Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

I broke the dam.

bipedalhumanoid

Deleted User wrote: »

I broke the dam.

When the Dr tells you to document your toilet history, he doesn't mean to do it online in public fora.

bipedalhumanoid

GirlWritesWhat has been the victim of false DMCA claims that she strongly suspects are related in some way to FTB or their followers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJ3uV6sFHU&feature=youtu.be&a

Kooli

I think this is a fabulous post on the subject, and a great call to action:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/

bipedalhumanoid

Kooli wrote: »

I think this is a fabulous post on the subject, and a great call to action:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/

If by "fabulous", you mean "incredibly biased", then I agree.

Kooli

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

If by "fabulous", you mean "incredibly biased", then I agree.

If by 'biased' you mean 'talking about her own personal experience and other experiences she has been connected with' then I agree

bipedalhumanoid

Kooli wrote: »

If by 'biased' you mean 'talking about her own personal experience and other experiences she has been connected with' then I agree

errr... no, that blog post includes the author's account of a number of real events.


It's just another episode on the professional victimhood channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNHu9gth7Js&feature=g-high-u

Nodin

.....I don't feel this is a safe space for fat tattooed oul fellas....

condra

Oh man. This whole thing feels so poisoned.

How have these self righteous, attention starved morons infiltrated and polarized the community so effectively?

Davidius

condra wrote: »

Oh man. This whole thing feels so poisoned.

How have these self righteous, attention starved morons infiltrated and polarized the community so effectively?

A large or very loud portion of people in the community use this logic:

• Some sceptical people think A.
• I think A.

=> I am a sceptic => I am smart => People need to here my opinions.

They then pick their heroes and fight to purge the world of sin bicker on the internet.

Nodin

condra wrote: »

Oh man. This whole thing feels so poisoned.

How have these self righteous, attention starved morons infiltrated and polarized the community so effectively?

Some people may have commented. Then having "felt the love" in response to their comment, they become enraged and retaliate/get sucked in. Repeat ad infinitum.

bipedalhumanoid

Nodin wrote: »

Some people may have commented. Then having "felt the love" in response to their comment, they become enraged and retaliate/get sucked in. Repeat ad infinitum.

That is true, but there's more to add. Lots of respected leaders in our community looked at this ridiculous "drama" and said, "I'm not getting involved, lets wait for it to die" and they didn't speak out against it.

That left us in a position where on one side of the argument you have strong figures like PZ Myers and his cohort, while on the other side you just have ordinary commenters and whack jobs like the Amazing atheist, who did us no favours with his behaviour.

Just when most of us had just about fogotten about the whole thing, RW managed to spark it all up again with her statements about not feeling safe at TAM. Lets take a moment to remember that RWs degree was Marketing and Communication!

Anyway, that's when Paula Kirby realised this wasn't going away and spoke out. Since then we've also had Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins , Thunderf00t and Michael Nugent.

Post Edit: while Nugent didn't take sides in the fiori, he proposed a kind of code of conduct that flies in the face of the behaviour to be found at FTB and Skepchick online communities. He called for inclusiveness. FTB repeatedly call for deep rifts, where everone who disagrees with them is branded a bigot and pushed to the outside. Myers also made it clear that Libertarians have no place in his little clique.

condra

It's the whole circle jerking groupthink thing that bothers me.

Where is the individualism?

Apaprently organising atheists is NOT like herding cats, if they happen to be radical feminists too.

What sub-niche will we have next?
"Worldwide Atheists who Need Kidneys" (W.A.N.K) ?
What about "Atheist Amputees Against Hitler" (A.A.A.H!)

Maybe, as Michael Nugent suggests, we should have all atheist gatherings in wheelchair accessible venues. Perhaps with harassment policies plastered on the walls. We should probably also make sure 50% of the speakers are female, non-white, disabled, and get a guy with turrets syndrome in for good measure. And if anyone questions this policy, label them with whatever monster word comes to mind, racist, sexist, nazi, whatever ...
... oh, and don't forget to tell them they offended you.

It's this sort of pigeon-holing, side-taking, idolizing and mindless political correctness that atheists as individuals are supposed to transcend.

Isn't it ironic to have a group of (so called) skeptics with a common political standpoint?

This little boards.ie forum section is the closest thing I have to an atheist group that I have any sense of allegiance to. Why?.. Because vigorous respectful debate, freedom of speech, and individualism are encouraged and respected.

We kick the crap out of each other on here, and that's the way it should be.

Turtwig

condra wrote: »

We kick the crap out of each other on here, and that's the way it should be.

Rob vs Dades now there's a fight I'd pay to see.

condra

condra wrote: »

We kick the crap out of each other on here, and that's the way it should be.

F**k you, atheist.

Sincerely,

an atheist.

Dades

Jernal wrote: »

Rob vs Dades now there's a fight I'd pay to see.

