Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

Again, I don't believe in God, that's all and for most people it's the same. Liberalism, progressivism etc. are separate topics outside the scope of the movement and your post again seems a way of trying to meld two completely separate things together to suit your own ends.

Ickle Magoo

tdawg wrote: »

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?

If you don't consider yourself part of "the" community then I'm not sure why you'd waste time bothering about what those who do consider themselves part of a community do or say.

condra

How exactly can this "able bodied white male dominated" atheist community be more inclusive to women, gays, amputees and other minotirys?

(Apart from taking down the "no women, gays or amputees" posters at the conventions...)

It's NONSENSE

Michael Nugent

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.

Putting aside the hyperbole of your comment, which of these do you think is a better scenario:

Atheist gatherings in wheelchair-accessible venues, with policies to protect anybody from being harassed, and with speakers that broadly represent the different types of people in society, or

Atheist gatherings in non-wheelchair-accessible venues, with no policies to protect people from being harassed, and with speakers that represent mostly people with many unearned social advantages?

tdawg

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you don't consider yourself part of "the" community then I'm not sure why you'd waste time bothering about what those who do consider themselves part of a community do or say.

If you read between the lines what I'm saying it is that I think the idea that atheists can be meaningfully grouped as a community is bizarre. To me its like talking about the male community (what exactly would that be?).

I see more along the lines of people who post on these blogs and attend conferences deciding that they are the 'atheist community'.

Michael Nugent

condra wrote: »

How exactly can this "able bodied white male dominated" atheist community be more inclusive to women, gays, amputees and other minotirys?

(Apart from taking down the "no women, gays or amputees" posters at the conventions...)

It's NONSENSE

Again, putting aside the hyperbole of your question, the answer is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

Ickle Magoo

tdawg wrote: »

If you read between the lines what I'm saying it is that I think the idea that atheists can be meaningfully grouped as a community is bizarre. To me its like talking about the male community (what exactly would that be?).

I see more along the lines of people who post on these blogs and attend conferences deciding that they are the 'atheist community'.

For the most part I completely agree - I think it's the community of atheist bloggers and conference attendees and other publishing regulars...but when they seek to speak for or about me, I can't help feeling I'm being made part of that "community"...

Michael Nugent

tdawg wrote: »

If you read between the lines what I'm saying it is that I think the idea that atheists can be meaningfully grouped as a community is bizarre. To me its like talking about the male community (what exactly would that be?).

I see more along the lines of people who post on these blogs and attend conferences deciding that they are the 'atheist community'.

Ultimately, membership of a community is a subjective choice.

People who collectively self-identify as members of a community are part of that community, and people who don't are not.

As in any other area of life, the term "atheist community" is short-hand for those atheists who feel part of that community.

Michael Nugent

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Putting aside the hyperbole of your comment, which of these do you think is a better scenario:

Atheist gatherings in wheelchair-accessible venues, with policies to protect anybody from being harassed, and with speakers that broadly represent the different types of people in society, or

Atheist gatherings in non-wheelchair-accessible venues, with no policies to protect people from being harassed, and with speakers that represent mostly people with many unearned social advantages?

George W. Bush, great president or the greatest president?

BluntGuy

Kooli wrote: »

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.

As a bisexual, "person of colour" (?), I feel no disinclination to be involved in any "atheist movement" based on the feeling that I will be discriminated against on the basis of "race" or sexuality. I accept racism and homophobia (obviously) occur in society, but specifically what has to be done in your view, for example, to take me "into account" in the "skeptical community", as a member of "these people"?

decimatio

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' 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'.

The "world" is based on what? Whose world is that?

If by "world" you mean America than I dont know enough about the Americas to disagree with you.

I wonder if this whole cesspool of nonsense has more to do with culture differences than anything else. I think equality of the sexes has largely being achieved in a lot of Western Europe. The last remenants of which are disappearing at a steady rate.

Ireland is lagging behind in many areas, abortion legality for one example, but in other areas we are near the front. I don't know f-all about American culture but I have noticed an enormous difference between Irish and American women. I really believe young Irish people couldn't care less what plumbing you're equipped with except for how it relates to their love lives.

As for the rest of the "world", I live in East Asia and couldn't disagree more. I'm discrimated against because I'm not Asian, I'm discriminated against because I'm not North American and I'm discriminated against because I'm not female.

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.

