Seeing the Invisible: Feminism and Atheism Intersect

Thanks you, what a great post!  Feminism  is still trying to through off the vilification it received during the suffragette movement and the second wave  in the 1960’s and 70’s.  It would be nice if feminism was irrelevant, but unfortunately deconstructing a millennia patriarchy is a long process.  

I became an atheist after 10 years as a white, male, priveledged, evangelical, women-are-to-submit Christian.  Femenism was always demonized as counter-biblical, and abortion was the weapon of “femi-nazi’s” everywhere.

Going from a position of religiously mainstream to a bible-belt apostate, I learned very quickly about the illusion of privilege, and just how deep-seated it is.  Learning about true feminism, watsongate, blogging about the recent TAA incident, I have gained so much awareness in such a short amount of time; I find feminism absolutely beautiful, and find it coincides with my own journey from theist to heathen.
Last night our school’s SSA affiliate group (Pastafarians   USC) hosted Sikivu Hutchenson, an african-american femenist freethinker, who pointed out issues of privilege across gender and racial lines that still exist today.  I think that there are few causes which resonate with the secular movement than feminism, and I appreciate you voicing this concern.

It is depressing to consider that these issues are constantly swept under the rug.  In a nation where the religious privilege extends so far and wide, by the heavy hand of white male demagogues, are we so quick to forget that secularists are fighting for the reduction of all uninformed stereotypes, not just a few?  

We fight against that invisible of which you speak, seeking to overcome its delusional power, and we would do well to not forget that we are all alike in our unprivileged state.

I think these are excellent points. I want to (1) quibble and then (2) expand on what you wrote.

(1) Quibble: As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s lots of debate about what feminism really is. I think your view of feminism as the position that women should be equal to men is generally helpful, but I prefer something more specific. I would say that feminism is a conjunction of a normative and a descriptive claim.

Normative: No one should be disadvantaged because of their gender. Descriptive: Many women are disadvantaged in many ways because of their gender, historically and in the present day.

This makes room for allowing women to be unequal to men in various ways, as long as those inequalities are not disadvantages to those women. (Equality might not be morally sufficient; if the laws treated men and women completely equally, this might be to women’s disadvantage by denying them extra money, e.g., for problems that as a matter of fact affect women more. And equality might not be morally necessary, since we might not want to be too paternalistic about whether women should be able, e.g., to choose lower-paying jobs or traditional family roles.) And with its descriptive claim, this definition highlights the need for feminism.

(2) Expand: In my experience teaching social and political philosophy, feminism is one of the positions most often the victim of straw-personing, as you note. Somehow everyone is aware of the writings of a few radical separatists, postmodernist (or at least post-structuralist), and Marxist feminists, and take those to be representative of the whole.

Now, I think these positions are probably wrong, and so it’s lucky for feminists that these positions represent the minority. But if you’re correct that these sorts of online atheist communities are particularly hostile to feminism, I wonder whether it might be because many such atheists are emphatically epistemically rational, and postmodernism (especially) seems so irrational. So if you combine an insistence on epistemic rationality with the straw version of feminism according to which feminism is postmodernistic, you get this kind of hostility.

Finally, why is feminism straw-personed this way? Well, as far as I can tell, most of the blame is on its opponents. It’s easy to address only the most extreme versions of one’s opponent’s position, of course, and to forget conveniently that nuances and more moderate versions of the position exist. But I would say that at least a little bit of the blame does lie upon these kinds of postmodernistic feminists, who only do damage to their position by denying the existence of “true” truth, knowledge, or moral obligation.

I’m not aware of any other major (at least partially) political position where so many of the members seem to rest so much on denying commonsense beliefs about truth, knowledge, and moral obligation. Why is feminism particularly prone to this? (Is it?) I think the position would be much more plausible, and probably better-received, without these mistakes.

And that would just be terrible to be labeled gay for a straight guy.  I can see we need to work on more than just fixing the issue of sexism in the atheist movement.

 I used to agree with that, but The Godless Bitches podcast disillusioned me. It’s worth a listen…

Yes, I stopped cold at

patterned black pantyhose

 Somehow I got past the black dress.

