My perspective on the Woolwich killing

I like almost everyone else was deeply appalled by the terrible murder of Army drummer Lee Rigby last week by Islamist extremists. The alleged perpetrators of this heinous and vile act were both brought up as Christians and later converted to Islam, then radicalised under the bigoted and intolerant stewardship of hate-preachers like Omar Bakri Mohammed.

There are various questions and concerns here. Could moderate Muslims do more to help stop this extremism from emerging from their midst? And are the radical beliefs the alleged perpetrators really that much of a deviation from the true teachings of Islam? I offer an atheist's perspective on all this.

***

The apologists are out in force. How sorry they all are and how these alleged perpetrators do not at all represent moderate Muslims or Islam as a whole. They claim much has been done but they "can't be complacent". Wow- you don't say?!

The main line of their argument seems to be that these are criminal acts and so cannot be justified in Islam. "No Muslims would support their vile acts" was a phrase voiced by an Imam called Ajmal Masroor on a recent BBC Big Questions programme about this issue. However, scratch beneath the surface of this glossy veneer and you find something called the No True Scotsman fallacy. It is described here.



Following on from Masroor's logic, an imaginary conversation to extrapolate his argument may go something like this:

Person A: "No Muslims would support their vile acts"

Person B: "Anjem Choudary, for one, refuses to condemn their acts, which is tacit support; and he is a Muslim".

Person A: "Anjem Choudary is not a true Muslim. No TRUE Muslims would support these vile acts".

And there we have it - the fallacy is fulfilled. The act of correcting the original assertion does nothing to address the faulty logic that drove its conception.

In fact, a common line you'll hear from atheists is that we should doubt the moderate Muslims' position on this. Radical Islamist ideologies are actually not that much less logical from reading the "scriptures" i.e. the Koran - we shall return to this problem later - than the interpretation that the moderates have adopted. Perhaps this is in fact closer to the dark truth that some Muslim apologists don't want to admit - extremist interpretations of the Koran's message are all too easy to make, and perpetuate.

Other Muslims are taking a more pragmatic and strict approach, trying to clamp down on the dodgy Mosques that house the hateful Imams who are teaching that Jihad is the true way of Islam.

Apart from the perpetrators, the main other bad guys in this piece are the far right wing groups like the EDL who are behind and / or support these dreadful reprisal attacks. This sort of pathetic fear tactic never works and I utterly condemn it. Right wingers really need to face the real world and wake up from their proud indulgences of yesteryear. Wake up, and smell the coffee.

***

The best solutions- the ones we should all be aiming for - avoid demonisation, avoid hatred, and avoid killing.

It seems to me that religion is a big part of the problem here. It is not entirely evident to me that its answers can truly solve the situation. I think we may need to look beyond religion. Some of my ideas to improve these things would not go down well with religious types:

* Back to that touchy subject of the Koran. I think Imams of a common voice as it were, need to get together and develop a written official narrative for the correct and non-violent interpretation of the Koran. And these interpretations of the scriptures - including context, meaning and modern relevance of Koran's passages, need to be interspersed within the Koran's pages. Sorry if that sounds offensive but I think it may be necessary. This "new" version then needs to be promoted as the only valid version and interpretation (at least within some arbitrary domain, such as the UK, or accepted for Western Muslims etc.).

This would not only give theologians something useful to do with their time, but would do a lot to undermine extremist narratives and make it clear that they are not accepted. I think refusal to even consider such an approach says one of two things. Either there is actually no agreement on the official and best interpretation of a peaceful Muslim doctrine, in which case the argument that "violent extremists do not at all represent moderate Muslims' beliefs" is at least somewhat problematic; or you really do think tradition is more important than people's lives. Neither option is good.

(As an aside, I feel that the Catholic Church needs to do the same damn thing for the Bible even more urgently - and with the presence of a Pope this should be easier).

* The Media - Please stop giving a valid prime-time platform to vile hate preachers like Anjem Choudary. At least part of the problem is perception - that of non-Muslim people on the verge of swinging to the right, and the last thing they need to hear is Choudary and his goons spouting threats to turn football stadia into mass gallows under the auspices of Sharia Law in the UK.

This is an example of where free-speech is being a bit of a hindrance (I've previously said I'm not free speech's biggest fan - one of its problems is that the idea that ludicrous, damaging opinions will be laughed down, relies on the fact that the listeners are tuned into reality - which is not always the case with religious types!) Basically, moderation is the key and shutting down the Daily Fail (Mail) would help a lot.

