not stop one from being an asshat. The 'House of Atheism' was divided by men who made the environments extremely unfriendly, and then had a shit fit when called out on it. There's a reason that atheism has a male majority, a lot of you guys are unfriendly. And I'm predicting a lot of, 'Well I am respectful of women, so shut the fuck up Moky, Gawd', you being friendly doesn't mean that the entire situation is welcoming for women. They are not going to go to a place that is not friendly to them or hostile. Real life isn't 4chan, it's time to start calling out shitty behavior from anyone that is committing it, it doesn't matter who it is from, whether it's from a man hating female supremacist or Richard Dawkins themselves, we need to stop having this hostile environment and to stop having this aggressive standard of behavior.

I managed to become one of the founding members of my schools SSA and one of the first things that needed to be said was, 'We need to be friendly and not attack people's faiths, kay?' and the response was, something about the group being neutered because we're not allowed to be confrontational. At first I couldn't believe it, this person was being upset that we have to be friendly and not aggressive and then I realized it's because we foster this environment where such asshatery is encouraged. Basically, Richard Dawkins became an acceptable standard of behavior and that is NOT good for us. This isn't being an exaggeration when I have to deal with it every day and I have to deal with people coming to us about worries that we're going to be aggressive.

 

[australopithecus]

Speaking of "dividing the house of atheism" we're already there.

There is no House of atheism any more than there is a house of people who don't like vanilla ice-cream.

The most we should be focused on is secularism and even that is disputed by people like SE Cupp, an atheist religious rightist who seems to happy with her de facto inferior status for being athiest.

Hilarious.

 

[Gnug215]

Jesus Christ, leave Rebecca Watson the fuck alone. Honestly, she didn't ask for all of the shit thrown on her, she made a side point, then that fuck tard that is Richard Dawkins decided to weigh in on it. Honestly, it was all men who attacked her, all the women were like, 'The fuck is this and why are we mad at her?' God forbid someone asks you to have a bit of tact. And now we're surprised that feminists are so pissed off and created offshoots like Atheism+. I bet my entire bank account that Watson was probably very friendly until this debacle happened and in this case, it was not her fault, it was the fault of people like Dawkins who blew this shit out of proportion and showed exactly what it is that they care about, considering that what was blown up was a minor side point that was just a 30 second mention and all she said was don't ask people out on an elevator because it's extremely uncomfortable(this on its own would get an essay response to explain WHY it is that way).

I hate seeing people say, 'Dawkins is a feminist', no he is not for FAR more reasons than the above, advocating for women to enter the science field does not stop one from being an asshat. The 'House of Atheism' was divided by men who made the environments extremely unfriendly, and then had a shit fit when called out on it. There's a reason that atheism has a male majority, a lot of you guys are unfriendly. And I'm predicting a lot of, 'Well I am respectful of women, so shut the fuck up Moky, Gawd', you being friendly doesn't mean that the entire situation is welcoming for women. They are not going to go to a place that is not friendly to them or hostile. Real life isn't 4chan, it's time to start calling out shitty behavior from anyone that is committing it, it doesn't matter who it is from, whether it's from a man hating female supremacist or Richard Dawkins themselves, we need to stop having this hostile environment and to stop having this aggressive standard of behavior.

I managed to become one of the founding members of my schools SSA and one of the first things that needed to be said was, 'We need to be friendly and not attack people's faiths, kay?' and the response was, something about the group being neutered because we're not allowed to be confrontational. At first I couldn't believe it, this person was being upset that we have to be friendly and not aggressive and then I realized it's because we foster this environment where such asshatery is encouraged. Basically, Richard Dawkins became an acceptable standard of behavior and that is NOT good for us. This isn't being an exaggeration when I have to deal with it every day and I have to deal with people coming to us about worries that we're going to be aggressive.

You know, I've been wondering about this feminism/atheist+ thing for a while, baffled as to what was going on, really, and not understanding it.

From what I have seen and heard about and from these feminists/atheist+ people, they don't seem to be helping. It seems they have gone overboard, in what appears to be a rather classic case of group polarization. (And I'm not saying that to trivialize their gripes. )

But yeah, I was wondering what was at the bottom of all this, and I think you're absolutely right: it's this culture of aggression that has been fostered. It's like a trolling/4chan/pwnage mentality that has arisen, and while it has had its moments of entertainment, I think it's fundamentally harmful to everyone.

The feminists probably have a good point when talking about aggression directed towards women in the community, but it would seem this isn't a problem of misogyny and male-chauvinism, rather a problem of... assholism.