I'm not a feminist because from what I can see of feminism in the west these days it's aim is special rights for women, not equal ones. Its creating the image that women are victims and need to be treated as such. Women are not victims, they are my friends, my sisters, my co-workers, my family, my lovers, and my comrades.

I'm an atheist largely because of how religion has treated women and I believe equality of the sexes and races is of paramount importance.

I couldn't disagree with the ftb/skepchick alliance more.

Take one case. In the incident regarding numbers of women at conferences watson etc claimed that more women speakers would equal more women attendees. Really? So watson woukd like us to believe that one of the major factors in drawing women to conferences is not the quality of the speaker but instead the speakers biological plumbing?

Well excuse me but I have more respect for my fellow homo sapiens than that. I like a singer because of their voice and songs, I like an author because of their writing, I like a speaker because of their intellect and subject matter.

I don't like Sam Harris because he's a man and I don't like hirsi ali because she's a woman.

The suggestion by watson is insulting to women.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

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.

If I read the link I would be responding to the link, not you, which would defeat the point in you and I discussing this issue on a discussion forum. There is no point in having a discussion with someone who will point to someone elses arguments in lieu of defending their own points.

I know what privilege is, I am not denying what it is. The problem is that privilege is a result of environment, not an inherent part of sexuality/race/colour etc. I have privilege as a white person in Ireland, I dont have the same privilege in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. You remove privilege by recognising it is artificial, by not ignoring it never existed, but by ignoring its existence now. Besides the inherent patronisation of having to watch my words around everyone and anyone different to me in any way, it would make no difference how careful I am to combat my white/male/heterosexual etc. privilege in every situation, if every non-white/non-male/non-heterosexual person sees me as having privilege by default anyway. Its not a case of never pointing out when you suspect someone is abusing privilege, its a case of not allowing avoidance of privilege become an elephant in the room in every situation, thus creating a new privilege.

Kooli wrote: »

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.

Because it's irrational and leads to people holding to labels instead of rationality. This is part of what is happening with the FTB and the skeptic/athest community. Instead of people just being skeptical, they self label as "skeptic" and holding on to that label becomes more important than actually being skeptical. Everything that I "am", every label that society applies to me, is simply a result of my rational mind (or what my mind thinks is rational). I don't have a belief in god/s simply because it is the most rational position IMO. I believe in equal rights for everyone simply because its the most rational position. But I will change my position if I am convinced of another, without pause, because I (do my best to) reject emotional attachments to labels that may accompany my various positions, be it "atheist", "gay rights advocate", "feminist" etc. My identity is the result of the way I think, not the other way around.

Kooli wrote: »

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.

This is the problem I was talking about. All of a sudden, refuting privilege becomes itself a privilege. If the "privileged" don't notice sex or race, then who is oppressing other sexes or races?

decimatio

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

[

If you don't consider yourself part of "the" community then I'm not sure why you'd waste time bothering about what those who do consider themselves part of a community do or say.

I think what he's getting at is that the title of Atheist says almost nothing about the person except for the obvious dismissal of the claims of theism.

But the schism in the community is about some people trying to associate The community with other ideologies.

For example PZ Myers seems to think that to be part of this community you must be left wing politically. Now I happen to be left wing myself but that's not because of my atheism or even my scepticism.

The claims of the religious are easy to dismiss with scientific enquiry. Try doing the same with politics.

One can use sceptical enquiry to dismiss certain political positions but not for others. For example I am pro-abortion but I can have a civil discussion with someone who isnt who has good reasons for their position.

Myers has no problem lying about and personally attacking people who disagree with his political and feminist position and for me that's unacceptable.

I read an article before which stated that one group of Atheists that feel more and more unwelcome at Atheist conferences are American people who are right wing politically because the atheist community is starting to push left wing politics more and more. Shouldn't we worry about inclusion of these individuals?

condra

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Putting aside the hyperbole of your comment, which of these do you think is a better scenario:

Atheist gatherings in wheelchair-accessible venues, with policies to protect anybody from being harassed, and with speakers that broadly represent the different types of people in society, or

Atheist gatherings in non-wheelchair-accessible venues, with no policies to protect people from being harassed, and with speakers that represent mostly people with many unearned social advantages?

Michael, those two extremes are not the only options, so nobody need choose between the two.