In summary, it's not my job as an atheist to make religious people feel comfortable. They should be respected, and feel safe and free from the danger of reprisal attacks; but their beliefs and behaviours need to be challenged.

Relevant source material for further reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331565/Woolwich-terror-suspects-The-web-extremism-surrounding-murder-Drummer-Lee-Rigby.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10082413/Woolwich-attack-Islamists-campaign-to-recruit-street-gangs.html

http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/05/25/defying-islamism/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tarek-fatah/uk-beheading-jihad-terror_b_3325363.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Dodgy internet article comments, part I

This is the first in a occasional series where I shall argue against a post, blog or article, or comment thereof, that I find to be particularly unhelpful, untrue or offensive. I have indexed my comments in bold.

Taken from here.

---
"Oppressed groups are the ones who define their experience of oppression and how they resist it"

Actually, nobody gets to do that (1). At least they don't without accounting for it. You certainly don't get to define yourself as part of an 'oppressed group' and then to grant yourself every freedom by virtue of that self-definition. (2) You are accountable for every claim you make and every action you take. You must justify it all. I don't care who you are. You are accountable to me. (3) However, I am likewise accountable to you. (4)

I don't want or need a free ride, so you don't get one either. (5) You are entitled as a human being to have your person respected. You owe the same obligation to every other human being. (6) You are owed nothing else. No claim you make is privileged in any way whatsoever. (7)

There is a great quote from Dostoyevsky, which is written on a plaque outside the ICRC headquarters in Geneva. It reads: -

"Everyone is responsible for everyone and to everyone for everything" (8)

This is the obligation you are owed and you OWE on equal terms to everyone else. (9)

I don't adopt a supportive role for anyone except on the basis of something concrete and verifiable. I wouldn't do a single thing for you on the hearsay of some self-defintion and what it implies. That would be to hand over responsibility for my actions, and I won't do that. Only a dishonest person would ask it of anyone.(10)
---


My comments:

(1) Actually, scholars, academics and people from the oppressed groups are the only ones who get to do that. If the rest of us don't like it, we can not allow work into peer reviewed journals, but if these experiences are real I'm afraid you just have to accept it.

(2) Define every freedom. If you mean basic human rights, everyone should get that. And as for consideration of people's under-privilege, why would you not want to give people that? Would you not open a door for someone in a wheelchair?

(3) Clearly stated, and clearly untrue. The corrupt police officer, the safety inspector on the take, the MP fiddling expenses claims, war criminal claiming he's too ill to stand trial for his crimes and living out his days in comfort, the big corporation CEO knowingly avoiding or evading taxes, they're examples of people who are quite plainly NOT being held accountable for their actions. Your idea may be a good ideal, but that doesn't mean it's actually true.

(4) Really? I don't think so. You could do any number of nasty things right now and I'd probably never get to hear about it...pulling off a fly's wings...let down your neighbour's tyres...Oh wait, you wrote this comment.

(5) The causality linkage here sounds like you're kicking those beneath you on the ladder. The cruel boss passing down the pain rather than standing up for his workers.

(6) Wow thanks. The first bit of sense.

(7) Uh-oh, the bollocks is back again. A blatantly untrue statement. So, duty of care doesn't exist? And tell "nothing you say is privileged in any way" to the black woman refused a job in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics when she is equally qualified to her white male peers. Or to the poor person told to buy a new school uniform for their kids because they look scruffy. Or to the disabled person who went to a party only to find they couldn't get in because the ableist planner didn't think of adding wheelchair access to the venue. What nonsense.

(8) Hmm...Yes the communist ideal. As a lefty liberal I would support it, only it doesn't really work. Look at the governments of the old USSR, and of China, and North Korea and how they treated and still treat people. And as for Dostoyevsky, I don't know much about him but it seems he was a utopian Christian gambler, well the Christian part doesn't give me much hope.

(9) How you can just claim his doctrines are gospel is beyond me, especially ones that are demonstrably untrue. But what else could I expect from a Dostoyevsky fanboy?

(10) And here we have it. The Kyriarchy denier is revealed in all his "glory". Is it just me or could these last 3 sentences be rewritten as 1. "don't listen to people's problems", 2. "I have no confidence in my own ability to tell when I'm being duped (probably because I have no empathy)" and 3. "don't trust anyone"? Some people are just too kind, aren't they?  