(Not!)

Nodin

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

That is true, but there's more to add. Lots of respected leaders in our community looked at this ridiculous "drama" and said, "I'm not getting involved, lets wait for it to die" and they didn't speak out against it.

That left us in a position where on one side of the argument you have strong figures like PZ Myers and his cohort, while on the other side you just have ordinary commenters and whack jobs like the Amazing atheist, who did us no favours with his behaviour.

Just when most of us had just about fogotten about the whole thing, RW managed to spark it all up again with her statements about not feeling safe at TAM. Lets take a moment to remember that RWs degree was Marketing and Communication!

Anyway, that's when Paula Kirby realised this wasn't going away and spoke out. Since then we've also had Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins , Thunderf00t and Michael Nugent.

Post Edit: while Nugent didn't take sides in the fiori, he proposed a kind of code of conduct that flies in the face of the behaviour to be found at FTB and Skepchick online communities. He called for inclusiveness. FTB repeatedly call for deep rifts, where everone who disagrees with them is branded a bigot and pushed to the outside. Myers also made it clear that Libertarians have no place in his little clique.

The Myers person.....he wrote some nauseating piece soon after this started about how to behave that bore no resemblance to human behaviour whatsoever. It almost drove me to comment (which is rare, as I avoid blogs and all their works).

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Or?

Kooli

condra wrote: »

Maybe, as Michael Nugent suggests, we should have all atheist gatherings in wheelchair accessible venues. Perhaps with harassment policies plastered on the walls. We should probably also make sure 50% of the speakers are female, non-white, disabled, and get a guy with turrets syndrome in for good measure. And if anyone questions this policy, label them with whatever monster word comes to mind, racist, sexist, nazi, whatever ...
... oh, and don't forget to tell them they offended you.

Why not try and make the atheism movement more accessible?

At the moment, it is mostly white, hetrosexual, able-bodied men. If you fit that category, then that's great for you.
If you don't, you might not feel as welcome. And there are things any organisation can do to make people from underrepresented groups feel more welcome. And yes that includes things like using wheelchair accessible venues!

Online communities such as this one can feel more comfortable for women/homosexuals/people of colour/those with disabilities because the fact that they belong to a minority group is not initially obvious. Bit more of a level playing field.

The problem here seems to have been face to face meetings, like conferences, and then when people started being more vocal about their identity status online. Suddenly it seemed obvious that white hetrosexual men weren't interested in trying to make this community more inclusive (as you make obvious with the mock-horror that someone might want to actually do that).

Which I suppose is fine. But don't expect your numbers to grow or to spread into other marginalised communities if you can't find a way to relate to them or listen to their experience.

bipedalhumanoid

Kooli wrote: »

Why not try and make the atheism movement more accessible?

At the moment, it is mostly white, hetrosexual, able-bodied men. If you fit that category, then that's great for you.

From talking to people at FTB, they seem to define just having a largely homogeneous group as sexism + racism + ableism + ageism or whatever fits. This is question begging and if the answer to the question "why do we have a homogeneous group" turns out to be non-bigoted in nature, you will never identify the real cause if you define the homogeny as bigotry.

They, for instance, literally define the low female attendance at skeptic and atheist meet-ups as sexism. This immediately rules out any potential non-sexist explanations.

What if there is something in the wiring of the female brain that leads them to be more likely to consider lots of other things to be far more important to them than atheist conventions?

What if it's the fact that survey after survey and census after census shows that men are more likely than women to identify as atheists or skeptics?

Those possibilities are completely ignored when you define the homogeney itself as bigotry.

Kooli

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

From talking to people at FTB, they seem to define just having a largely homogeneous group as sexism + racism + ableism + ageism or whatever fits. This is question begging and if the answer to the question "why do we have a homogeneous group" turns out to be non-bigoted in nature, you will never identify the real cause if you define the homogeny as bigotry.

They, for instance, literally define the low female attendance at skeptic and atheist meet-ups as sexism. This immediately rules out any potential non-sexist explanations.

What if there is something in the wiring of the female brain that leads them to be more likely to consider lots of other things to be far more important to them than atheist conventions?

What if it's the fact that survey after survey and census after census shows that men are more likely than women to identify as atheists or skeptics?

Those possibilities are completely ignored when you define the homogeney itself as bigotry.

If someone suggests that a movement should become more inclusive to underrepresented groups, and consider ways they might be excluding them by not considering them, I don't see any logic in the reply 'but women are less likely to identify as atheists and skeptics!' Um....exactly! Why is that?

I don't believe 'their brains are different' is a very satisfactory explanation, when it's much more likely to be social and cultural reasons.

The question is do atheists see this as a problem that needs to be solved (do you want the community to become more inclusive) or not?