As an atheist I totally support feminism and I’m pretty that there are still a lot of work to be done for real equality in our society. But what really bothers is how some people, men and women, totally ignore the fact the men have SEVERAL issues to be addressed too.

How and when are those other issues brought up, though?

Quite often, I see people talking about a topic of feminism, and somebody jumps in with “I think you are all ignoring that guys have to go through x, y, and z, which comes across as wholly dismissive of the topic that was being discussed.

Because it’s wrong that they would be uncomfortable with a misapplied label?  Because they shouldn’t care if people assume them to be something they’re not, whether or not they agree with that thing?

Granted, many of the guys who get offended at being called “gay” are homophobic but there’s also a large number of people who just don’t like being mislabeled and associated with a group that they’re not a part of.  Why is it OK to discount that concern?

Well said KB. Well said.

I also find pretty stupid when someone tries make problem look less important making references to another group that faces similar problems, in a lesser or greater extent (i.e. “atheists are the most hated group in America; hey, a lot of people don’t like christians too…”).

What I hate is when I’m trying to have a conversation about men’s issues (compulsory conscription, the way some people minimalizes domestic violence against men, harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations such as the police, etc) most of atheists, male and female, just try to discard the conversation with pathetic arguments like “you have male priviledge”. This is what I’m talking about when I say that a lot of people ignore the issue.

This is pretty sad. It’s ok for women to be vocal and fight for their rights (I’m feminist and I support that) but why men can’t do the same? It’s pathetic.

Being a postmodern feminist, I’d like to respond to your post.

There are some problems with postmodernism–it’s far more destructive than constructive.  It is near impossible to make a universal, sweeping theoretical statement with postmodernism.  

That’s also what is wonderful about postmodernism.  Postmodernism is extremely helpful in rejecting “commonsense beliefs” and decentering binaries–because the structure of these truths frame the arguments in ways that exclude certian conclusions.  

For instance, delinking biological sex and gender expression allows you to question what it means to be a “man”–how much is “nature” and how much is “nuture”.  It allows for the expression of transgender, and two-spirit and any other gender that doesn’t fit neatly into “man” and “woman”.  It allows you to look back in history and see how flexible gender could be–and how gender is expressed in different cultures.  Say for instance, in some cultures its the men who speak corse and vulgar and the women refined, and in some it is women who speak unrefined and men are elegant and eriodite.  What seems obvious and clear at first glance turns out to be murky and indistinct.

The reason that postmodernism is so loved by scholars in feminism, ethnic and post-colonial studies is that many of of these universal obvious truths privliage men, whites and colonizers–because these truths were formulated by men, by white authors, by those from colonizing countries.   They unconciously were brought in their own biases from thier own priviaged posistions.  Postmondernism helps highlight and challenge this bias, so that we can build truths that are inclusive and flexible.  It’s not irrational–just de-constructive.

On a different note, I quibble with your quibble with your descriptive definition of feminism.  Firstly because your descriptive describes sexism, not feminism.  Secondly, by using “many”, do you mean that some women are free of sexism, or do not feel the effects of sexism, or that there are sexism-free societies?

As for feminism definitions, I rather like bell hook’s definition. “Feminism is the struggle to end sexist oppression.  Its aim is not to benefit soley any specific group of women, any particular race or class of women.  It does not privilege women over men.  It has the power to transform in a menaingful way all of our lives.”  – 1981 Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism

The ‘vagina-set’? Really? You’re not exactly getting off on the right foot with that kind of dismissive language.

So what sort of issues do you think the pendulum has swung too far to ‘their side of the fence’ on? Why exactly do you think there is a ‘fence’ at all?

If you can answer these questions without compromising your dignity, you’ll do a lot to salvage your dignity.

Germaine Greer makes a good argument for gender equality being anti-feminist, since men are slaves to the establishment, so gender equality strives to enslave women in the same way.

Just saying.

 That example fit perfectly for male privilege. The reason why the boys can’t wear feminine clothing is because our culture devalues all things feminine. We value masculinity which is why women are more often able to get away with acting masculine. Men do not benefit from it, but it is still privileging the masculine over the feminine.