If the topic is atheism, I couldn't care less if four speakers are all women, half hermapherodite, or disabled bisexual Mexicans, though it would be an interesting coincidence.

Likewise, I'm happy enough for common sense and law of the land to encourage good behaviour when I go to the cinema or an art exhibition, so it's not an issue for me at an atheist conference. Besides, I feel the atheist community is a very courteous, inclusive one.

On principle, I would rather not see "harassment policies" put in place solely because an overwhelmingly friendly community is hijacked and held to ransom by a small band of corrupt, hypocritical, third rate bloggers.

...the answer is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

Well, Blunt Guy gave you your answer above when he said:

As a bisexual, "person of colour" (?), I feel no disinclination to be involved in any "atheist movement" based on the feeling that I will be discriminated against on the basis of "race" or sexuality...

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Again, putting aside the hyperbole of your question, the answer is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

And what reasons are there? Honestly asking.

I've heard the following;

-Certain groups are underrepresented because there aren't enough ethnic minority/female speakers.

If this is true than I don't want to associate with these people. People shouldn't care what race or gender a speaker is, they should care about the quality of that speaker.

I didn't like Hitchens because he was a white male, I liked him for his intellect and writing. I don't like hirsi ali because she's black and female, I like her for her intellect and strength.

People who care about race and gender are the problem. If black people don't want to attend a conference because there are few black speakers then they are wrong. If women don't want to attend a conference because there are few women speakers then they are wrong.

I want to listen to the best speakers. I don't care what race or gender they are.

Even if its a case of a particular issue such as womens rights in Islamic countries I want the person most capable of speaking on the subject. If that's an Arab woman or an Asian man it shouldn't make any difference.

- Women are underrepresented because of sexual harrassment.

Then that's a huge issue and needs to be dealt with. Harrassment of anyone should not be tolerated and should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

I think the problem is how people define harrassment.

For example Michael, what do you think of the nonsense regarding Paula Kirbys T-shirt?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If I read the link I would be responding to the link, not you, which would defeat the point in you and I discussing this issue on a discussion forum. There is no point in having a discussion with someone who will point to someone elses arguments in lieu of defending their own points.

I know what privilege is, I am not denying what it is. The problem is that privilege is a result of environment, not an inherent part of sexuality/race/colour etc. I have privilege as a white person in Ireland, I dont have the same privilege in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. You remove privilege by recognising it is artificial, by not ignoring it never existed, but by ignoring its existence now. Besides the inherent patronisation of having to watch my words around everyone and anyone different to me in any way, it would make no difference how careful I am to combat my white/male/heterosexual etc. privilege in every situation, if every non-white/non-male/non-heterosexual person sees me as having privilege by default anyway. Its not a case of never pointing out when you suspect someone is abusing privilege, its a case of not allowing avoidance of privilege become an elephant in the room in every situation, thus creating a new privilege.


Because it's irrational and leads to people holding to labels instead of rationality. This is part of what is happening with the FTB and the skeptic/athest community. Instead of people just being skeptical, they self label as "skeptic" and holding on to that label becomes more important than actually being skeptical. Everything that I "am", every label that society applies to me, is simply a result of my rational mind (or what my mind thinks is rational). I don't have a belief in god/s simply because it is the most rational position IMO. I believe in equal rights for everyone simply because its the most rational position. But I will change my position if I am convinced of another, without pause, because I (do my best to) reject emotional attachments to labels that may accompany my various positions, be it "atheist", "gay rights advocate", "feminist" etc. My identity is the result of the way I think, not the other way around.


This is the problem I was talking about. All of a sudden, refuting privilege becomes itself a privilege. If the "privileged" don't notice sex or race, then who is oppressing other sexes or races?

If you don't want to read the link, that's fine. But I won't continue because we both have a different understanding of 'privilege' so we are speaking at crossed purposes. And again, it's not someone else's 'argument' - it's just a good explanation of something. I'm not trying to 'win a debate' here, nor am I desperate to 'be right', so I not looking for 'good arguments' written by other people. I think it's a bit weird that you're not willing to read it, but still want to argue the point, but hey that's cool.

I get that you think of your identity as the way you think, and you identify very strongly with being a rational skeptic. I don't think of identity that way. And I'm sorry that annoys you.

Nodin

decimatio wrote: »

.......

For example Michael, what do you think of the nonsense regarding Paula Kirbys T-shirt?