My own Huffington Post “storm”

Here I will deal with a perspective on the perception of women's rights from some recent comments I made to an article on the online newspaper The Huffington Post.

Here is the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/octavia-sheepshanks/feminism-man-hating-myth_b_3292843.html

It's an interesting article and a good perspective on some schisms within the feminist community. Looking back on it now I regret positing some initial comments using the webpage's own commenting facility. The level of pushback I received was quite disconcerting and I've been branded “spineless”, “racist” and “beyond contempt” for voicing my opinions on feminism and by people misinterpreting this as an attack on men's rights issues.

This level of vitriol was unexpected and that is the last time I will be discussing feminism on an open forum I think. I will continue to stand up for women's rights including fighting misogyny, sexism and harassment women receive and advocating for gender equality though because I think they're all important issues.

I've seen and heard some shocking stories from women of how they've been mistreated by feminists after stating that men can have problems too. This has made me think twice about certain aspects of feminism because driving people away for stating what is frankly so obvious as to be a truism, is not what it should be about. This is my bit for men's rights: I've highlighted in bold some statements that men's rights campaigners can hopefully not take too much issue with.

But I have made mistakes (openly admit that, it would be strange if I hadn't) and taken some learnings away from this whole episodes. I now have more awareness of genuine men's issues and also how both the men's and women's rights movements harm their own image by aggressive interactions with the other side in the heat of the moment. If we could calm down and look at our problems rationally, I think we'd realise that it is possible to be an advocate for both men's and women's rights and not come into conflict on these issues.

This is some of what went down. I commented:

“

This is a very interesting perspective Octavia. I can see your point. However I find the idea of a men-only feminist discussion group a little strange so I'm not surprised they were heavily criticised. They could have done with women's oversight. Can a man to call himself a feminist, without having the label properly bestowed? Terms like pro-feminist or Ally are better. With the nasty MRAs around these days it should come as no surprise that some women are distrustful of men's motivations in wanting to help. This is what is being confused with sexism or inequality. But if we really want to help, we shouldn't give in because our ideas are initially ignored. If you think your opinion is important, keep pushing it, ask for reasons why it is not worthy of consideration and fine-tune your idea. Finally, I think you may be slightly mistaken on the point about interruption/debating. Studies have shown that statistically, women are interrupted much more frequently than men. It is important that men make a conscious effort not to do this. It is not refusing to debate but rather letting women have their say on their own terms. Basically, avoid mansplaining which is from the position of privilege. But the part about not explaining to them why they're wrong is more problematic, if they are indeed wrong, so correct to take issue with that. Forgive me if I've misrepresented your position but that's what I read from the article.

“

To which a genius who shall here remain unnamed replied:

“

"They could have done with women's oversight."

Are we talking about a kindergarden here? Are you incapable of seeing the world and coming to correct conclusions about it without proper supervision?

And you disparage mansplaining to a first year Philosophy undergraduate! Is she to read nothing for three years? I think she might risk some exposure in the hope of learning something. She can still make use of her critical faculties and not swallow it all wholesale. For those without a mind of their own or a spine this could not be risked without appropriate oversight, but I think she'll be fine.

“

To which I replied:

“

A lot of questions. Sorry I wasn't making myself clear because that's not what I meant. Firstly, I was just saying personally, I think the group should have consulted more with women. But they can reach valid conclusions themselves. And later I was criticising men who talk over women, not Octavia.

“

And he then said some pretty nasty personal things. The comment was deleted by the moderator eventually. Some other comments, I won't deal with them all since I haven't got time!

Back to that last comment:

“Are we talking about a kindergarden here? Are you incapable of seeing the world and coming to correct conclusions about it without proper supervision?”

In university, yes. And it could be argued this is a bit like that. Due to differences is lived experiences, many men find it difficult to empathise with women and truly know what they go through on a daily basis. I don't know what these men were like or what they discussed so I still think my point was fair.

“And you disparage mansplaining to a first year Philosophy undergraduate! Is she to read nothing for three years? I think she might risk some exposure in the hope of learning something. She can still make use of her critical faculties and not swallow it all wholesale. For those without a mind of their own or a spine this could not be risked without appropriate oversight, but I think she'll be fine.”

Sure she will be, she seems like a great woman. And there are fine professors at Oxford for all this oversight you keep boning on about. Pointing out that something is mansplaining does not preclude study of the issue or why it arose. Exposure to mansplaining is equivalent to raising awareness of it, and of course things can be learned from this. Mansplaining will always occur to some extent and trying to reduce it is not the same thing as spinelessly ignoring problems.

