I define Exclusionary
Atheists as those that do not believe that atheism should be as
welcoming and inclusive as possible for everyone. Here I also refer
to MRA Atheists as “MRAtheists”.
The extremely bitter
individual that is Thunderf00t (aka TF) has once again gone and shot
himself in the f00t (sic) with another attack on
Atheism+, and women, in his latest video, ludicrously entitled “How
feminism is poisoning atheism (part 3)”. This video is an assault
on secular women and inclusive atheist men all over the world.
Now one of the reasons
that Atheism+ is even needed is because of the harassment culture
that exists within atheism, and makes women and minorities feel so
unwelcome. I have said before that one reason this exists is because
becoming an atheist is not a vetted process. Anyone can disavow their
god (from a short period of limited self-analysis, falling out with
family/church etc.) and become an atheist, whilst maintaining any or
all of their previously held discriminatory views that undoubtedly
came from the previous religion.
TFs first major point
is both a denial of this staggeringly obvious fact, and completely
wrong. He assumes that all atheists reach their position of belief by
a rational process of doubt and critical thinking. Because that was
the way it worked for him. This is typical of the selfish and
inconsiderate attitudes of exclusionary atheists.
He even falls for the
old canard of “That's how Nazi Germany started” (Godwin's law –
a clear sign that you've lost the argument) calling out the old
chestnuts of free-speech (what he really means is free hate) and
ideological hatred (just who is it that us inclusive atheists hate
then, TF?). And hint: don't conflate the word “disown” with the
word “denounce” when used against people, not arguments. They
mean completely different things.
TF likes to say he
“sits on the fence” .True, Richard Carrier charicatures the
division between Atheists and “Atheists+”. Some of the things he
says are not exactly perfect. But who says he is going to decide
everything?
Is admitting that
“denial of this clear division is actually tacit support for toxic
behaviour”, really being divisive? I say it is just drawing a line
in the sand between 2 groups that already exist. The fact that some
people like TF and Richard Reed (someone who I've encountered before
and who made it clear that his major aims are to throw dirt at
feminists from a position of safety, while denying this to anyone who
calls him out on it) want to stay in the middle suggests to me that
they want the benefits of sniping at Atheism+ without the negatives
of being viewed as an exclusionary Atheist. Well that's convenient. I
bet all the others want that too. But at its heart, it's just
chicanery.
TF finishes off with
some weird shit about how appealing to atheist minorities is not a
good thing and we should be focussing on fighting religion. But I
don't agree. There are other examples elsewhere on my blog where I've
made this view clear. I think we can do both. But it's important to
have a more diverse and representative movement before you can
attempt to tease people out of religious thinking. Otherwise whilst
numbers grow, more will be exclusionary types, hence revealing TF's
secret – exclusion is what he really wants and all this “sitting
on the fence” is just a sad diversion. “Game on for the
Kyriarchy” is becoming a popular theme with our common opponents –
a fact TF would do well to acknowledge. Anyway it's rich for him to
bone on about how ineffective Rebecca Watson is when all he seems to
do is spend his time making videos fighting her, or feminism.
Logical, that. Walk the talk, dude.
It's called “That's
not thunder, it's indigestion” - LOL! Just about sums it up.
Regardless of religious
beliefs of individual MRAs or exclusionary atheists, or TF, you can't
ignore the fact that they share many dogmatic views about the
stereotyped gender roles and castigated places which they claim women
must inhabit, with extreme Islam and Evangelical Christianity. For
any atheists to throw their lot in with these exponents of the
morally grey, is a betrayal far larger in magnitude than any
compromise with feminism could ever be. And this is the enormous
fallacy, the ultimate hypocrisy of TF's argument.
TF has no mechanism to
control or moderate trolls. The ineffective marketplace of
free-speech is supposed to do that. But it doesn't – that's why we
need moderation. (aside – I've as yet heard no good answer to the
argument that moderation does not impinge free-speech, because those
opinions can simply be voiced elsewhere).
He needs to help clean up
his backyard, as they say. Whether TF wants to drive women out of his
sect of atheism, or change them to conform with his own views and
those of other exclusionary atheists,
the fact remains that this, at its most basic level, could amount to intellectual
apartheid. I should not have to remind anyone of the colossal dangers
of such a notion. As with Apartheid South Africa, the living memories
of this sort of extreme discrimination are too recent and too painful
to re-inflict on a new a population of victims.
I'm afraid that history
does not look kindly on those that choose exclusion over inclusion.
It is quite clear to me that far from feminism, the only thing
poisoning atheism nowadays is MRAtheism. I also don't see how exclusionary atheism can help.
However you want to frame this whole argument, you can't escape the
fact that the vast majority of women self-identify as feminists to
some degree, whereas significant numbers of men (as I am an example)
support women 100% in their quest for true equality.
Atheism can't succeed (and indeed, I don't want it to succeed) if it excludes over 50% of the population in this way! I am starting to grow towards secular humanism as an answer being less confrontational and more supportive to minorities.
Atheism can't succeed (and indeed, I don't want it to succeed) if it excludes over 50% of the population in this way! I am starting to grow towards secular humanism as an answer being less confrontational and more supportive to minorities.
Both sides of this debate are being unnecessarily provocative and divisive. I like your post a lot, and think that we all need to chill out and relax on this issue. What should an Atheist who is a decent human being want? He/She should want people (both men and women)to be treated with respect, but not necessarily their ideas. Yes, there is terrible misogyny in the Atheist community (and generally) and, yes, we all need to do something about it. But we also need to lose the invective. I like Richard Carrier a lot, but he did himself no favours with those message board comments that Thunderfoot talked about in the video.
ReplyDeleteThunderfoot is on a personal crusade after the whole FTB affair. It really is a shame that he has taken it so badly, and it saddens me to see him reduced to making these kinds of videos. In his time he made great videos about the follies of Creationism (and other Atheism topics). It's a crying shame that he can't let this go and go back to making those videos. Frankly, it does speak badly of his character. I like to think the best of people, and I still think that Thunderfoot may regain his former glory. I would love to see it. As for now though, he does deserve some criticism and is rightly getting it. To be fair to the man though, I don't think he is a MRAtheist, he's not THAT far gone. But honestly TF, what was he thinking with the title? Really, feminism poisoning Atheism- grow up, please. Feminists just want women to be treated with respect. An admiral goal one would have thought! Yes, they have passion, and sometimes they go too far. Sometimes they say things that are silly or unnecessarily provocative, but regardless the broad goal of equal rights is a very important and admiral one. Who would really argue with equal rights? Also despite what the ludicrous MRA say, it is clear that women are NOT treated equally at the moment (not equal pay, more sexism and abuse pointed in their direction). It is a sad state of affairs that there is an advantage to being a man in our societies. Feminism is a movement that wants to do something about this. Why would one not want to support it?
I'll tell you what I think the atheism movement really needs. More LOVE. Yep, I know it sounds a bit silly and well lovey-dovey, but that is honestly what I think. We have spent so long arguing with people that we have forgotten that friendship and acceptance of others are important too. More important than the arguments are in fact. That is why when somebody like Thunderfoot finds himself being criticised all he can do is argue back. Accepting that he might be wrong, and trying to rebuild bridges, seems to have gone out of the window. The other side should also do more to try to understand where people like TF are coming from. Why is he saying these things? The truth is that the Feminists could often express themselves better and phrase their arguments in ways that are less prone to misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteMore love please Atheists, less hate.
Thanks for your comments Rich. You are being reasonable where it is so easy to be pretty unreasonable!
ReplyDeleteI edited this post a bit for "fairness".
ReplyDelete