While I expect many atheists sympathize with women’s rights, just by virtue of the fact that we tend to be educated, progressive people, in theory atheists don’t *have* to be feminists, if you see what I mean. As a woman and a feminist, I thank you for talking openly about our lack of privilege. Sexism hurts!

atheists are very good at recognising when their rights are trampled, but is there any reason to assume that this very personal level of perception should apply to a third party?

Yes, because women are NOT a third party.  Women are also atheists.  The talk about women on this blog has either been a) ways women are discriminated against by religious groups or b) ways women are discriminated against by atheists.   This is not a second cause–this is the same cause taking into account that women are treated differently than men. Also, to quote Aundre Lorde, there is no hierarchy of oppression–or let me quote her at length:

THERE IS NO HIERARCHY OF OPPRESSIONS By Audre Lorde

 I was born Black and a woman. I am trying to become the strongest person I can become to live the life I have been given and to help effect change toward a livable future for this earth and for my children. As a Black, lesbian, feminist, socialist, poet, mother of two including one boy and member of an interracial couple, I usually find myself part of some group in which the majority defines me as deviant, difficult, inferior or just plain “wrong”.

From my membership in all of these groups I have learned that oppression and the intolerance of difference come in all shapes and sizes and colors and sexualities; and that among those of us who share the goals of liberation and a workable future for our children, there can be no hierarchies of oppression. I have learned that sexism (a belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over all others and thereby its right to dominance) and heterosexism (a belief in the inherent superiority of one pattern of loving over all others and thereby its right to dominance) both arise from the same source as racism – a belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby its right to dominance.

“Oh,” says a voice from the Black community, “but being Black is NORMAL!” Well, I and many Black people of my age can remember grimly the days when it didn’t used to be!

I simply do not believe that one aspect of myself can possibly profit from the oppression of my other part of my identity. I know that my people cannot possibly profit from the oppression of any other group which seeks the right to peaceful existence. Rather, we diminish ourselves by denying to others what we have shed blood to obtain for our children. And those children need to learn that they do not have to become like each other in order to work together for a future they will all share.

The increasing attacks upon lesbians and gay men are only an introduction to the increasing attacks upon all Black people, for wherever oppression manifests itself in this country, Black people are potential victims. And it is a standard of right-wing cynicism to encourage members of oppressed groups to act against each other, and so long as we are divided because of our particular identities we cannot join together in effective political action.

Within the lesbian community I am Black, and within the Black community I am a lesbian. Any attack against Black people is a lesbian and gay issue, because I and thousands of other Black women are part of the lesbian community. Any attack against lesbians and gays is a Black issue, because thousands of lesbians and gay men are Black. There is no hierarchy of oppression.

It is not accidental that the Family Protection Act, which is virulently anti-woman and anti-Black, is also anti-gay. As a Black person, I know who my enemies are, and when the Ku Klux Klan goes to court in Detroit to try and force the Board of Education to remove books the Klan believes “hint at homosexuality,” then I know I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression only. I cannot afford to believe that freedom from intolerance is the right of only one particular group. And I cannot afford to choose between the fronts upon which I must battle these forces of discrimination, wherever they appear to destroy me. And when they appear to destroy me, it will not be long before they appear to destroy you.

Sorry, I know it’s longish but I find her so writing so beautiful.

 Anyway, the point I was trying to make with this quote is that by the virtue that women are important to the atheist movement, their oppression is important to the atheist movement as well (as well as other discriminated groups who happen to be atheists).

 And your response to a strawman is a red herring.  Feminism isn’t well defined?  Atheism isn’t either–not as a definition but as a social movement.  There are those who are radical and loudly and vitriolically denounce all religion and those who are more mild who are willing to work with interfaith projects to build rights for atheists in a more friendly way.  Nor is Christianity– Catholics, Jehovah witnesses and Mormons have wildly different interpretations, to name a few sects.  Nor is religion–Buddhism, Islam and Taoism for example.