The resistance to the very idea that there is more the community could do to be inclusive, or that there already exists very real examples of marginalisation, is very difficult to understand. It's like it's taken as a personal attack - which it only is if you are one of the people trying to exclude women (or not doing enough to include them). If you are not one of those people, than you should be as eager as the women (or people of colour or whoever) to make sure that everything possible is done to rid the movement of sexism and bigotry.
The world is full of sexism and bigotry, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it exists in this particular movement (particularly when it is mostly populated by white men).

We are all capable of bigotry, even if we're good people. It's what you do when it's pointed out to you that matters. And that doesn't bode well for the atheist community at the moment.

I certainly feel very differently abuot my membership of the community than I did before all this blew up. I identify with it a lot less, and I find myself distancing from it because it doesn't speak for me anymore.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

Rob vs Dades now there's a fight I'd pay to see.

Am I alone in immediately thinking of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oee7DnWJSw0

?


>_>

Dades

Sarky wrote: »

Am I alone in immediately thinking of...

Not after having just watched that, you're not.

+1!

Kooli

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

Those possibilities are completely ignored when you define the homogeney itself as bigotry.

By the way, if it were true that lady-brains don't understand atheism, what difference would that make? What would that mean for the movement, and how would you make sense of the thousands of women who do identify as atheist and who are voicing their discomfort with the way the community deals with issues of gender? What is the relevance??

And another thing, I don't get the insistence on proof that there is sexism before trying to ensure that sexism is deemed completely unacceptable. Particularly when the goalposts keep moving as to what is 'sufficient proof' because each incident is written off as 'just one incident' or 'didn't really happen' or 'why didn't they report it?' or 'that's a biased view of it' or 'but sure that happens everywhere' or 'I know a woman and she thinks it's fine' or 'I'm a woman and that wouldn't bother me' or a million other different dismissals.

The response should have been really simple. 'Wow, didn't realise this was an issue for some women, maybe this is something we need to look at. What ways can we improve things so that women feel more comfortable and included? How can we make it clearer that discrimination and sexism will never be tolerated?'

But instead it got defensive, and it got nasty. And it really looks like powerful people trying to maintain the status quo.

condra

Kooli,

They're not about "making the community more inclusive". The community was already inclusive before this bull**** with FTB etc.

Their agenda is to merge atheism with feminism, and label non-feminists and detractors as misogynists and bigots.

Their tactics in the broader community are underhanded and they do not tolerate dissent within the boundarys of their website. I'm sorry if you don't see the irony in the name "Free Thought Blogs" when they actively sensor, troll, and conspire.

I count myself as a feminist, and I wouldn't want anything to do with such a loathsome, cynical shower of fraudsters.

Kooli

condra wrote: »

Kooli,

They're not about "making the community more inclusive". The community was already inclusive before this bull**** with FTB etc.

Their agenda is to merge atheism with feminism, and label non-feminists and detractors as misogynists and bigots.

Their tactics in the broader community are underhanded and they do not tolerate dissent within the boundarys of their website. I'm sorry if you don't see the irony in the name "Free Thought Blogs" when they actively sensor, troll, and conspire.

I count myself as a feminist, and I wouldn't want anything to do with such a loathsome, cynical shower of fraudsters.

I don't think you can 'merge atheism with feminism', nor do I think that's their aim.

What on earth is a non-feminist? The only people I can think of who are non-feminists are people who are either sexist, misogynistic or bigoted.

If feminism is just a belief in equality of the sexes, mutual respect and an awareness of discriminatory practices resulting from patriarchy, how can you be non-feminist without being sexist, misogynistic or bigoted? Isn't a bit like saying 'I'm not pro-civil-rights, but that doesn't make me racist', or 'I'm not for equality for gay people, but don't call me a homophobe!'

I don't necessarily agree with everything coming from the FTB camp, but even if they are completely wrong, they have shone a light on a really, really ugly side of the atheist community. And even if they are completely wrong, that does not justify the constant misogynistic abuse and threats of rape they get. And the fact that many atheists find it difficult to condemn this abuse unequivocally and unconditionally says more about the community than the abuse itself.

condra

Kooli wrote: »

What on earth is a non-feminist? The only people I can think of who are non-feminists are people who are either sexist, misogynistic or bigoted.

:eek:

I couldn't disagree with this more, and I think it is this very sentiment that you share with the FTB camp that gets on many peoples nerves so much.

I don't want to get dragged into semantics, but I beleve there are plenty of people who don't identify themselves as feminists who are not "either sexist, misogynistic or bigoted".

I don't go petrol bombing fur shops, but I don't support the fur trade either.

For many of us, including many women, the subject of feminism in the Western world, and equality within the atheist community is a non issue, and this whole kerfuffle with RLW/PZM/FTB is truly bizarre.

Kooli

condra wrote: »

:eek:

I couldn't disagree with this more, and I think it is this very sentiment that you share with the FTB camp that gets on many peoples nerves so much.

