Women against feminism? Please, just, no...

Ergh. Looking at this website is painful. But I did it a bit, if only to gauge the quality of their arguments. I was not impressed.

Whilst it seems most of it had been penned by those sympathetic to Mike Buchanan, I am unsure about how much weight to attribute to this opinion. The last thing I want to do is ignore women's genuine views.

On the other hand, it would be disrespectful also to put too much credence to opinions I didn't find convincing myself, at least to some extent. So I'm keeping an eye on women's participation in anti-feminism. It seems like a small minority at the moment, so they don't have much influence on my thoughts. In order to do so, they'll have to do better than these easily refuted arguments:

“If women actually got paid less for the same work and the same paid hours, don't you think businesses would hire only women?”

No. Some business do hire almost exclusively women. But businesses in general can't only hire women simply because women only make up a portion of the workforce (less than 50% I believe) and there aren't enough women to fill all the jobs. That is a really poor attempt to justify stopping equal pay campaigns. Sheesh. That's apart from skill and availability matching problems (e.g. Shortage of women in particular fields / skillsets). The pay gap is NOT a myth. It is slowly improving, although as I have shown before when I previously linked to a study, the situation in STEM fields is bleak.

“Man who doesn't want to take car of a kid: Deadbeat Dad. Woman who doesn't want to do the same: Pro-choice”.

Yeah, right. This misses the rather important fact that the former case is referring to a man's behaviour after the birth, and a woman behaviour before it. If we equalise the timescales, the argument is shown to be flimsy: During early pregnancy: The man would be asking for the woman to consider abortion (he should have a say in this, although not the ultimate decision) and could put together a good case to not take further part in child's life if the woman refused. I don't see why he'd be called a deadbeat dad if he made his intentions known & consulted solicitors early in the process. After birth: Either man or woman would be equally in the wrong.

+++

“I love feminism because...I love whining about everything and doing nothing about it”

K.

That's plainly not true.

(insert here Caroline Criado-Perez' amazing recent bank note triumphs, for which she has, deplorably, been threatened with rape. I'm sure the anti-feminists weren't involved in that though)

AND

“Too many male CEOs...Number of male suicides, homeless and workplace deaths is just fine”.

Do I detect just a hint of hypocrisy there? I agree those latter things are problems, so why not try and solve them in a direct, positive way by appealing to authorities and charities, rather than fight feminists?

Because they procrastinate on this, I could just as validly put:

“I love Male Rights Activism and Anti-Feminism because...I love whining about everything and doing nothing about it”

AND

“Too much awful feminism...all that talking and empathy....number of rapes, rape culture, misogyny, street harassment and abuse, Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall etc., victim blaming, daily news reports of VAWG and male suicides killing their wife and kids first rather than just themselves, is just fine”

+++

Picture of Anita Sarkeesian: “Not enough female heroes...The fact that most villains are male is perfectly fine”

Nope. Most video game characters full stop are male, so there's bound to be more male villains. More females = more female villains. Go figure. Also, it's not Sarkeesian's job to deal with number of males. If you want less male baddies, campaign for that yourself. Leave her alone.

Then there's a couple of stupid pictures covering the already-refuted argument that says we should only concentrate on REAL problems and ignore things that are only a BIT wrong. Nope – doesn't work (ref. Rebecca Watson widely regarded as being right about elevatorgate).

This was just a small selection from the stuff there, but gives you an idea of their right-wing, religion-friendly views and how misplaced they are.

In summary

Anti-feminism: “because fighting your enemies for scraps is more important than asking for more food”

Say we had Charity A and Charity B in the same environment. Both want to increase their fundraising and get their campaigns noticed through publicity. Those charities don't enter a smear campaign, knocking each others values and intentions and threatening each other. They simply raise their games, competing for people's donations by making better arguments and promoting their own agendas more intensely.

Why can't Charity A and Charity B be feminism and male rights activism? I have yet to hear a good reason why they can't.