With a certain creeping dread, I have to ask - whats this about a t-shirt?

decimatio

Nodin wrote: »

With a certain creeping dread, I have to ask - whats this about a t-shirt?

Don't take the opinions expressed in this link as my position. I haven't read it fully but it shows a summary of the issue. Google more for other opinions.

http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/TAM_2012_T-Shirt_Manufacturversy

Sorry I was mistaken it wasn't paula kirby but rather harriet halls.

Nodin

decimatio wrote: »

Don't take the opinions expressed in this link as my position. I haven't read it fully but it shows a summary of the issue. Google more for other opinions.

http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/TAM_2012_T-Shirt_Manufacturversy

Sorry I was mistaken it wasn't paula kirby but rather harriet halls.

This is getting more pathetic by the day.....that "Amy" woman must be in her mid-twenties at least, ffs.

bipedalhumanoid

Kooli, what you and some of the FTB bloggers are doing is conflating two concepts. Support for women's rights and feminism.

You do NOT have to be a feminist to believe in equal rights for women. Modern (3rd/4th wave) feminism is a political/sociological ideology. You don't have to be a misogynist to find the feminist construct of the "patriarchy" implausible. You don't have to be a misogynist to be unconvinced that sociology, and the social sciences in general for that matter, are extremely flawed and largely bunkum.

I support women's rights in the same way I support LGBTI rights, mens rights and children's rights. Nobody asks me to accept constructs of a political/sociological philosophy to support LGBTI rights, children's rights or men's rights. There's no Straightriarchy or Adultriarchy I have to accept.

Certain FTB bloggers are using the equivocation fallacy to conflate these two concepts in order to paint all outsiders as bigots. This is a false dichotomy. FTB bloggers have also expressed that they do not wish to incldue libertarians in their number. So much for inclusiveness.

Kooli

BluntGuy wrote: »

As a bisexual, "person of colour" (?), I feel no disinclination to be involved in any "atheist movement" based on the feeling that I will be discriminated against on the basis of "race" or sexuality. I accept racism and homophobia (obviously) occur in society, but specifically what has to be done in your view, for example, to take me "into account" in the "skeptical community", as a member of "these people"?

I don't know why all the quotation marks??

If you don't feel discriminated against, then that's wonderful!

But if others do, I believe that needs to be taken seriously. As for 'what has to be done', I'd say it's actively encouraging people from minority groups to participate in the community, actively encouraging them to speak at conferences and to contribute to blogs, actively seeking out their views on what topics specifically apply to them that might have been missed by the dominant members of the community. And then having very clear anti-harrassment and anti-discrimination policies.

The same as any organisation that is trying to ensure equality of opportunity really, it's not rocket science.

MrVestek

I know that I'm late to this party but...

Men like to hit on women shocker...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Achilles wrote: »

I know that I'm late to this party but...

Men like to hit on women shocker...

dont worry, the story hasn't really moved on from that in the last year.

pH

condra wrote: »

On principle, I would rather not see "harassment policies" put in place solely because an overwhelmingly friendly community is hijacked and held to ransom by a small band of corrupt, hypocritical, third rate bloggers.

This Years TAM had a harassment policy and they employed a specialist consultant to deal with security/harassment and all the volunteers were given specific training on how seriously to treat claims of harassment and the procedures to follow.

And yet the same group that's been screaming about this for a year still didn't feel safe at TAM. This isn't about sexual harassment let's call a spade a spade this is about power and control of the atheist/secular movement.

So if it's not a harassment policy what do they want - well here are the things they have called for publicly.

- To choose all male speakers at every conference
- Banning a conference speaker having sex with a conference attendee.
- Panels at every conference dealing with harassment/feminism ad nauseam
- A secret behind the scenes (cross conference) list of bad male behaviour - presumably maintained by FtB or such - conferences must agree to ban people on the basis of this list.
- Ban on "fake" jewellery
- Ban on statements opposed to their point of view - any disagreement with them (like a t-shirt that says "I feel safe") is automatically and by definition sexual harassment and hate speech.

But no - it's not about harassment policies.

how the hell does anyone make such a fuss over a tshirt like that
ffs

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

tbh if a black gay woman wore a tshirt saying "i feel safe in the republican party" at a republican national convention you'd get much the same response all across boards

bipedalhumanoid

bluewolf wrote: »

how the hell does anyone make such a fuss over a tshirt like that
ffs

Ask Amy Roth (AKA SurlyAmy).