Jeez.

In another strand, the following comment was posted.

“

"but men need to at least acknowledge that for a long time, women got the short end of the stick!"

That depends on your proof. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

The overwhelming majority of feminists I have seen engage in quite a lot of it.
What most would call oppression of women I would call the gender binary & it oppressed men in horrific (but different) ways as it also oppressed women.

32,000 men died building the panama canal. 10 million U.S. men were drafted into WWII & lost bodily autonomy FOR THEIR MALENESS with the happy blessings of the majority of men & scolding them to "do their duty".

Lookup the white feather campaign of women shaming men to enlist in UK during WW1.

Things are not so simple as what feminists have been saying. To learn more look to any of the youtube videos of girl writes what.

“

To which I replied:

“

So can we agree the gender binary is a bit out of date and only useful in limited circumstances e.g. modelling body/drug interaction?

The problem with your argument is that men actively participate in the system of their own oppression. If they let more women build the canals or take up more combat roles in the army, the problem would suddenly not be so bad. And also the fact that wars tend to be started by men in the first place.

Instead we have some senior armed forces officers saying combat isn't for women and Stirling Moss saying women can't be racing drivers, to give a couple of examples.

So the gender binary, set gender roles, the "superiority of heteronormativity" and gender shaming are all things we need to recognise and criticise.

“

To which someone gave some nice feedback, but another guy also said:

“

Your argument is false, as it only shows how far men have internalised their "oppression" as you would call it. After all many of the girls sold into marriage in say Afgh have their mothers pressuring them into this - recently a girl in Pakistan looked at a boy twice and was killed by her mother who threw acid in her face.
Men die in their millions in work and in wars and you look for reasons to dismiss/ignore that (PS - I just got through mopping the floor and cleaning the kitchen while my wife who is a professor and has a phd is at work).

To which I had the last word:

“

I'm not trying to dismiss or ignore anything so please don't think that. I realise that sometimes women perpetuate their own oppression as well. It strikes me that the best ways to avoid deaths at work is to have better working conditions which is why I'm supporting the Bangladesh campaign for factory worker's rights. And if you read Steven Pinker you'd know that war is thankfully becoming rarer. Stopping wars happening in first place is the best way to prevent all those deaths.

“

By the way, shaming people into conformance with arbitrary social standards is a awful thing to do, no matter who does it. But trying to blame male deaths in WWI on women rather than radical ideologies, overagressive thirst for revenge, rampant nationalism etc. is also dodging the issue. War is always a terrible thing and we always need to try and avoid it. But could we seriously have expected generals of the time to start enlisting women back then? They should have, as both World Wars left a terrible legacy of a massive shortfall in young men able to help the recovery the county needed.

Oh, and for my critics, this is me “dismissing and ignoring men's problems”:

One last comment: “

The high proportion of male suicides, male death and injury in the work place, male victims of DV. Yeah, great job feminism is doing of addressing those issues...

“

Again, OK dude. A) The high proportion of male suicides. I don't deny this is a problem worth raising awareness of or investing in tackling. Again I've done nothing to stop anyone trying to solve this issue. Let's look at some more details. There are a variety of reasons why people commit suicide. Main causal factors include: Professional / work problems, financial problems, depression, anxiety/stress, lack of social integration and rejection or conflict on a social or intimate basis.

Financial problems: as a rule men earn more money than women, so to me there's no gender based cause to prioritise male suicides over just offering better financial support to ANY people with financial problems. For the other issues the first thing that comes into my head is that there is social pressure for men to hold down stable jobs and be “breadwinners”, more than women. But do people realise that this is exactly the sort of thing that feminism is trying to fight against? Their narrative holds that a patriarchy exists, enforcing gender roles. If more women were “breadwinners” then it follows that there would be less social pressure for men to live up to this role. The rejection/conflict in intimate matters crosses over into DV so I'll discuss below.

B) Male death and injury in the workplace. I don't deny this is a problem worth raising awareness of or investing in tackling. Again I've done nothing to stop anyone trying to solve this issue. I think the theory goes that men are more likely to be employed in jobs with greater risk of injury and death, the “dangerous” professions such as the armed forces, law enforcement, mining, heavy engineering etc. So as I see it there are two main ways of tackling this.