I don't want to get dragged into semantics, but I beleve there are plenty of people who don't identify themselves as feminists who are not "either sexist, misogynistic or bigoted".

I don't go petrol bombing fur shops, but I don't support the fur trade either.

For many of us, including many women, the subject of feminism in the Western world, and equality within the atheist community is a non issue, and this whole kerfuffle with RLW/PZM/FTB is truly bizarre.

I agree that there are those who don't identify as feminists who are not bigoted or misogynistic. And usually that's because they have a misconception about what feminism is, or because feminism has a bad rep.

But when you said 'non-feminists' I thought you meant people who actually are not feminist, rather than those who don't identify as feminist.

If someone is not sexist, misogynistic or bigoted (towards women), then I would argue they are a feminist, even if they don't like the title.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

The resistance to the very idea that there is more the community could do to be inclusive, or that there already exists very real examples of marginalisation, is very difficult to understand.

Can you give some examples of these marginalisations?

Kooli wrote: »

The world is full of sexism and bigotry, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it exists in this particular movement (particularly when it is mostly populated by white men).

Because white men are inherently more sexist and bigoted than others?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you give some examples of these marginalisations?


Because white men are inherently more sexist and bigoted than others?

I thought this whole thread was about that? I haven't read the whole thing. I won't give examples because they haven't happened to me, but lots of examples have been given in the various links in this thread. But as I mentioned before, none of them will be seen as 'good enough' because of the variety of excuses that can be used to dismiss them. And I don't really want to get into multi-quoting tit-for-tat and nitpicking. If someone tells me they've had a certain experience, I tend to believe them unless I have a good reason not to.

I don't think white men are inherently more sexist and bigoted than others, but we all have a responsibility to be aware of the privileges we bring to the table when dealing with others.
Like I have to be aware that I carry the privilege of being white, hetrosexual, middle-class and able-bodied.
That just means when I am talking to someone in the less privileged group, my job is to listen to their experience more, not tell them what their experience is. I have to recognise that my privilege means I am never really going to understand that experience, so that's why I have to listen.

White men just have one extra privilege than me, that's all. But the significance of that is that they may not be as aware of the issue generally because they don't have a component of their identity that is subject to discrimination or oppression (unless they are say gay, disabled, trans etc) so the whole idea might be totally alien.
I know that I wasn't aware of my own privilege for a long time, and I was capable of thinking and saying very marginalising or dismissive things. But it is through my understanding of feminism, and the experience of sexism against me, that helped me understand how I might be doing similar things to other groups. So perhaps for white, hetero it's just a step further to try and empathise because they haven't experienced a system of oppression against them.

However, there are a great number of those men who really do attempt to listen and try to understand what it might be like to belong to a different group, and that's brilliant.

pH

Kooli wrote: »

The problem here seems to have been face to face meetings, like conferences, and then when people started being more vocal about their identity status online. Suddenly it seemed obvious that white hetrosexual men weren't interested in trying to make this community more inclusive (as you make obvious with the mock-horror that someone might want to actually do that).

Which I suppose is fine. But don't expect your numbers to grow or to spread into other marginalised communities if you can't find a way to relate to them or listen to their experience.

OK a number of points here.

Firstly there has always been a considerable involvement of women in secular/atheist/humanist groups. For example Madalyn Murray O'Hair founded American Atheists, closer to home we've had Claire Rayner (Vice-President (and formerly President) of the British Humanist Association, a Distinguished Supporter of the Humanist Society of Scotland and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society.), Polly Toynbee (President of the British Humanist Association) and others such as Ariane Sherine who although "no longer involved in any atheist stuff" was responsible for the highly publicises atheist bus campaign in the UK.

So no it's not some bastion of white straight men nor has it ever been, nor is there any serious push to make it so.

As for these "face to face" problems they really just don't exist. The way FtB/Skepchick moan on it's almost as if a woman speaker could expect calls of "get yer tits out lass" when she takes the stage.

The main documented complaints have been as follows:

1 - A man asked RW back to his hotel room at 4am - she said no.

2 - A drunk man bothered some attendees at a TAM speakers' dinner a few years ago - he was dealt with promptly and made to leave - no one is sure if he was even attending TAM or just a random drunk at a hotel.

3 A man turned up to TAM with an X-shot - this is a camera with a handle attached to allow you take a picture of yourself and someone else easily without asking someone else to hold the camera. He was identified as "creepy" and reported to security for taking "Up skirt photos".

4 A woman wore a t-shirt Surly Amy didn't like - other people may have sung a song about elevator gate or worn some jewellery she didn't approve of.

5 A "prominent atheist speaker" may have had casual consensual sex with a conference attendee (this may possibly have happened twice).

6 Ophelia Benson got a letter from a concerned fan (sex unknown) and worked it up into a death threat.

However the FtB/Skepchick alliance are quite cunning - they start complaining about conferences, but quickly add in the contents of anonymous emails sent to them.