It really does escape me why fighting feminism is a better approach than simply campaigning positively for men's rights. Just keep at it! Feminism and positive men's rights need not be in opposition, they would mesh with the right co-operation. I may even suggest this if I thought they wouldn't kill me for it...

Yes I've already been branded “beyond contempt” by the anti-feminists. It's almost as if they are more interested in hurting women than lessening the pain of men. It seems deplorable to me.

In my view, Men's rights and Ant-Feminism has much dirty laundry and needs to clean up its own backyard. Condemn and distance yourselves from the cretinous loonies with twitter handle names like “rapey” and “boozy” (I shit you not). It's disgusting. As if drunken, abusive men who thought they were god's gift to women were any type of role models. And condemn harassment, instead of polluting the idiom “what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger” to mean “women need to be put through hell in order to be strong”. This inane notion has been used to justify rape-apology, harassment and abuse. There are many ways in which we can challenge ourselves and build character, in work, hobbies and sport etc. If you talk to most recovered rape survivors, they don't say “Oh I'm glad it happened now, it made me stronger”. Something is seriously wrong with current anti-feminist thinking.

Reblog of "Apologists say only men can reason their way into atheism"

I'm just reblogging the following article from FtB by Russell Glasser. I completely agree with Russell's assessment.

The Apologist's reply to The Friendly Atheist's story featuring Rachael Slick really got me raging. It represents a terrible strawman, a shameful and sexist attitude for the Christian response to take to a woman's personal story of conversion, which is as inspirational, intellectually based and as real and valid as any man's.

A "rebellious action from a confused creature". How dare they belittle Rachael's experiences, and claim to know her reasoning whilst failing to even ask for it .

Well said Russell.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/07/27/apologists-only-dudes-can-have-good-reasons-to-be-an-atheist/

Ooh, popcorn time! Atheism showdown: Matt Dillahunty vs. Lindy West!

Let me start by saying I really admire Lindy West. She is an excellent writer and has put out some great articles on feminism over at jezebel.com (I featured one in a previous blog post). Well it turns out she is also an atheist! *my heart swells*. She wrote an article here on “how to be an atheist without being a dick about it”.

 

http://jezebel.com/how-to-be-an-atheist-without-being-a-dick-about-it-823225375

 

It's an interesting read, I thought, with some good points. I certainly don't agree with everything she says, and I thought she got a bit carried away at the end, but overall I thought it was a valid opinion and I wouldn't have complained or commented on it especially myself.

 

Matt Dillahunty thought otherwise. I also admire Matt for his clear logical thinking and ability to get the better of many a theist, as host of The Atheist Experience TV show, where he regularly takes calls from deluded believers and atheists alike. He shows some good patience and dogged determination to argue through the same points over and over, until often the theist callers leave much the wiser than before they rang in. Matt's blog is also based on the Freethought Blogs webspace where feminism is taken seriously and women (as well as feminist-friendly men) get a chance to air their views in a reasonable environment, and support and backup if and when they are harassed.

So I initially thought it slightly strange when Matt took a bit of an exception to Lindy's article and wrote a response that can at least be described as “robust”. Maybe he thought she was referring to him as the hyped “dickish atheist”? Anyway, it contains many good points as well.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/07/18/dont-be-a-dick-new-from-jezebel/#more-5746

Let's have a look at some of the arguments!

 

General comments on problems with Matt's article:

Although I accept that there were elements of condescension and mild hypocrisy in Lindy's article, it's very harsh to keep calling her a dick for it. Matt uses the word dick way more than necessary and it gets a bit grating to be honest. Matt's article is also a little condescending itself.

When Lindy says she wants to call out religious institutions for the harm they cause, Matt takes it too far: “Be careful, you’re sounding just about as dickish as movement atheists, here.” Not really.