Firstly, make these workplaces safer and campaign for better employee compensation for accidents at work and better representation in disputes. All these are admirable and largely gender-neutral targets. So why they are being shoehorned into the field of men's rights in particular, rather than just an important part of social justice, by the commenter is strange to me.

Secondly, get more women into working in these fields. The best way of doing this is challenging the narrative of the traditional gender role (only men do “heavy work”), which I think women's rights are acting on nicely, thanks.

A valid point the commenter may have (I am just inferring this as it wasn't clearly stated) is the issue of men's jobs in the social care sector and how this may be one of the few places where there is a chance of real misandry in the system being experienced. There is a clear deficit of men being employed in social worker, secretarial and PA roles etc. and this area is more often chiefly staffed by women actually running the recruitment activities. The proportion of men employed in these area needs to be increased So another important men's rights area is campaigning to improve this situation. I support this and this is aligned with equality so if any feminists object to it, I disagree with them.

Finally, countering this whole narrative is the recent dreadful tragedy in Bangladesh where a large textile factory collapsed, resulting in the death of more than 1000 people. By most reports I've seen, the majority of these were women . So it isn't only men that die in accidents at work. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/05/302021/bangladesh-disaster-death-toll-passes-600/

This underlines the argument that workplace safety is an important overall issue and the side-effect that it may help men more than women is not the major issue at hand.

100. Male victims of DV. Aside from the obvious point that there's no reason to distinguish between “male victims” of DV and just “any victims” of DV unless you simultaneously accept the fact that men are the major perpetrators, let's just look at “male victims” of female DV. I feel sorry for these people, I really do. But they shouldn't have to feel that they can't come forward and get help and support. They should be believed by the authorities and offered equal support, access to shelters and criminal justice to what women receive. This is one of the big issues men's rights campaigns can focus on in my opinion. But do people realise that one of the social “memes” reinforcing these problems is that women are soft and gentle and can't inflict physical damage on men. This is a myth that most women want expunged as well! And the myth that men shouldn't open up and discuss their problems. The myth that men need to hold their emotions inside and “just cope” rather than get help. Again, equality helps remove this bias. Also, on the matter of child access and stewardship, many women agree that the current bias towards letting women have the major custodianship of children in family disputes is wrong (as it assumes women should be better caregivers). So there are plenty of areas of common ground and not so much “mutually exclusive” stuff.

So basically I think some of these comments aren't very helpful. What do these people want from me? I've explained here why I think standing up for women's rights is the right thing to do and why this also helps men.

Misogyny, Mansplaining, and Star Wars

We've had some shocking examples of misogyny and hatred towards women just recently.

There was the mayor of the Japanese city of Osaka, Toru Hashimoto, mansplaining his way through a cock-eyed argument of how the (awful) WWII system of “comfort women” employed in Japan was “necessary”. Right dude, so it was OK to force a bunch of women into sex slavery to please an army of barbaric nationalists who didn't know when they were beaten? I don't think so. Japan, for such a progressive country, actually has quite a bit of misogyny, it is surprising to me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/japan-politicians-problem-comfort-women

The city of Oxford in the UK (worryingly close to where I live, it is scary!) has just seen the conviction of a group of Asian Muslim men for running a horrific paedophile sex ring, exploiting young white girls for their own illegal pleasures. And we have the Muslim preachers who are enabling them with their attitudes, then once they are convicted, do a 180 and suddenly say it's all so wrong and how ashamed they are of these guys. Sorry if I don't feel too credulous of that, dudes. In fairness though, the author of the piece below is a more sensible Muslim Imam and he makes a lot of sense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2325185/The-Oxford-sex-ring-preachers-teach-young-Muslim-men-white-girls-cheap.html

I feel fairly secure in stating that Ariel Castro is a vile misogynist who we should lock up, and throw away the key. This is the douchebag who kidnapped three young women and held them prisoner in his home in Clevelend, Ohio, for 10 years, beating, abusing, starving and raping them. One of the women even bore his child. I shudder to think of all the things he must have done over those 10 years. He could have raped them hundreds of times! It is just too sick to even think about. Thankfully his victims, Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight, amazingly survived the ordeal. But they may never fully recover. I really hope they “throw the book” at this Castro bastard. But his arsehat lawyer is typically blinkered and only sees how his client has been “misrepresented”. Sheesh.

http://jezebel.com/cleveland-kidnapping-suspect-treated-women-like-prison-506625423

All dreadful cases of abuse towards women, by men. And this is after the ongoing Operation Yewtree has revealed a seemingly never ending legion of “famous faces” (read: privileged white guys) who systematically sexually abused women and children (boys and girls) at their own leisure.