Sorry but I don't like the idea of a "movement" that I'm supposed to recruit for or appeal to some "groups" that apparently are too sensitive or don't feel enough in common with me. I don't believe in God, that's as far as it goes. I'm not part of a movement or a bloody hippy colony.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

I thought this whole thread was about that? I haven't read the whole thing. I won't give examples because they haven't happened to me, but lots of examples have been given in the various links in this thread.

And many don't make sense or are lacking in context. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that there are or could be problems - I'm not, and have never been, a member of any of these societies so my questioning is only coming from a place of curiosity. Claims referenced on this thread have either been so extreme as to wonder why the individuals would return to conferences to experience them as many times as they claimed they did, or definitively attributed to skeptics & atheists but without any context or specific examples given so we can be sure it was skeptics or atheists who gave them (I'm more referencing claims relating to online commenters here). Like I said, I'm not out and out denying them, but I would like to see some specific examples so that I can eliminate the doubts I have.

Kooli wrote: »

I don't think white men are inherently more sexist and bigoted than others, but we all have a responsibility to be aware of the privileges we bring to the table when dealing with others.
Like I have to be aware that I carry the privilege of being white, hetrosexual, middle-class and able-bodied.
That just means when I am talking to someone in the less privileged group, my job is to listen to their experience more, not tell them what their experience is. I have to recognise that my privilege means I am never really going to understand that experience, so that's why I have to listen.

That sounds awfully like patronising someone. Surely the better thing would be for people to get over the notion that things like being white and heterosexual are privileges? If people could stop thinking of themselves as white, heterosexual, middle class etc. amongst non-white, non-heterosexual, non-middle class etc. people and just think of themselves, and everyone else as just people (with certain differences only really being important in certain situations) then we can all get past our biases.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That sounds awfully like patronising someone. Surely the better thing would be for people to get over the notion that things like being white and heterosexual are privileges? If people could stop thinking of themselves as white, heterosexual, middle class etc. amongst non-white, non-heterosexual, non-middle class etc. people and just think of themselves, and everyone else as just people (with certain differences only really being important in certain situations) then we can all get past our biases.

It's funny how it's never argued that being a woman in Ireland aged 18-35 is clearly a privilege since they have a lower unemployment rate than men of the same age.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

2 - A drunk man bothered some attendees at a TAM speakers' dinner a few years ago - he was dealt with promptly and made to leave - no one is sure if he was even attending TAM or just a random drunk at a hotel.

Is this in reference to the anecdote zomgitscriss has on her blog? Because that wasn't a man, it was a woman.

equivariant

Kooli wrote: »

I agree that there are those who don't identify as feminists who are not bigoted or misogynistic. And usually that's because they have a misconception about what feminism is, or because feminism has a bad rep.

But when you said 'non-feminists' I thought you meant people who actually are not feminist, rather than those who don't identify as feminist.

If someone is not sexist, misogynistic or bigoted (towards women), then I would argue they are a feminist, even if they don't like the title.

feminism is not synonymous with not sexist. Maybe in your mind it is, but in many people's mind it is not.

Moreover it is certainly not synonymous with skepticism/atheism

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That sounds awfully like patronising someone. Surely the better thing would be for people to get over the notion that things like being white and heterosexual are privileges? If people could stop thinking of themselves as white, heterosexual, middle class etc. amongst non-white, non-heterosexual, non-middle class etc. people and just think of themselves, and everyone else as just people (with certain differences only really being important in certain situations) then we can all get past our biases.

If it's sounds patronising then I'm explaining it wrong!
It's just about listening. When someone from one of those groups is telling you about their experience. Accepting that they know better than you do.

The world is based around the experiences of white, cis, hetero men, with everything else being 'other'. So actually it's a luxury of white, heterosexual, men to think of themselves as 'just people' and it's a fiction that these are not privileges. They just are. There was a great blog post about it 'Straight white male: the lowest difficulty setting'.

If you're interested, I'd highly recommend reading a bit more about privilege because it put words on things I'd been thinking for years but couldn't articulate properly, but for now it might be going a bit off-topic.
(the blog post I mentioned: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

I recognise that sexism hasn't been an issue on this forum since I've been a member, and I do appreciate this.
But I'm a feminist first and an atheist second, so if people start to resist feminist principles in a particular space, I will move away.
So as I said before, for me it's not the specifics of those small incidents at conferences etc, it's the reaction of a community when they are asked to look at issues of sexism (that reaction being an automatic 'it doesn't happen' or 'crazy feminazis' etc.)

Kooli

Kooli wrote: »

When someone from one of those groups is telling you about their experience. Accepting that they know better than you do.

Oh OK.

Kooli

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh OK.

Not about *everything*, but they know better than you about the experience of being a woman/gay/disabled/black/trans etc.