 

And when Lindy writes that really nice line about expressing disagreement with theists proportional to the absurdity of their beliefs, Matt bashes this as the word of someone who's never debated theists. Maybe true, but it's a nice ideal, and seeing as we atheists need to portray ourselves as fairer, one that should not necessarily be abandoned. When Lindy talks about punching up rather than down, I'm not sure she means superior/inferior, which Matt infers. Calling her a dick here is harsh because we're not all in an equal situation, and just because Lindy could rise above theism it doesn't mean it is just as easy for anyone else. I understood the up/down analogy as low/high privilege, not superiority. This seems to be a lack of empathy from Matt.

One major problem he has, is not knowing what Lindy means when she gives specific examples of atheists being misogynists. It is a bit more than “internet comments” as he says, rather sustained multimedia campaigns from a number of individuals and their assorted followers which could well be called a movement: Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, Justin Vacula (and his absurdly-named slymepit goons), Richard Reed and others. Checking the twitter and youtube activity of these people bears this out – there are many posts criticising women, feminism, Freethought Blogs, CFI people, PZ Myers, the FtBCon online conference etc. This is more than healthy challenge of ideas, it is bordering on obsession. I wish they would just stop. To claim you have never seen this and don't know what's going on, whilst your other FtB colleagues like Ophelia Benson are being harassed, is pretty strange. And whilst I agree that these atheists did not get their behaviour from atheism, they are still acting as agents on our behalf, and as such, are sending out the wrong message. Overall Matt's article was a strong critique, with many good points, but not without a few problems itself.

General comments on problems with Lindy's article:

Lindy needs more citations and examples of atheists generally being dickish. There are generalisations in there “so many people insist on being such condescending dicks in the name of atheism”. Well, I can't think of too many. Certainly way less than religious examples!

And to quote a Glen Greenwald groupie in that link trying to lay racism at the feet of the new atheists, was an own-goal for her. And the statement about atheist evangelism was smug, and wrong. I disagree with the line about some people needing religion and we shouldn't take it away.

The ending is problematic – whilst I totally agree it would be awful to beat down on that poor woman, Lindy doesn't show any evidence that atheists have actually done anything like this. The issue of whether we could dissuade the religious “solution” is a different problem, and I think she's wrong on that, too. Overall, it's clear that although Lindy has the best intentions, she is coming at this from the perspective of someone who's never had to fight against religious dogma in her own life. Ideally of course, all atheists would share her situation- if parents stopped inculcating their kids into Christianity, for instance. To try and put this out “writ-large” as it were, shows a surprising lack of empathy for a feminist. I hope I didn't mansplain too much there (*cowers*)! The rest of the article is OK. At least I didn't call her a dick.

Final scores are in: Matt 7 Lindy 7

IT'S A SCORE DRAW!

I can't wait for the rematch, lol.

Let's Talk...Atheism, and the possible existence of God

I've heard a lot of falsehoods and fallacies lately from religious people (termed "theists" by us atheists) about what atheists believe. They have said, conflictingly I might add, that we:

*Don't have any morals

*Do not believe in anything

*Worship Satan

*Believe that a God does not exist

It's interesting to be told what you believe by someone who doesn't know anything about you, trust me. But all these things are untrue (1). Let me address them one-by-one.

*Atheists DO have morals

When you are free of religious dogma, it's easier for you see the world the way it really is, and the best behaviours to adopt to make it a better place. That's why there are so few atheists in prison (a couple of sources I looked at put the rate at between 0.2 – 0.5% of the total prison population, way below the rate in the population), and we are not all being convicted of theft, rape and murder every 5 minutes.

*Atheists believe in lots of things

Otherwise, they would be nihilists. Generally, atheists believe in the people around them. Humanism and philosophy are good starting points.

*Atheists do not worship Satan

You can't worship something you don't believe in. Accepting Satan requires also accepting God. We reject God- we're atheists.

* (1) Atheists do not necessarily believe that a God does not exist

Man, here we go.

The position of believing that a God does not exist is one FORM of atheism. It is called STRONG atheism or anti-theism. I call it that to distinguish it from the normal atheism. There are also other behaviours commonly associated with anti-theism, such as bold opposition to organised religion in any form, and campaigning, debating and arguing for de-conversion.