And yes, his assholiness Dick Dawkins, clever and hard-working as he may be, did everyone a disservice with his comment. Basically blowing off RW's complaint as a "first world problem".
It wasn't just an assholy thing - a Dick move, if there ever were one - to do, it was also incredibly stupid. He shot himself in the foot, massively. Why? Because most of HIS complaints about religion and the like have been first world problems, too. According to his logic, ALL of us should shut up and only work on the worst problems out there. Religious suppression? Forget about it! First world problem! There are people starving to death, deal with that first! Any complaints about anything else is just priveleged whining.

 

[Gnug215]

Speaking of "dividing the house of atheism" we're already there.

There is no House of atheism any more than there is a house of people who don't like vanilla ice-cream.

Are you saying that you do not respect the existence and work of The House of No-Vanilla Ice-cream?

 

[australopithecus]

If you don't like vanilla ice-cream then you're dead to me.

 

[Epiquinn]

Thunderf00t is the only sane person in this mess.

That was sarcasm, right?

Nope. Well admittedly, some of his behavior in this FtB-PZ Myers-skepchick-harassment drama has been less than admirable, but I don't find anything to disagree with in his latest video. The reaction to sexism and harassment, real or imagined, by PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson and others championing under the name of "feminism", has been exaggerated and hysterical.

It would be refreshing to see someone address the issue of what TF is trying to say when he makes a video like this. Instead, the responses to threads like this are always about how TF is a jerk, moron, drama queen etc. OK, maybe he is, but that doesn't make him any less right on this issue.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Speaking of "dividing the house of atheism" we're already there.

There is no House of atheism any more than there is a house of people who don't like vanilla ice-cream.

Most of us however do have a common interest (i.e. not getting our freedom from religion right trampled on by theists.)

I don't mind an "atheist movement" based exclusively on that. But the moment it tries to incorporate an entire political agenda (like atheism+), even if I might agree with many of the things they say, they're going the wrong way about it in my opinion.

The most we should be focused on is secularism and even that is disputed by people like SE Cupp, an atheist religious rightist who seems to happy with her de facto inferior status for being athiest.

Hilarious.

Have you ever heard her speak? :lol: She's not a secularist.

 

[australopithecus]

My dislike of atheism+ is well documented. Atheists don't need to have anything in common, that also includes secularism. It's counterintuitive but true, the moment you start prescribing things atheists need to do, or should have in common besides atheism, is the moment you start sounding dogmatic.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Let's see by that line of reasoning blacks didn't need to have anything in common, including race equality, that was starting to sound 'dogmatic'.

Please don't call me dogmatic for demanding equal status, not just on a piece of paper, but in practice as well. Let's not forget that outside Europe or America or Canada etc. it's even worse for people who identify as atheists. Both social and institutionalized discrimination.

 

[australopithecus]

Let's see by that line of reasoning blacks didn't need to have anything in common, including race equality, that was starting to sound 'dogmatic'.

Are you taking the piss? Race isn't an opinion, black people aren't black because they see no evidence to the contrary. You're talking bollocks.

Please don't call me dogmatic for demanding equal status, not just on a piece of paper, but in practice as well. Let's not forget that outside Europe or America or Canada etc. it's even worse for people who identify as atheists. Both social and institutionalized discrimination.

I'm not calling you dogmatic for demanding equal status, I could call you dogmatic, like the atheism+ fools, for demanding that atheism is a prescriptive philosophy.

 

[Moky]

You know, I've been wondering about this feminism/atheist+ thing for a while, baffled as to what was going on, really, and not understanding it.

From what I have seen and heard about and from these feminists/atheist+ people, they don't seem to be helping. It seems they have gone overboard, in what appears to be a rather classic case of group polarization. (And I'm not saying that to trivialize their gripes. )

The reason is pretty much what I outlined, They want atheism to be about more than insulting religion, they want to take it one step further and to have it be about fighting sexism and homophobia. They want more friendliness and to bring the people together. You think there isn't a need for people to be anything more than atheist, but they simply take a different approach.

Nope. Well admittedly, some of his behavior in this FtB-PZ Myers-skepchick-harassment drama has been less than admirable, but I don't find anything to disagree with in his latest video. The reaction to sexism and harassment, real or imagined, by PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson and others championing under the name of "feminism", has been exaggerated and hysterical.
.