I'm not sure if you disagree with that?

Kooli

Kooli wrote: »

Not about *everything*, but they know better than you about the experience of being a woman/gay/disabled/black/trans etc.

I'm not sure if you disagree with that?

Especially when someone sees themselves as a victim I'm not going to take their views as fact. Experience is great but is limited in its usefulness since it involves perception. Anecdotal evidence is only evidence when one agrees with it.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

If it's sounds patronising then I'm explaining it wrong!
It's just about listening. When someone from one of those groups is telling you about their experience. Accepting that they know better than you do.

But I'm not bringing any privilege to the able when I interact with others. I'm not going to contradict someone who tells me of their negative personal experiences they got because someone else brought privilege with them, but for that person to assume that I need to be told about this privilege is itself biased and that is what we really need to work past. People should stop making assumptions about other sexes, races, ages etc.

Kooli wrote: »

The world is based around the experiences of white, cis, hetero men, with everything else being 'other'. So actually it's a luxury of white, heterosexual, men to think of themselves as 'just people'

But if we all think if each other as just people, then these privileges disappear.

Kooli wrote: »

I recognise that sexism hasn't been an issue on this forum since I've been a member, and I do appreciate this.
But I'm a feminist first and an atheist second, so if people start to resist feminist principles in a particular space, I will move away.

Why should one come first? How are they both not aspects of a rational mind?

Kooli wrote: »

So as I said before, for me it's not the specifics of those small incidents at conferences etc, it's the reaction of a community when they are asked to look at issues of sexism (that reaction being an automatic 'it doesn't happen' or 'crazy feminazis' etc.)

But the specifics of those incidents are going to colour the reactions of the community. An extreme claim can give rise to an extreme denial and while the denial may not be entirely true, it may be far closer to the truth than the original claim. The community may react in a more understanding way if the claims are made more rationally and honestly. I don't necessarily mean that the claims may be dishonest, but the debating tactics of those making the claims, (such as those who moderate the FTB forums, as evidenced by posts in this thread) may be acting dishonestly.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But I'm not bringing any privilege to the able when I interact with others. I'm not going to contradict someone who tells me of their negative personal experiences they got because someone else brought privilege with them, but for that person to assume that I need to be told about this privilege is itself biased and that is what we really need to work past. People should stop making assumptions about other sexes, races, ages etc.


But if we all think if each other as just people, then these privileges disappear.


Why should one come first? How are they both not aspects of a rational mind?


But the specifics of those incidents are going to colour the reactions of the community. An extreme claim can give rise to an extreme denial and while the denial may not be entirely true, it may be far closer to the truth than the original claim. The community may react in a more understanding way if the claims are made more rationally and honestly. I don't necessarily mean that the claims may be dishonest, but the debating tactics of those making the claims, (such as those who moderate the FTB forums, as evidenced by posts in this thread) may be acting dishonestly.

Again I'm not going to get into a back and forth, because perhaps we have different understandings of privilege. Privilege is simply an unearned advantage that a dominant group has over a marginalised group, and that dominant group can't decide suddenly that privilege doesn't exist. Nor does it disappear if we stop talking about it. Quite the opposite actually. Another link that explains privilege in this specific context (equality) is here: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
Only if you're interested. I'm not pushing on anyone but I do recommend it, and it's just because we seem to be talking about different things.

As for your question about why should one come first. I don't get the relevance of a rational mind. Yes they can both be products of a rational mind, but I don't know what that has to do with one aspect of identity being more important to me than the other?

What I mean is that I identify as a feminist more strongly than I do as an atheist. Usually this is irrelevant because they both sit comfortably together, but if an atheist space starts to display sexism or misogyny I will move away because I prioritise feminism. Whereas if a feminist space started to display anti-atheist sentiment, it wouldn't bother me as much because being a woman is more core to who I am and more important to me than being an atheist.

It's like when black women distanced themselves from the feminism movement because they felt there was institutionalised racism within it, and the women most prominent in the movement didn't speak to their experience at all. So even these women who were explicitly fighting oppression weren't immune to doling out their own oppression and discrimination. But an effort to recognise this is part of third wave feminism and I think the current movement does a great job of trying to keep an eye on these issues and trying to ensure it isn't perpetuating oppressive practices (not always successfully, but it's never going to be straightforward because we often don't recognise our privilege until it's pointed out to us)

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Again I'm not going to get into a back and forth, because perhaps we have different understandings of privilege. Privilege is simply an unearned advantage that a dominant group has over a marginalised group, and that dominant group can't decide suddenly that privilege doesn't exist. Nor does it disappear if we stop talking about it. Quite the opposite actually.