However, this strong position is not required to be an atheist. The minimum position, and the most common, is WEAK atheism: The rejection of the claim that a God exists.

I can categorically assure you that these positions are quite distinct:

*I do not believe that a God exists. (Position A - weak atheism)

*I believe that no God exists. (position B - anti-theism)

These positions, and a third (*I believe that a God exists - theism) are all positions on the belief scale. Notice no talk of Agnosticism here. Agnosticism is very annoying to atheists and much misused by others. The knowledge scale deals with Gnosticism/Agnosticism. In reality, everyone is Agnostic because no-one really knows if a God exists. They may claim to know, but we can never be 100% sure without evidence. Agnosticism is annoying because it doesn't tell us what someone believes. Whilst Position A says nothing about whether you know a God exists. Hence most atheists are Agnostic Atheists (position A + agnosticism), to define both their belief and claimed knowledge about God's existence.

I hope you can see the difference between positions A and B. There are 2 good analogies I've heard which demonstrate the precise situation very well and clearly show the difference.

Coins in a jar

There is a large jar containing many coins. You are trying to determine if the number of coins in the jar is odd or even. You can look at it but not open it, weigh it or count the coins etc. The assertion is made to you that the number of coins in the jar is even. Do you accept this proposition?

The most sensible answer is no. This means that you do not necessarily think that the number of coins is odd, but rather that you are not sure that it is even. By saying no, you are not saying “I think there are an odd number of coins”. That would have been accepting the proposition that the number of coins is odd. In terms of logic, there are 2 possibilities: either the number of coins is even, or it is odd. However we are only dealing with ONE of these possibilities at a time when we are answering an assertion. Answering in the negative to a positive assertion that there is an even number of coins is not a belief in itself- rather, saying “I reject that assertion” - hedging our bets, getting an opportunity for more time to find another way of ascertaining the true answer.

+

The situation is analogous to the existence of God. Here God existing is equivalent to an even number of coins, and God not existing is like an odd number of coins. Either God exists, or it doesn't. But we only deal with one positive assertion at a time. Answering in the negative to a positive assertion that there is a God is not a belief in itself- rather, saying “I reject that assertion” - hedging our bets, getting an opportunity for more time to find another way of ascertaining the true answer. This is atheism position A.

+

The Courtroom Trial

A defendant is on trial, charged with murder. You are on the jury and must return a verdict on the assertion of the defendant's guilt.

Here we have 2 possible responses, guilty or not guilty. These are two logical negations of each other. Again, the real-life situation is that either the defendant is guilty, or innocent, but again, in judging the outcome, we only look at one of those possibilities with our two logical negations – being guilty or not guilty is the one we examine.

Let's say that the prosecution do not make a convincing enough case. There is some evidence, but the evidence that there is, is circumstantial and you feel that it's not enough to convict the defendant. You would then logically vote to return a verdict of Not Guilty. Let us look carefully at the ramifications of this decision.

Does the Not Guilty verdict you have delivered as a juror, mean that you think that the defendant is innocent? No, not necessarily. You may be fairly convinced that he is in fact guilty, for other reasons that can't be admissible for instance, however, on the evidence presented, there was sufficient doubt over the guilt to return a not guilty verdict.

But surely if you think the defendant not guilty you must think there is a greater chance of him being innocent? Does the Not Guilty verdict you have delivered as a juror, mean that you you as a juror have any responsibility to comment on the likelihood or probability that the defendant is innocent? Not necessarily, and no. You have judged that there is 95% (or the preponderance of evidence or the agreed yardstick) chance that the defendant is not guilty. As a juror you have no responsibility to determine the subsequent probability of guilt, nor innocence. (The latter is a different, theoretical question, requiring a re-trial with the options of “innocent” vs. “not innocent” for the jury to return). It is a “past the post” system for evidence of guilt. There is either enough evidence to convict, or there isn't.