Some things never change, although they plainly need to. Hence Feminism.

But not according to some people. No, “geniuses” like Justin Vacula of Skeptic Ink in the US and Tom Robbins of the Bristol Tab newspaper in the UK, want to allow this sort of thing to continue by arguing that women are doing feminism all wrong and ruining equality. In fact, I'm not even sure these guys want equality at all.

Robbins: He wrote this hatchet-job of an article

How dare he. How dare he have the arrogance to make such an assertion? Let us examine his “logic”. He claims that laws are the answer to equality, and wanting to change attitudes is “silly”. Apparently:

• Laws comes first - This argument assumes that the motivation for the required change already exists amongst the lawmakers. But generally, these people are so disconnected from the lives of normal people that they only see the need to act when there is a large weight of opinion (the Zeitgeist) intent on change, directed at them from people they listen to.
  
  
• Attitudes only change over the course of generations. I have to assume that the guy has never heard of the Zeitgeist! This may be true at the societal level, but a normal individual could change their mind based on a single experience. And convert enough individuals, and you affect society and the Zeitgeist. The thing is, even if he were right, and he isn't, it would STILL be worth fighting to change attitudes to garner benefits 10s of years down the line.

So “laws” are the answer to everything right? Wrong. I've heard similar arguments from privileged guys before. There are plenty of examples of where the law is inadequate (loopholes) or even wrong (where to start?), and even more importantly, it is privileged individuals who affect what laws are adopted, not society as a whole. Sometimes you need to do what is right, even if it's not within the letter of the law. This is where the spirit of the law, and the spirit of justice and change come into play.

The House of Lords ultimately controls new laws hoping to be passed into statute. But among the Lords, (a pretty un-diverse group, mostly men by the way) are the type of privileged individuals who are unlikely to ever let laws that feminists would like to see, be passed by their House: either because they don't benefit from them, or they can't see the bonus from their ivory towers.

His example of the Civil Rights movement in America taking 44 years to elect a black President, therefore laws lead to attitude change, is only superficially convincing. Sure, long exposure to a new way of living enforced by law helps, but there has to be enough of a catalyst strengthened by indignation at bad treatment (in this case, slavery) to set up the desire for the law to change in the first place. I suppose we are meant to think that the racist discrimination was so bad that there were no viable black Presidential candidates for 44 years. But it may not just have been civil rights that caused this, but money. You need a lot of it to succeed in politics in America, and getting your long-deserved rights doesn't necessarily help financially. I think pressure into equalising wage structures faster for black people, may have resulted in a black President sooner, if that is to be our measure of success.

So Au contraire, Robbins. Changing attitudes to a certain tipping point is a necessary precursor to changing the law where that desire does not already exist. And it doesn't, because of the Patriarchy, which Robbins is demonstrably a part of.

Robbins just doesn't “get it”. If he wants to learn how to help equality, he should listen to feminists, not give opinions as a man and expect to be listened to. Such a classic example of mansplaining I have rarely seen.

By the way, for more hilarious examples of ridiculous mansplaining, see here

And that guy Vacula the “brave hero”. He is now saying:

“I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to the ‘logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men.”

See here : http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/15/i-think-we-call-that-an-own-goal/

What can I say? I was going to launch into a tirade of sarcasm about how awful that last statement is, but it would be pretty incoherent (“OK so what's new there”, I hear you say) as I'm just so lost for words! I'll just settle for saying the notion that “women exist to serve men” is BLATANT MISOGYNY. Wow.

In the film Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith, one of my favourite scenes is where Palpatine is talking to a young Anekin Skywalker, before he becomes all Darth Vader-fied. Discussing the gifts of the Dark Side, Palpatine expounds “The Dark Side of the Force is pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural”. Anekin then asks “Is it possible to learn this power?” and in a classic movie line reply, Palpatine simply answers: “Not from a Jedi” in an incredibly creepy way.

The Youtube clip is here .

I think there might be a parallel here: between The Dark Side, the deluded mansplainings of Robbins and the kind of Bronze-Aged “Skeptic” Masculinity that Vacula offers. I'll let you piece it all together. But in this analogy, feminists are Jedis, and allies their apprentices. Now that is a very cool thought.