The T-Shirt in question had the following "hate speech" that made SurlyAmy cry and leave the conference early...

On the front:
"I feel safe and welcome at TAM".

On the back:
"I'm a skeptic, not a 'skepchick', not a 'woman skeptic', just a skeptic".

Kooli

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

The T-Shirt in question had the following "hate speech" that made SurlyAmy cry and leave the conference early...

Phew I'm glad she cried and left, because if she had stayed people would have questioned whether she was really upset and offended, right?

Because people who are genuinely offended or feel harrassed leave and don't come back.

Except when they do. Then they're overreacting...

robindch

pH wrote: »

this is about power and control

That's about the height of it. They really have backed themselves up a very long and narrow alley and I don't really see how they can reintegrate with the mainstream without some serious loss of face.

pH wrote: »

- Ban on "fake" jewellery

Really? I'm asking because at last year's Atheist Conference here in Dublin, I bought one of those little metal-coated fish-shaped "Evolution" thingies -- a tatty piece of cheap junk if ever there was one -- and, rather with rather more pride than I should really have felt, stuck it on the back of my car. I'm 90% sure I bought it from Watson (I certainly did buy a tee-shirt and a couple of label badges from her). Unlike at previous conferences, Watson wasn't selling her knickers at this one, so no option there.

There ain't no facepalm big enough.

King Mob

pH wrote: »

- Ban on "fake" jewellery

Doesn't Surly Amy sell ceramic jewellery?

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

Phew I'm glad she cried and left, because if she had stayed people would have questioned whether she was really upset and offended, right?

Because people who are genuinely offended or feel harrassed leave and don't come back.

Except when they do. Then they're overreacting...

So because she found the t-shirt to be upsetting it should have been banned? Harriet Hall should have removed it?

Sycopat

Kooli wrote: »

Phew I'm glad she cried and left, because if she had stayed people would have questioned whether she was really upset and offended, right?

Because people who are genuinely offended or feel harrassed leave and don't come back.

Except when they do. Then they're overreacting...

Someone being offended by something is not the same thing as them being discriminated against or harassed.

It can offend her, there is no reason to doubt that this Amy person was offended.

But her feeling offended does not mean she was discriminated against or harassed by the t-shirt or it's wearer, or the act of wearing a t-shirt.

Nodin

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

tbh if a black gay woman wore a tshirt saying "i feel safe in the republican party" at a republican national convention you'd get much the same response all across boards

People walking up to her in tears? Nope, I don't fucking think so.

pH

robindch wrote: »

TReally? I'm asking because at last year's Atheist Conference here in Dublin, I bought one of those little metal-coated fish-shaped "Evolution" thingies -- a tatty piece of cheap junk if ever there was one -- and, rather with rather more pride than I should really have felt, stuck it on the back of my car. I'm 90% sure I bought it from Watson (I certainly did buy a tee-shirt and a couple of label badges from her). Unlike at previous conferences, Watson wasn't selling her knickers at this one, so no option there.

"We're not asking for anything crazy - just basic rules so that we can say the sort of thing like making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not okay nor is grabbing someone's ass. That's it, that's all we're asking for."
- Amy Roth

You know the sad thing is that this really all kicked off when Watson was meant to be giving a speech about "The Religious Right's war on women" and instead she used her keynote to attack female students in the audience who disagreed with her over elavatorgate - and this week, as everyone is probably aware this was said by Todd Atkin (Rep) who is running for a senate seat in Missouri.

"It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin replied. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

So much time and effort wasted on nonsense.

BluntGuy

Kooli wrote: »

I don't know why all the quotation marks??

Because they're other people's terms, including yours. I don't tend to use those phrases. I find the phrase "person of colour" instead of saying "black people" or "non-whites" to be incredibly stupid btw. It brings me back to high school here when I was the only "coloured" person in the class. How odd that all my (presumably) "non-coloured" counterparts seemed to possess a colour. But that's an aside.

If you don't feel discriminated against, then that's wonderful!

Maybe it says more about Ireland that the most of the racism I've had directed at me living here, was for having an English accent. But that's yet another aside.

But if others do, I believe that needs to be taken seriously.