+

The analogy: God is on trial, charged with existing in the Universe. You are on the jury and must return a verdict on the assertion of God's existence.

Here we have 2 possible responses, guilty or not guilty. These are two logical negations of each other. Again, the real-life situation is that either God exists or it does not exist, but again, in judging the outcome, we only look at one of those possibilities with our two logical negations – being guilty of existing or not guilty of existing is the one we examine.

Let's say that the theists do not make a convincing enough case. There is some bible/Koran evidence, but the evidence that there is, is circumstantial and you feel that it's not enough to prove that God exists. You would then logically vote to return a verdict of Not Guilty. Let us look carefully at the ramifications of this decision.

Does the Not Guilty Of Existing verdict you have delivered as a juror, mean that you think that God is innocent of existing (i.e. Does not exist)? No, not necessarily. You may be of the position that God may exist, for other reasons, however, on the evidence presented, there was sufficient doubt over his existing to return a not guilty verdict.

But surely if you think God not guilty of existing you must think there is a greater chance of him not existing? Does the Not Guilty verdict you have delivered as a juror, mean that you you as a juror have any responsibility to comment on the likelihood or probability that God exists? Not necessarily, and no. You have judged that there is 95% (or the preponderance of evidence or the agreed yardstick) chance that God is not guilty of existing. As a juror you have no responsibility to determine the subsequent probability of God existing, or not existing. (The latter is a different, theoretical question, requiring a re-trial with the options of “God is innocent of exisitng” vs. “God is not innocent of existing” for the jury to return). It is a “past the post” system for evidence of guilt. There is either enough evidence for you to believe God exists, or there isn't.

+

In many ways, this Trial is the better example for atheism. Because for us agnostic weak atheists of position A, there is not enough evidence for us to believe that God exists. Therefore we do not believe that god exists.

It's as simple as that. Phew!

Now, after all that I hope you understand the difference between:

*Not believing that God exists

and

*Believing that God does not exist

If you don't, then by definition you think that NOT GUILTY means *exactly* the same thing as INNOCENT.

That's just wrong. If you still don't understand, I may give up hope. It's as simple as that.

The cognitive dissonance of the Right

Sometimes I see clear examples of massive cognitive dissonance on the religious right and / or political right. The two following views are often simultaneously held by an individual with such notions:


1) Foreigners are less worthwhile, valuable or capable than the native population (showing a tendency to label them as "subhuman").

2) The same "less worthwhile" foreigners are "coming over here and taking our jobs".

But how can "less capable people" compete to such an anecdotally high standard in the job market to be "taking our jobs" to any significant extent? Sounds like a tough ask to me, that is if they really are inferior of course. And what sensible employer takes on "less worthwhile " employees? It all comes down to economics. Over time, living standards in immigrants' native countries will rise, and the effect of them commanding lower salaries will decrease. But if we don't allow free access to a competitive job market, such progress will be painfully slow.

In reality, we're all just people, (who I view as essentially equal from an egalitarian perspective) and immigrants have just as much right to be here, and work here as anyone else. Opening up the job market like this not only increases the opportunities for employers to get value for money, potentially increasing economic growth, but also allows people from less advantaged or poorer backgrounds to find work which pays better than they could hope for in their native country.

It's typical of the Right to take the negative approach to the problem (their solution is "stop the foreigners") rather than the positive one in a competitive world (increase local levels of education and key skills, and position ourselves to be more flexible in our employment - enabling the possibility to work for slightly less income).

I'm confused by the racism that abounds, I really am. In trying to get further insight into how the political right-thinking mind works in a recent conversation, I posed a hypothetical problem and asked what was the best solution. Imagine a village in England has spare empty social housing, enough living capacity for a family to move in from outside the local area. Two families want to move in, who both have 2 working adults and roughly the same levels of employment prospects. Other details aren't important for the purposes of this, but one family is British and the other one Eastern European, say Romanian. Which family should be given the house?