They aren't exaggerating, I have to live through that shit. And you would have a point, you really would had pretty much EVERY male atheist not lost their shit over a 30 second mention that cornering a girl in an elevator was not the best idea and rather uncomfortable. A 30 second mention of something I thought was common sense, made a good portion of our population froth at the mouth and lose their shit. How does that not reek of sexism? How does that not reek of having a problem and of being hideously out of touch with women? How is it that these people took a 30 second mention from a 12 minute video and create a controversy over it? Mother fucker, I want some accountability from people who were involved in that, I want to know what in God's name you were thinking to take a 30 second, common sense advice, and suddenly make it all about how men apparently can't ask people out and then lash out at anyone who tries to explain why it's so uncomfortable to be in that situation.

It's not hysterical when you have a whole population take a, once again for emphasis, 30 second part of a 12 minute video and make it all about how men are being mistreated when a woman tried to say, 'Don't do that, it's not comfortable, moving on'. Hell, I want you to explain how it's hysterical in the face of that, I want to know how seeing someone get rape and death threats from a metric ton of atheists is being hysterical, and how getting taken WAY out of context to cry over something that was so menial that it only got a 30 second mention is not being hysterical. I'd honestly be interested.

 

[Gnug215]

You know, I've been wondering about this feminism/atheist+ thing for a while, baffled as to what was going on, really, and not understanding it.

From what I have seen and heard about and from these feminists/atheist+ people, they don't seem to be helping. It seems they have gone overboard, in what appears to be a rather classic case of group polarization. (And I'm not saying that to trivialize their gripes. )

The reason is pretty much what I outlined, They want atheism to be about more than insulting religion, they want to take it one step further and to have it be about fighting sexism and homophobia. They want more friendliness and to bring the people together. You think there isn't a need for people to be anything more than atheist, but they simply take a different approach.

What they aim for seems fine, but you can't really base something like that on atheism, I think.

I think that seems to be what irks most people: that someone is co-opting "atheism", and attaching all kinds of stuff to it.

Many of us, including myself, have often found ourselves fighting against the theist/creationist canard that atheism is a religion or the like. This will kind of make it into something akin to a religion.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Are you taking the piss? Race isn't an opinion, black people aren't black because they see no evidence to the contrary. You're talking bollocks.

My point is the same line of reasoning can be used and why I think it's not a productive approach.

What defines a black person? Dark skin and several other physical traits. There's no requirement that they support anti-slavery movements or equal rights for people regardless of race. (<- This is the same line of reasoning you used to say atheists don't need to be secularists.) Technically that's true. A black person supporting black slavery or discrimination is not a contradiction. But where would African-Americans be right now if most of them were to indifferent to or even supportive of a lower status for themselves?

And yes, atheists are a persecuted minority, make no mistake about it. You live in UK so you probably don't experience it much, but in many less developed countries it's simply impossible to be openly atheist without either social or institutionalized discrimination.

I'm not calling you dogmatic for demanding equal status, I could call you dogmatic, like the atheism+ fools, for demanding that atheism is a prescriptive philosophy.

I'm not demanding that. I'm not arguing true atheists must be secularists, some seem to want religion to play a significant role in public life. I don't think they're "fake atheists", I just question why they would support that.

It's the same as supporting black slavery/discrimination as a black person or supporting the dhimmi status as a Christian or Jew or a woman supporting an inferior status for women. Makes no sense to me.


The only reasons I can think of:

1. The atheist in question is afraid a less religious society will be less moral.
2. Apathy, the atheist in question doesn't really give a fuck - and I can understand that to some extent, but it's not something that's worth encouraging.
3. Self-interest. The atheist in question is in a specific position where having a religious society benefits him personally despite being detrimental to atheists in general (like being a closeted atheist pastor). Again, not something worth encouraging.

 

[mick1le2pick]

You know, I've been wondering about this feminism/atheist+ thing for a while, baffled as to what was going on, really, and not understanding it.

From what I have seen and heard about and from these feminists/atheist+ people, they don't seem to be helping. It seems they have gone overboard, in what appears to be a rather classic case of group polarization. (And I'm not saying that to trivialize their gripes. )

The reason is pretty much what I outlined, They want atheism to be about more than insulting religion, they want to take it one step further and to have it be about fighting sexism and homophobia. They want more friendliness and to bring the people together. You think there isn't a need for people to be anything more than atheist, but they simply take a different approach.

While I agree with their stated aims, Atheism+'s (or A + Thesim's) actions are far from positive. Some of you are starting to act like Venomfangx, or even worse.

Remember it's like if I said communism wants equality. Yes that is it's the stated aim but I wouldn't want to live in China.