Is there any evidence to suggest that there is something that is acting as an active barrier to people of "minority groups" getting involved? I'm not going to claim definitively there isn't, but in my experience, I'm not seeing it. Though I accept I'm not hugely involved in any skeptical communities.

As for 'what has to be done', I'd say it's actively encouraging people from minority groups to participate in the community, actively encouraging them to speak at conferences and to contribute to blogs, actively seeking out their views on what topics specifically apply to them that might have been missed by the dominant members of the community.

That sounds great, but what does "actively encouraging" mean? Does it mean essentially saying to someone, "hey you're black, we need more black people to speak". What views on topics, likely to be discussed in an atheist convention, "specifically apply" to black people for example? I'd like to think that anyone with an interest is encouraged to participate.

And then having very clear anti-harrassment and anti-discrimination policies.

Absolutely agree, as long as the definitions of "harassment" and "discrimination" are not arbitrary ones designed to suit people who need to grow a thicker skin.

The same as any organisation that is trying to ensure equality of opportunity really, it's not rocket science.

Again this is not something I disagree with in principle, but where is the evidence that there is an active factor discouraging people from participating on the basis of race, disability etc.

Ickle Magoo

bluewolf wrote: »

how the hell does anyone make such a fuss over a tshirt like that
ffs

Why would anyone with an ounce of sense wear such a t-shirt for three days running and not expect some kind of back-lash? It looks more like throwing petrol on the flames and then pointing and sniggering from your assumed high-ground at the inevitable reaction you knew it would generate.

I've stopped reading the blogs because it's so much like being back in the primary school playground, "She did this!", "Well, they did that!", "Well she did that first, wah, wah, wah".

Each side entrenched in their position and claiming the other has "no way back" - meanwhile the rest of the world think the whole lot are ridiculous. Ugh.

Turtwig

Phil Plait enters the fray.

I'm beginning to the get feeling that this thing could drag on for years now.

BluntGuy

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why would anyone with an ounce of sense wear such a t-shirt for three days running and not expect some kind of back-lash? It looks more like throwing petrol on the flames and then pointing and sniggering from your assumed high-ground at the inevitable reaction you knew it would generate.

To be fair, it was a pretty tame T-shirt. Maybe it wasn't the best idea, but tbh, if someone can't wear a T-shirt expressing in the most mild way, the mildest of disagreements with her, then I'm afraid a large chunk of the problem lies with her.

I've stopped reading the blogs because it's so much like being back in the primary school playground, "She did this!", "Well, they did that!", "Well she did that first, wah, wah, wah".

It's pretty embarrassing, alright.

robindch

pH wrote: »

"We're not asking for anything crazy - just basic rules so that we can say the sort of thing like making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not okay nor is grabbing someone's ass. That's it, that's all we're asking for."

It's not clear to me whether she's referring to frauds who make fake jewellery and sell it as the real thing, or ordinary people just making it and presumably selling/wearing/whatever it. The first lot are obviously reprehensible, but the second aren't guilty of anything much worse than poor taste and there are no rules against that.

Relatedly, I'd also like to know how many people have had their asses grabbed at skeptic/atheist conferences compared to what happens amongst the general population. I'd imagine it's less. Nor am I aware of any group -- possibly other than donkey-rustlers -- who think that grabbing people's asses is ok, so I'm not sure who she's referring to.

oldrnwisr

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Again, putting aside the hyperbole of your question, the answer is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

I am confused by the point you are trying to make here Michael so could I ask you to clarify two things a) what subset of people you are specifically referring to (disabled, women, LGBT etc.) and b) what you mean by disproportionately. It's just that the overall discussion in this thread has been about women in atheism, however the specific point you responded to was to do with wheelchair access at AI meetups.

As far as the overall discussion regarding women is concerned, I find it hard to understand how there is any significant gender imbalance.

For example, Census 2011 in Ireland found that the number of people responding No Religion was 269,811. The gender split of this was 157,219 men and 112,592 women or 58% and 42% respectively. Furthermore, the change from previous showed that more women than men are losing their religion with a +49% and +42% change respectively.

Also if we look at America, the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life reports a similar finding among Unaffiliated (including atheists, agnostics etc.) with 59% and 41% respectively.

It is only when we narrow our focus to a particular medium, boards, for example, that we see a change.