On the #killallmen Twitter hashtag

My thoughts on the #KillAllMen hashtag which is causing quite a storm on Twitter these days.

First point of note: There is a large schism in the online feminist community (which I do try to keep up with to some degree, mostly failing miserably :( ) with some supporters of the hashtag and many other detractors. Most, but not all men are among the detractors. I don't want to generalise but mainly the more radical women are in favour and the more liberal ones are more against. So it's completely baseless to say this is a feminist conspiracy, because many of them don't support it.

The hashtag originated with the so-called TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists). As they are not Intersectional (an idea I discussed in a previous post) I don't agree with them about that. But I still value their other opinions.

One joke I can't resist: Intersectionalists want to turf out the TERFs; TERFs off our turf; there is a TERF war in feminism...I could go on but I'd better not or I might get in trouble ;-)

Personally, I have no problem with the #killallmen hashtag, but would only use it myself in talking about the hashtag directly rather than making some other point. The more suicidal part of me wants to say: “OK, I'll be first in line when you start to #killallmen but only if you look me in the eye and make it quick” (Get me help now!) Lol ;-)

Let's get some things straight. There are a few possibilities here, here are some of my ideas:

1. It's a “joke”. OK not a particularly funny one, but provocative. I think if it was written out fully it would be “kill all “men”” meaning put an end to the idea that toxic masculinity is a virtue. Such ideas that a “real” man needs to own and control “his” woman, as expounded by MRAs, are blatantly wrong and highly damaging.

2. It's a clever psychological trick to lure out the MRAs and other such loons. You have to be an extremely insecure man to think that #killallmen is actually a valid feminist intention and feel threatened by it.
3. It's a warning or expression of anger or rage at how dreadfully women are still treated in our modern world, progressive as it is in so many other walks of life. Men need to start helping, or become increasingly seen as “opponents”. If you're not helping you're hindering, as they say.

Or some combination of these. These are all valid reasons to use the #killallmen hashtag. There are other reasons for using it too I'm sure, too many for me to mention here.

There is no need to feel threatened by the #killallmen hashtag. There is no credible threat here. Although I'm sure some feminists fantasise about a world without any men and how much better a place it would be (the thought has even crossed my mind on occasion), the ends does not justify the means, it is not something we will ever be able to achieve in the short or long term, whether they actually want it or not.

Any violence can legitimately be met with self-defence. That goes without saying. If feminists actually did start killing men, they would instantly lose the moral high ground and become no better than their former oppressors. Let's put this nonsense away and get back to the real issue.

By “no credible threat” I mean no ingrained culture of violence against men by women. Sure, we occasionally may hear the odd story about DV by a woman, but they are so rare that you can't make any patterns from them. This is why misandry (irrational hatred of men, analogous to misogyny) is not a “thing” as they say.

On the other hand, the thought of a ( #killallwomen ) hashtag makes me shudder with revulsion and terror. This type of thing is already happening, DV and sexual abuse are so common, there are many examples of precedent, and there is a huge credible threat. VAWG (violence against women and girls) is a massive and real problem. There actually is that hashtag on Twitter, it largely is pretty frightening and some real misogynists on there. Also, some feminists who opposed #killallmen have posted, which is good to see.

That hashtag really is the sort of thing that would warrant some sort of pre-emptive strike! Oh hang on, we already have this by another name: #waronwomen. Thankfully this has been gently adopted by women's groups (please check it on Twitter to support) to raise the profile of the damaging effect of rape, DV and other forms of physical and sexual abuse. We should support these campaigns as they do good and important work.

One valid criticism of the hashtag is that some men could be genuinely threatened by it if they are oppressed/underprivileged by another aspect of Kyriarchy. It is a very incendiary hashtag. It could cause upset but again, that credible threat would not come from women.

Anyway enough of my inane ramblings, here are some proper feminist perspectives on both sides of the argument. All are valid and make for very interesting reading:

Against #killallmen hashtag:

http://londonfeminist.com/site/killallmen-the-antithesis-of-intersectionality/

http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/learning-from-history-or-how-to-free-feminism-from-its-adherents/

For #killallmen hastag:

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/kill-all-men/

No, I'm pretty sure slavery was a bad thing last time I checked

 

Today on Twitter, a Muslim girl actually said the following:

 

Rouillie Wilkerson ‏@Rouillie 13h

@sudixitca - Slavery is good if it is beneficial: non demeaning, instills dignity, etc. Projecting your values as insults upon others isn't.