The answer was immediately forthcoming: the British family OF COURSE. Upon inquiring as to the reason for this, I was told that they had more of a vested interest in the country so should be given priority. Why this should be the case, I don't know. In a free, open EU, migration works both ways and we're able to move to other countries as well. Next time you go on holiday abroad, remember that. Oh, I was also told: Don't forget: Us British people pay our taxes don't you know!?

Yeah, and Romanians pay taxes in Romania. Somehow I imagine if the foreign family was Polish (the person I am referring to of whom I asked the question is half-Polish) then it would be a much tougher call! There's the in-crowd, and the out-group. If you're not part of the in-crowd, tough luck I guess. It's all just parochial thinking at the end of the day.

More babies, or just more Christian babies?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10138134/We-need-more-babies-if-were-to-bounce-back.html?utm_source=GraphicMail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NewsletterLink&utm_campaign=Update+07%2D13&utm_content=



A paragraph from this poorly formed article really grabbed my attention:

　

"I would pursue King’s point. For 50 years now, European culture has developed the idea that the problem is too many people (1). Without quite realising, it has developed attitudes that work against the future of the human race. In cultural terms, the celebration of contraception, homosexuality and euthanasia all represent this trend (2). In economics, the idea of spending rather than saving does the same. So do the Greens, who see the productions of mankind as the enemy of the earth, and attack economic growth without seeming to realise that they are thus advocating impoverishment. (3)"

　

(1) Yes, and it's an idea that can't be dismissed out of hand. Population growth provides many challenges to the environment and economy, that we need to address before we get too carried away in a race to "outnumber" other countries or cultures. We have to be a bit careful with population growth, so that technological solutions allowing more sustainable growth and some semblance of maintenance of our living standards, have time to develop and can keep up. It is a bit irresponsible to follow a path where unfettered rates of population growth are encouraged. After all, actions have consequences: our countries and cultures may have clear borders and boundaries, but the global ecosystem is intricately interconnected.

(2) It sounds like your definition of the "future of the human race" is a game of numbers: the more the better, and to hell with the wellbeing of the masses.

OK, so some gay people may do a bit of celebrating, but seeing as they've only recently been widely given some of the basic rights denied to them for tens of thousands of years, I'd say that was justified. But I'm not aware of any celebration of contraception or euthanasia. People may be happy they have the right and ability to have access to these things in some (not all) countries, but celebration of the act itself? Is this guy serious? Who the hell goes about jumping for joy about using a condom or being able to legally put themselves to death?

I really fail to see how contraception, homosexuality or euthanasia are working against the future of the human race. In fact, evidence shows the opposite. Countries where contraception is more readily and freely available, and where homosexuality is socially acceptable, have higher scores in the indices of human development as expressed by the Human Development Index (HDI). This takes into account life expectancy, education levels and income of the population of a given country. Such correlations are compelling - socially forward-looking countries such as Norway, Sweden and Australia consistently come out on top. 

There is a particular group of people that have something majorly irrational against contraception, gay people and euthanasia. They are the religious, particularly Christians, and I detect the somewhat malignant influence of a Christian in this article.

So this is where the author's true implications are revealed: he's not just advocating for increased birth rates and more people - he wants more CHRISTIANS. More babies who can be brainwashed into Christianity, by not being given a free choice in what they want to believe, or not believe. Because as Richard Dawkins says, children cannot belong to a religion. There is no such thing as a Christian baby. Just a baby whose parents are Christian and want to lay out a pre-set "moral" path for their offspring. This is arrogant and misguided control freak-ery at its worst.

It seems the writer of this article wants more people who are of the same skewed Christian mindset as himself, or at least, are more likely to be persuaded round to it. So his religion can win. How that may occur, by conversion or crusade, is something I don't care to think about.

(3) Yes, finally you have something correct. The current Green movement is massively mistaken in this regard, and that's why we need a new Green movement which is inspired by science, not ideology. This is one of the clear messages from Mark Lynas' book The God Species which I shall be reviewing at some later stage.