|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The war of atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
Tribalism is unfortunately a natural instinct in human beings. We continuously find new ways to subdivide ourselves into "us" and "them," and those ways are usually pretty silly.
In this case, it would seem that the Atheist+ movement's culture of exclusion and defamation is counterproductive to what they should (and purport to) actually want - that is, convincing others through well-supported argument that their views should be adopted. The drive to identify, vilify, and dehumanize an "other" is the cause of many human evils. Atheists aren't magically immune to millenia of social evolution any more than theists...and sometimes, I think, Atheists can become so caught up in thoughts of superior rationality that they imagine themselves immune to the cognitive defects present in all of us. Just like Christians get caught up in feeling superior by being "saved," or political parties get caught up in feeling superior to...well, okay, I still say American politics is more akin to soccer hooligans than any reasonable enterprise. But that illustrates the point rather well.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Despite high ideals and noble intentions, we humans do have a tendency to take things to the extreme. And what results is that we become the very thing we fought so hard to overcome.
Social justice issues are worth fighting for, but not at the expense of another group of people, including wealthy, white, privileged heterosexual males.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Well said. Exactly what I was thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I particularly dislike the attitude that if you don't agree with her version of feminism, that you are a "gender traitor." Or in effect, not a *real* feminist. Well, if you don't agree that the value of a woman is equal to that of a man, and that women deserve, by dint of being human beings, equal access to public spaces and institutions, then why should she, or anyone, allow you to call yourself a "feminist"? It's a bit like saying "I'm a vegetarian, except that I eat pork and chicken and beef." Do words just not have meaning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
crashfrog writes: Well, if you don't agree that the value of a woman is equal to that of a man, and that women deserve, by dint of being human beings, equal access to public spaces and institutions, then why should she, or anyone, allow you to call yourself a "feminist"? It's a bit like saying "I'm a vegetarian, except that I eat pork and chicken and beef." Do words just not have meaning? Are you suggesting that there is only one school of feminism, and that your first sentence sums it up? What you say in that sentence would be included in all schools. I think Rox was referring to people from a specific school of feminism calling others, who would be feminists by your description above, names like misogynist.
Do words just not have meaning? As you know well, often more than one. Misogynist has become very interesting. Traditionally, it was applied to a small minority of men who seem to have an almost pathological dislike or hatred of women. It isn't cultural in this sense, so in a culture like Saudi Arabia, there will be individual misogynists in the context. Some schools of feminism have given "misogynist" another sense, which is cultural, and makes misogyny in a way both the driving force and product of patriarchy. In this sense, the whole Saudi culture would be very misogynous, and almost everyone in it could be given the label "misogynist", both men and women. An interesting thing is that some radical feminists are close to fitting the traditional sense of being misogynists. That's because they can see the majority of women as being duped by the patriarchy, and their social and political views as being essentially invalid and mindless. They are behaving as if all other women, the great majority, are too silly to know what's good for them, although they rarely actually say this. And the classic misogynist is a great believer in the silly mindlessness of the sex. So, yes, words usually have meanings, but the end result of all this seems to be that pretty much everyone is a misogynist of one sort or another. Maybe I can start a meme that will stop people using misogynist in their name calling, and use something like "sexist" instead. Of course, the case could be made that we're all sexist. Sometimes, throwing words around too thoughtlessly does actually leave them without meaning, in answer to your question. BTW, I thought that your summary of what Dawkins said had a bit of spin on it. At the time of his comment, I thought some things were getting blown out of all proportion (although not by any side in particular), and that's all that he said. Someone could read into it that he's implying that there are no problems of sexual behaviour that need to be dealt with at the atheist conferences, but so far as I know he hasn't said that, and as problems exist at all other conferences, and he's been around, it would be odd if he thought so. Like me, he's likely to remember some of the more ridiculous forms of seventies feminism, and he may well know what he's doing. I remember announcements from feminist leaders like "all penetrative sex is rape", from a well known New Yorker. Do words just not have meaning?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Like me, he's likely to remember some of the more ridiculous forms of seventies feminism, and he may well know what he's doing. I remember announcements from feminist leaders like "all penetrative sex is rape", from a well known New Yorker. Maybe this happened, but the best source for this quote I could come up with is Catherine MacKinnon who claims it was a false quote designed to undermine her credibility, possibly manufactured by the pornography industry - of which she was a vocal opponent. There was a similar case in the 80s, Andrea Dworkin:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Modulous writes: There was a similar case in the 80s, Andrea Dworkin: It was Andrea Dworkin that I was thinking of, so perhaps I got the decade wrong. And:
quote: That would have made the point just as well as the phrase I used. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if something very close to my actual phrase was used by some "slogan and jargon" type feminists, because it was getting a bit like Poe's law. If you made up something satirical to put in the mouths of feminists, people wouldn't know the difference. At the same time, as now, there were much more scientific feminists, who made a lot of sense about a lot of things. For a "Poe" slogan, try: "Non-white people can't be rascist", for the atheist+ people. They don't actually say that, but they want "racist" used in this way on their site. That's because in "social justice" terminology, people cannot be guilty of an "ism" like racism if they are victims of it, because they are (apparently) unable to "institutionalize" their "ism". So woman can't be sexist in this terminology, also. They have "PoCs", people of colour, as a description. (Anyone who isn't white, including people who often are pretty white, like some Hispanics). PoCs, apparently, shouldn't be called racist, because they cannot institutionalize their racism. Where? China? As most of the world's population are PoCs, and most countries have clear majorities of PoCs, this seems odd. So, atheism+, at present, is clearly parochial, and seems concerned with majority white societies, and mostly, the USA. PoCs are not privileged, in A+ speak, and white people are. So, we know that an unemployed working class white male who has recently been diagnosed with a serious illness and cannot afford the health-care can comfort himself with the thought that he has two important privileges which he must learn to recognize. Being white and being male. Whereas Michelle Obama and her daughters need our sympathy and understanding for their lack of privilege on those two counts, poor souls. IOW, we're not really looking at who really are the haves and havenots as individuals, but taking groups by gender or ethnicity and basing privilege around the average status of the group for them all. And even that doesn't work with groups of PoCs, because Asian Americans have the highest incomes of all major broad ethnic groupings, followed I think by white, black and Hispanic in that order, which looks to me more like a zebra crossing than a light to dark caste system. Anyway, it's all very interesting, and I predict dissent from the real left, who can point out that privilege is inevitable under capitalism, and if you really wanted to get rid of it, capitalism would have to go too. PoCs! Edited by bluegenes, : spilling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you suggesting that there is only one school of feminism, and that your first sentence sums it up? I'm suggesting that words have both meaning and connotation, and that sometimes bad actors want to avail themselves of the positive connotations of a label without merit. I'm suggesting that there's no "label police" but us, and therefore that we should push back when people attempt to appropriate labels they don't deserve. Like "feminism."
I think Rox was referring to people from a specific school of feminism calling others, who would be feminists by your description above, names like misogynist. Then doubtless she could provide a concrete example for discussion. I took her to be referring to the groups, individuals, and ideologies that Rebecca Watson was saying were not feminist, and those would be groups, individuals, and ideologies that aren't feminists by my description above, but call themselves that regardless.
An interesting thing is that some radical feminists are close to fitting the traditional sense of being misogynists. An interesting thing is that you don't provide even a single concrete example of this. Are you familiar with a creation called the "strawfeminist"?
BTW, I thought that your summary of what Dawkins said had a bit of spin on it. His remarks were read into the record - by you, as I recall. I saw perfect concord between his remarks and my summary.
At the time of his comment, I thought some things were getting blown out of all proportion (although not by any side in particular), and that's all that he said. Right. The proper "proportion" he sees for discussion of women's issues in atheism is that so long as a woman anywhere in the world is wearing a burkha, there's absolutely no need to discuss women's issues in atheism. Look, I continue to think Dawkins is great, but he just flubbed this. He was needlessly snide and dismissive at a time when the discussion was about how the male leaders of "movement atheism" are completely dismissive of the concerns of atheist women. How bone-headed.