Actually it will only disappear if we stop talking about it. Not "deny it ever existed" stop talking about it, but "realise that it only keeps on existing if we keep bringing it up" stop talking about it. The way society gives privilege to certain groups is bad, but we only get past this is society stops giving those privileges and part of that is to stop acting as they are inherently there, rather than a product of a certain environment. I lose my privilege as a heterosexual if I go into a gay bar, I lose my privilege of being white if I go to a middle eastern country. These privileges exist only in peoples minds and teh sooner they get over them the better.

Kooli wrote: »

Another link that explains privilege in this specific context (equality) is here: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146
Only if you're interested. I'm not pushing on anyone but I do recommend it, and it's just because we seem to be talking about different things.

That wont change if you keep using other peoples arguments.

Kooli wrote: »

As for your question about why should one come first. I don't get the relevance of a rational mind. Yes they can both be products of a rational mind, but I don't know what that has to do with one aspect of identity being more important to me than the other?

What I mean is that I identify as a feminist more strongly than I do as an atheist. Usually this is irrelevant because they both sit comfortably together, but if an atheist space starts to display sexism or misogyny I will move away because I prioritise feminism. Whereas if a feminist space started to display anti-atheist sentiment, it wouldn't bother me as much because being a woman is more core to who I am and more important to me than being an atheist.

Why are they aspects of your identity? Why are they not just products of, what I assume is, a rational mind? Sexism is irrational as much as religion is irrational. Hell, religion is usually sexist. It seems irrational to me to be supportive of an irrational environment, simply because of a privilege you think you are getting. One kind of irrational behaviour generally encourages more. Its better to fight all irrationality as one - be it theistic, sexist, racist, homophobic etc. because it is all one. They are all predicated on the same types of irrational behaviour, they are all supported with cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies and insecurities of the oppressors.

fitz0

Buttonftw wrote: »

Sorry but I don't like the idea of a "movement" that I'm supposed to recruit for or appeal to some "groups" that apparently are too sensitive or don't feel enough in common with me. I don't believe in God, that's as far as it goes. I'm not part of a movement or a bloody hippy colony.

Couldn't agree more. The us and them mentally of ftb is baffling in the connect of 'skeptics' - people who identify themselves as actively questioning all assertions put to them to discern truth - these people are just passing the bottle round and congratulating each other for drinking.

Now they have a 'movement' to get behind and if you don't get behind it you better shut up or face their ire.

Where's the scepticism? If I wanted preaching I'd go to mass.

Ickle Magoo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the specifics of those incidents are going to colour the reactions of the community. An extreme claim can give rise to an extreme denial and while the denial may not be entirely true, it may be far closer to the truth than the original claim. The community may react in a more understanding way if the claims are made more rationally and honestly. I don't necessarily mean that the claims may be dishonest, but the debating tactics of those making the claims, (such as those who moderate the FTB forums, as evidenced by posts in this thread) may be acting dishonestly.

While that may be true - such a reaction does absolutely nothing to promote the skeptic community as inclusive, rational thinking and progressive...it really doesn't.

Good grief, I actually can't believe this shít is still rumbling on. There seems to be an ever-increasing number of people in the skeptic community who are making a proper public show of themselves and doing no favours for the popularity/respect the "movement" (I don't like that term but I think you know what I mean) is given in wider society - it's beyond embarrassing at this stage.

I absolutely cringe at the OTT and divisive remarks made - made about people (mostly men) I've interacted with happily in this forum & the real world for many years and had little to no gender-related issues with...but equally I cringe at every "elevator-gate" gag and jibe towards women feeling excluded or who have suggested that in their experience there is an issue. Most frustratingly of all from someone who finds all this talk of how ignorant/disrespectful the community can be expected to be a complete mystery - because it's utterly self-defeating. To the casual observer those kind of jibes and circle-jerk tactics only gives weight to the OTT claims.

Kooli wrote:

The resistance to the very idea that there is more the community could do to be inclusive, or that there already exists very real examples of marginalisation, is very difficult to understand.

And I think that's it in a nutshell. While I understand the righteous indignation at the suggestion adults cannot or should not pursue other adults in a sexual manner at these conferences - it's naive in the extreme to think that publicly arguing for the right to hit on the minority of women who are at such events was ever going to make attending such events an appealing prospect or make those arguing for such rights look anything other than boorish and insensitive.

Sadly, I think naive describes this whole fiasco best. Naivety in creating that initial illusion that "a guy cracking onto uninterested girl" is a huge issue, never mind specific to the skeptic community and naivety in the greater community in how they reacted and have continued reacting pettily to each other. *bangs heads together*

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually it will only disappear if we stop talking about it. Not "deny it ever existed" stop talking about it, but "realise that it only keeps on existing if we keep bringing it up" stop talking about it. The way society gives privilege to certain groups is bad, but we only get past this is society stops giving those privileges and part of that is to stop acting as they are inherently there, rather than a product of a certain environment. I lose my privilege as a heterosexual if I go into a gay bar, I lose my privilege of being white if I go to a middle eastern country. These privileges exist only in peoples minds and teh sooner they get over them the better.