The boards census here or here show that there is a significant disparity among boards users with a roughly 80:20 male/female split. Having said that though, the breakdown of A&A users is better than the general boards average with a 70:30 male/female split. I'm not sure exactly what you can read into this disparity between A&A and boards in general but on the face of it it seems as if A&A is a more welcoming place than the rest of boards.

It seems to me that this is not an "atheist community" problem. Its an internet problem. If we continue to couch it in those terms, then we're never going to make any substantial progress in reducing online harassment. We should making a consolidated effort across all boards, fora, blogs, social networking etc. to ensure that all of these are well-moderated and welcoming environments. Then again it maybe that the causal factors at the heart of this disparity may be entirely unconnected to any real or perceived harassment in the first place.

Ickle Magoo

BluntGuy wrote: »

To be fair, it was a pretty tame T-shirt. Maybe it wasn't the best idea, but tbh, if someone can't wear a T-shirt expressing in the most mild way, the mildest of disagreements with her, then I'm afraid a large chunk of the problem lies with her.

What do you think the reactions would have been if Amy-whatserface had worn "I don't feel safe" t-shirt? Would it still be a mild expression? Or fanning the flames? Do you think anyone would have reacted to it? I think the t-shirt was stupid - I think the reaction to the t-shirt was stupid. There's equality. :pac:

BluntGuy wrote: »

It's pretty embarrassing, alright.

+ bazilion.

BluntGuy

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What do you think the reactions would have been if Amy-whatserface had worn "I don't feel safe" t-shirt? Would it still be a mild expression? Or fanning the flames? Do you think anyone would have reacted to it? I think the t-shirt was stupid - I think the reaction to the t-shirt was stupid. There's equality. :pac:

I think the image of her wearing an "I don't feel safe" T-shirt amongst company in which she is clearly quite safe would be more amusing than anything else. :pac: But yes, I'd reckon too that there'd be dumb reactions to that.

I suppose it's fair enough to suggest such T-shirts should be avoided on the basis of avoiding causing unnecessary fuss, but the idea that a T-shirt can be such a big deal amongst supposedly rational people, is both laughable and depressing at the same time.

Ickle Magoo

BluntGuy wrote: »

I suppose it's fair enough to suggest such T-shirts should be avoided on the basis of avoiding causing unnecessary fuss, but the idea that a T-shirt can be such a big deal amongst supposedly rational people, is both laughable and depressing at the same time.

Yup - and if anyone wants to know why I won't be attending a TAM any time soon it's not because I'm scared of being propositioned it's because I can no longer see the logic in attending an event for skeptics that seems to be populated disproportionately by irrational people.

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

And what reasons are there? Honestly asking.

I don't know. As I have said, the first step is to start by asking the people who are disproportionately underrepresented what they think we could do to make the community more inclusive and caring and supportive.

decimatio wrote: »

I've heard the following;

-Certain groups are underrepresented because there aren't enough ethnic minority/female speakers.

If this is true than I don't want to associate with these people. People shouldn't care what race or gender a speaker is, they should care about the quality of that speaker...

I want to listen to the best speakers. I don't care what race or gender they are.

I don’t have time to go into detail on this now, but the short response is that, if there are not enough speakers from under-represented groups, then it is likely that you are not getting to hear the best speakers. You are just getting to hear the people who are currently most frequently invited to speak. When I have time I will elaborate on this, but in the meantime think it through for yourself and try to imagine why this might be the case.

decimatio wrote: »

- Women are underrepresented because of sexual harrassment.

Then that's a huge issue and needs to be dealt with. Harrassment of anyone should not be tolerated and should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

I agree with you about this. I think it is a combination of unconscious passive sexism and various degrees of sexual harassment. But any amount is too much, and we should aim to eradicate it completely.

decimatio wrote: »

I think the problem is how people define harrassment.

For example Michael, what do you think of the nonsense regarding Paula Kirbys T-shirt?

I don’t think it is useful to examine harassment policies generally through the filter of just one incident, particularly as you have already prejudged that incident as nonsense, but since you ask I will give you my opinion about that incident.

By the way, it was Harriet Hall who wore the t-shirt saying she wasn’t a Skepchick. You may be confusing this incident with Paula Kirby writing an article labeling them as Feminazis.