Retweeted by Pakistani Atheists

      

 "Slavery is good if it is beneficial: non demeaning, instills dignity, etc. Projecting your values as insults upon others isn't."
...

I quote her verbatim, (sic for instils) - that's what she actually said. I sh** you not.
...
1. Since when was slavery ever beneficial to anyone, except maybe those doing the enslaving? And they're the ones that matter. Obviously. (WTF?!)
2. And her statement itself is pretty hypocritical as well since she is projecting her values on anyone reading it.
3. I can't guess what values she is protesting about being projected on her, although I shudder to think that they could be worse than hers seem to be.
4. So "slavery is OK", but suggesting that this may not be true is not OK. Oh I see.
...
 

In the interests of taking the kindest possible interpretation of her words, the best thing she could possibly be suggesting is akin to "endentured servitude". Like that's desirable. Such ignorance is extremely worrying. Just goes to show the things the godly will say from their position of feeling morally superior.

                                  

Banknote blunders

So Caroline Criado-Perez from The Women's Room UK has started a new petition on Change.org which is appealing to Sir Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, about the figures pictured on our pound sterling bank notes. Social reformer Elizabeth Fry is scheduled to be removed from the face of the £5 note in 2016 and replaced with Sir Winston Churchill. If this happens it would mean that all 4 of the note denominations (£5, £10, £20, £50) would depict men only. I agree that this is unacceptable so I signed the petition.

You can too, here

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/bank-of-england-keep-a-woman-on-english-banknotes

She suggests some women who would be suitable for replacement instead:

"Mary Wollstonecraft: in the vindication she wrote about how if you treat women like vapid children, that's the kind of women that will get produced -- she wrote forcefully about a culture that didn't give women a chance to flourish, and those insights are backed up now by a growing field of research into role models.

Mary Seacole: she was an amazing woman fighting oppression on two fronts and who just wouldn't take no for an answer; she did what she set out to do, she got to the Crimean war on her own and is a great role model for women today who still face obstacles and oppression.

Rosalind Franklin: she has been unfairly expunged from history despite her indisputable and crucial contribution to discovering the DNA double helix -- she's in many ways the poster girl for the way women are ignored and diminished. Watson and Crick won a Nobel Prize, they barely acknowledged her work which enabled them to get that prize, and she died with hardly anyone knowing who she was and what she did.

George Eliot: she's a brilliant author and wrote at a time where she had to hide her sex in order for her work to be taken seriously and judged on its own merits -- and as soon as her sex was revealed, the tone of the reviews about her books noticeably changed, with reviewers talking about the 'coarseness' and 'appropriateness' of her writing. She also broke boundaries in her personal life, 'living in sin' with her lover. "

 

These are good choices. All have made valuable contributions to society in their own ways. My personal preference, as someone who is "into science" has to be Rosalind Franklin, an X-ray crystallographer, who was largely responsible for the data used in the work that Watson and Crick were later credited for, in discovering the double-helix structure of DNA. It was a tragedy that she was not recognised at the time and the whole episode smacks of “mansplaining” to me. Nah, worse that that. A cover up to deny credit where credit was due. Tantamount to the usurping of a deserved Nobel prize. It would be a slap in the face to that whole shebang to have her on our notes.

 

The part of the petition I'm not too happy about was the proposal to remove Charles Darwin from the £10 note he deservedly occupies, mainly because he's been there the longest. This reasoning doesn't really hold up – the length of time the notes depicting a person are in circulation varies from between approximately 10 to 20 years, in the most recent series D and series E edition notes. Seeing as Darwin's note has been in circulation about 12.5 years and Fry's 11 years, it is not to much of a stretch to think that Fry could be taken off first. By 2016 her note will be 14 years old and Darwin won't have much longer left either if precedent is anything to go by.

So the strongest argument here is easily the gender balance issue and the strong contribution of women. That sentence about removing Darwin is a bit like scientific heresy! Seriously though, I would like to see him do the full stint of 20 years. If he comes up for early change, I might start my own petition for just that purpose.

 

But I definitely agree with the petition in that if Fry must be replaced, it should be with another woman. Preferably Franklin. And come 2017, economic pioneer Adam Smith would have been in circulation for 10 years on the £20 note and he could then be replaced with another woman for example George Eliot, which would square up the ratio 50:50. It's worth another campaign at the time I think!