That wont change if you keep using other peoples arguments.


Why are they aspects of your identity? Why are they not just products of, what I assume is, a rational mind? Sexism is irrational as much as religion is irrational. Hell, religion is usually sexist. It seems irrational to me to be supportive of an irrational environment, simply because of a privilege you think you are getting. One kind of irrational behaviour generally encourages more. Its better to fight all irrationality as one - be it theistic, sexist, racist, homophobic etc. because it is all one. They are all predicated on the same types of irrational behaviour, they are all supported with cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies and insecurities of the oppressors.

It's not 'using other people's arguments'. I'm pointing you towards a link that explains the issue of privilege (in this context) much more fully and eloquently than I could (and in more depth than is appropriate on this thread). If you read it you would understand why I disagree completely and entirely with your assertion that privilege would disappear if we stopped talking about it. That is 100% the total opposite of how privilege works. You would understand that if you read the link.

As for your second paragraph, I don't really get what you're asking when you say 'Why are they aspects of your identity?'. Why wouldn't they be? What's the problem if they are? Why separate 'part of my identity' from 'a product of a rational mind' as if I have to choose one or the other?
We all have identities, comprised of multiple parts. These are mine (among many others - my family and societal roles, my profession, my nationality, my sexual orientation etc.). I don't have a problem with that, and I'm not sure why anyone else would either. In the areas where I have privilege (sexual orientation, race, class), I could just as easily say "I see everyone as 'people', not as black and white or gay or straight", but I recognise that is my privilege speaking. It's a privilege not to notice sexuality or race, and that privilege is not afforded to those who are members of the oppressed group.

Anyway, we're getting into feminism 101 here (or social justice 101) which isn't what this thread is about, but I really recommend that link to anyone who wants to understand the issue of privilege (in this specific context)

tdawg

What does any of this have to do specifically with atheism, rather than being a wider issue?

Kooli

tdawg wrote: »

What does any of this have to do specifically with atheism, rather than being a wider issue?

I guess it's to do with atheism because it is a wider issue.

The atheist community (as much as it's an organised community) takes place within a society that is often sexist, racist, homophobic etc.
With any community, there is a choice to take a progressive stance and work against those forces of oppression, or to ignore them and then potentially perpetuate them.

For atheism specifically, it has traditionally been led by white men. Which is fine. But if the community wants to attract more women, people of colour, gay people etc., it will have to take these people into account. If this isn't done deliberately, then the natural progression will that the people who do the talking, the views that get represented and the topics that get all the focus will be a mirror of the wider society, and may act to exclude certain groups.

So it's relevant to the atheist community if the atheist community wants to be inclusive, progressive and committed to social justice.
If it doesn't, and it's happy to risk excluding those that don't fit the traditional model, then I guess it's not relevant.

Nodin

Kooli wrote: »

I guess it's to do with atheism because it is a wider issue.

The atheist community (as much as it's an organised community) takes place within a society that is often sexist, racist, homophobic etc.
With any community, there is a choice to take a progressive stance and work against those forces of oppression, or to ignore them and then potentially perpetuate them.

For atheism specifically, it has traditionally been led by white men. Which is fine. But if the community wants to attract more women, people of colour, gay people etc., it will have to take these people into account. If this isn't done deliberately, then the natural progression will that the people who do the talking, the views that get represented and the topics that get all the focus will be a mirror of the wider society, and may act to exclude certain groups.

So it's relevant to the atheist community if the atheist community wants to be inclusive, progressive and committed to social justice.
If it doesn't, and it's happy to risk excluding those that don't fit the traditional model, then I guess it's not relevant.

All well and good. It's shame RW and co didn't have any interest in that kind of thing.

tdawg

Kooli wrote: »

I guess it's to do with atheism because it is a wider issue.

The atheist community (as much as it's an organised community) takes place within a society that is often sexist, racist, homophobic etc.
With any community, there is a choice to take a progressive stance and work against those forces of oppression, or to ignore them and then potentially perpetuate them.

For atheism specifically, it has traditionally been led by white men. Which is fine. But if the community wants to attract more women, people of colour, gay people etc., it will have to take these people into account. If this isn't done deliberately, then the natural progression will that the people who do the talking, the views that get represented and the topics that get all the focus will be a mirror of the wider society, and may act to exclude certain groups.

So it's relevant to the atheist community if the atheist community wants to be inclusive, progressive and committed to social justice.
If it doesn't, and it's happy to risk excluding those that don't fit the traditional model, then I guess it's not relevant.

But I just don't believe in god?

I am as much a part of 'the atheism community' as I am the pizza eating community..... Scratch that I am much more heavily involved in the pizza eating community.

Should the pizza loving community (this makes as much sense to me) worry about these issues as a group rather than as part of the wider community?