I think that Amy is a decent, kind person who devotes much of her time and creativity to doing good things. She runs fundraisers and contributes money from her ceramics to provide grants for women going to TAM who otherwise could not afford to go. At the latest TAM, some people tried to make Amy personally feel unwelcome in various ways, including but not limited to designing imitations of her ceramics mocking her. Also, Harriet Hall wore a t-shirt mocking Skepchick generally but not specifically Amy. The combination of all of this caused Amy to feel upset, because she is a person with the same emotional vulnerabilities as most people, and she and her mother left the conference early.

I can’t speak for TAM, but if somebody like Amy had funded grants for people to attend an Atheist Ireland conference, and if some people were actively trying to make her feel unwelcome at the conference, I would be doing my best to ensure that she did feel welcome.

I’m not sure how incidents like this would be addressed by an anti-harassment policy, because I haven't fully thought through what an anti-harassment policy should include, but I know where my ethical priorities would lie, and that would be making the conference inclusive, caring and supportive of the people attending unless they were behaving in a way that required otherwise.

MrVestek

Dear god what have I done?

Unfollow... UNFOLLOW!

Michael Nugent

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I am confused by the point you are trying to make here Michael so could I ask you to clarify two things a) what subset of people you are specifically referring to (disabled, women, LGBT etc.) and b) what you mean by disproportionately. It's just that the overall discussion in this thread has been about women in atheism, however the specific point you responded to was to do with wheelchair access at AI meetups.

a) any group within society who are disproportionately underrepresented, including those you mention, and b) I don't know.

By the way, we are still looking for a suitable city-centre wheelchair-accessible venue in Dublin, so any suggestions are welcome.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It seems to me that this is not an "atheist community" problem. Its an internet problem. If we continue to couch it in those terms, then we're never going to make any substantial progress in reducing online harassment. We should making a consolidated effort across all boards, fora, blogs, social networking etc. to ensure that all of these are well-moderated and welcoming environments. Then again it maybe that the causal factors at the heart of this disparity may be entirely unconnected to any real or perceived harassment in the first place.

I agree with this. I have never presented it as a specifically atheist community problem.

Although I don't think it is just an online problem. It is also a problem that manifests itself in many organizations, including voluntary and political and advocacy groups, in real life.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

[...] the community [...]

I'm not going to comment on anything else you've written on the greater topic, since I haven't read it closely enough to be able to form an opinion one way or the other. And there's been more than enough electronic ink spilled on this to sink a battleship, even if it's not yet enough to float a treaty, or even the hope of one.

However, with respect to just this one word "community", which I've seen crop up many times, I would suggest that you avoid using it, since it suggests the existence of an ingroup, or at least a separate group of individuals. Once the existence of a community is declared, some people will -- almost inevitably -- start vying for influence within it, attempting to ensure, amongst other things, that their particular ideas become more influential, and perhaps become the default position within the group as a whole. Allowing them to ascend up the group hierarchy, gaining rank, prestige, adulation etc. Or if they're not doing that, then they'll have a hell of a time stopping the latter from happening. That's the way people behave when they're in groups. That's what humans do.

The old comment that trying to gather atheists being like herding cats applies here: there is no single "atheist community". Quite the contrary: there are simply individuals who share a common view about the existence of various supernatural beings and who may or may not share any other views.

Atheists who haven't joined a specific group are not members of some invisible larger group and they should not be referred to as such.

Michael Nugent

robindch wrote: »

The old comment that trying to gather atheists being like herding cats applies here: there is no single "atheist community".

I agree with this (at least in practical terms, though the term can be useful in philosophical discussions). I usually use "communities" as I think it is more accurate.

robindch wrote: »

Quite the contrary: there are simply individuals who share a common view about the existence of various supernatural beings and who may or may not share any other views.

I don't agree with this. There are many different communities who primarily self-identify as atheists, at least for the purpose of their involvement in activities organized by or for that community. One example is the members of this forum.

Turtwig

BluntGuy wrote: »

I think the image of her wearing an "I don't feel safe" T-shirt amongst company in which she is clearly quite safe would be more amusing than anything else. :pac: But yes, I'd reckon too that there'd be dumb reactions to that.

I suppose it's fair enough to suggest such T-shirts should be avoided on the basis of avoiding causing unnecessary fuss, but the idea that a T-shirt can be such a big deal amongst supposedly rational people, is both laughable and depressing at the same time.

It's only depressing as long as you fallaciously believe there is such a thing as a rational person. We're not rational. Embrace that fact and be humble about it.

daesu

Dont know what to say about this. Sick of it