Like me, he's likely to remember some of the more ridiculous forms of seventies feminism, and he may well know what he's doing. Like you, I bet he doesn't remember even a single actual example of a "ridiculous form of seventies feminism. All he remembers, like you, is the strawfeminism promoted to discredit the project of equality for women.
I remember announcements from feminist leaders like "all penetrative sex is rape", from a well known New Yorker. The problem is, you remember something that nobody actually ever said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It was Andrea Dworkin that I was thinking of, so perhaps I got the decade wrong. She didn't say it either, though.
If you made up something satirical to put in the mouths of feminists, people wouldn't know the difference. You're not making a very strong case for your ability to tell the difference between things feminists have said, and things people have said feminists have said in order to discredit them.
For a "Poe" slogan, try: "Non-white people can't be rascist", for the atheist+ people. They don't actually say that Oh. Well then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women,"
"violation is a synonym for intercourse." Dworkin. I don't think my original phrase was a wild misrepresentation, and I do think those two claims are ridiculous. But you're in a better position than she was to support the view expressed in the first quote from personal experience. Is intercourse the way in which you express your contempt for women? Or is she wrong and ridiculous?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," The hanging comma doesn't tell you that there's maybe some context here you're not getting? I mean what you've quoted isn't even a complete sentence.
Dworkin. Except that it's not.
Or is she wrong and ridiculous? I don't know. We're not yet talking about things that Dworkin actually said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3739 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
CF writes: Except that it's not. Except that it was:
"violation is a synonym for intercourse."Intercourse: Occupation/Collaboration (1 of 2) "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women"Intercourse: Occupation/Collaboration (2 of 2) CF writes:
Ok - here it is:
The hanging comma doesn't tell you that there's maybe some context here you're not getting?"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women; but that contempt can turn gothic and express itself in many sexual and sadistic practices that eschew intercourse per se." {abe} From bluegenes' post, I see that she re-uses the same sentence in multiple places. She definitely means it. CF writes:
Yes we are. I don't know. We're not yet talking about things that Dworkin actually said. Why do you think otherwise? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Richard Dawkins came out and basically said "there can't be any such thing as a sexism problem in atheism so long as a single woman, somewhere, is wearing a burkha. Or if there is, we're certainly not going to pay attention to it." I think Dawkins' point was that elevator guy wasn't just being mildly problematic in comparison to the cultures of (say) the near east, but that he was not being problematic at all:
quote: (I can't find the original, but I remember reading it once. It is on many blogs as a quote now but the links are to another blog post where Dawkins commented. It can be seen Here for example)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
crashfrog writes: The hanging comma doesn't tell you that there's maybe some context here you're not getting? I mean what you've quoted isn't even a complete sentence. You're right. It should be "women's bodies". Now do you agree with it? Yes or no? And you might or might not agree with all of these. You're a biologist, so you might wonder how she came up with her biological knowledge that men are "biologically inferior to women". As you know from experience with creationism, idealists always have the option of just making stuff up and stating their fantasies as fact.
quote: "Female masochism is real and it must be destroyed" "masochistic nonidentity in women" Women, not surprisingly, were not joining up to Dworkin's vision of feminism in their masses. And they kept on having sex with the likes us. Something must be wrong with the silly things. So, they have masochistic nonidentity. That's the kind of thing that I mean by some feminists seeing most women in a way that's similar to the classic misogynist's view. They are weak nothings. Non-persons. But Dworkin is just one feminist, and Rebecca Watson is no Dworkin. And just as she would disagree with Dworkin on some things, other feminists will disagree with her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think Dawkins' point was that elevator guy wasn't just being mildly problematic in comparison to the cultures of (say) the near east, but that he was not being problematic at all: You guys keep restating what I'm saying, and then telling me I'm wrong. I don't get it. I agree with you, Mod, that Dawkins is being completely dismissive of Watson's issue with the elevator guy, and with the larger problem of sexism in "movement atheism" altogether. And that's the problem. Dawkins' reply is to continue to be dismissive. The problem isn't that Watson and others are refusing to accept his dismissal; the problem is that he's dismissing them. Dawkins is basically asking, here, exactly what the problem is that can't be solved by just ignoring it. People are trying to tell him, but because they use naughty words he doesn't feel like he has to listen.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024