Generally the consensus among feminists is that sexism exists and they want it to end. Why and how this sexist oppression manifests and how we can put it end to it vary widely.  Feminism is multivocal, but not as usually discordant as you suggest.

And it remains not entirely true. You’ve mentioned individuals doing things, not a movement which takes one gender as its moniker doing them. “Feminism” will NEVER be anything other than about female issues by its very definition. The word is tainted by that. If people are moving beyond that scope, great, but they’re not feminist. Trying to undo etymology because you feel differently isn’t going to work. The name needs to be tossed and a new one picked. How about “Equality”?

So…men and women should be “separate but equal”? I’ve heard that somewhere…

No, you as a member of the penis-set don’t have to support feminism.   And we’re sorry if the “squawking” of lesser-privileged individuals offends your delicate sensibilities.    What a terrible burden it must be on you. 

Yes, because women are NOT a third party.
I’m going to assume that the original article was directed at men. Because if we’re talking about women not realising when they’re discriminated against then that’s a whole other conversation. So there is that separation there.
Women are also atheists.
Yes, but the discrimination that was the subject of this article is not discrimination against female atheists qua atheists. Pick any group you like and you’ll find some atheists among them. That doesn’t make that group’s cause an atheist cause. Please note that I’m not saying that this makes the cause in any way unworthy. But it does mean that cause should not feel entitled to a person’s support simply because that person is an atheist.

The talk about women on this blog has either been a) ways women are
discriminated against by religious groups or b) ways women are
discriminated against by atheists.
Perhaps, but I didn’t interpret this article in that way.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make with this quote is that by the
virtue that women are important to the atheist movement, their
oppression is important to the atheist movement as well (as well as
other discriminated groups who happen to be atheists).So you’re proposing a tactical alliance between feminism and atheism? You’re certainly right to point out that these two movements whose cases are both based on claims of fairness and justice have much in common. And I would also agree that it’s the right thing to do as humans. But to say “As an atheist you should…” is at best a tactical argument and an eminently debateable one. There are plenty of people giving voice to feminist causes and relatively few activist secularists. To suggest that the cause would be better served by diverting these sparse resourses is, I think, highly questionable. Nor is it true that all or even most feminist organisations hold sympathy for atheists. This could turn into a very one-sided bargain indeed.

And your response to a strawman is a red herring.  Feminism isn’t well defined? […] Generally the consensus among feminists is that sexism exists and they
want it to end. Why and how this sexist oppression manifests and how we
can put it end to it vary widely.  Feminism is multivocal, but not as
usually discordant as you suggest.
The author bemoaned the strawmanning that she sees, I posited a theory for some of it. I think calling it a red herring is a little harsh. You admit that feminism is multivocal. Is it much of a leap to assume that this confuses some people? I think this is a reasonable and on-topic response to the article.

That would be criticism for a mere woman presuming to act as though she were an exalted male.

Is a troll by any other name just as obnoxious?

If the differences which you claim are so *obvious* shouldn’t determine how we live our lives, then why bring them up? If my uterus doesn’t dictate that I stay pregnant and barefoot, why bring it up? What’s the relevance of our differences if you believe, as you say you do, that they should not have a necessary effect on our choices? I’m not sure of your background, but this “different roles” line sounds quite a lot like the justification I’ve always heard for Timothy 2:12. (”
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.”) I believe any differences that do exist are irrelevant to any discussion of equality. So. What’s your point?

I don’t deny the existence of patriarchy; in fact I tend to defend it. Patriarchy actually makes a whole lot more sense than theism, and for empirical reasons: We can’t observe gods, but men have had to live with women all along. 

Of course patriarchy conflicts with the human nature denialism promoted by feminism and political correctness. Yet men didn’t invent patriarchy out of the hardness of their hearts. Instead patriarchy “invented” men, and women, because it promotes reproductive success in a harsh world. And we can see in the here and now that the women who marry young, defer to male authority and have lots of children, like, say, Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Santorum, make genetic contributions to the future of humanity unlike the voluntarily sterile feminist women and evolutionary dead ends like, say, Rebecca Watson. 

 Well, define what you mean by “angry”.  All too often that seems to mean “someone whose voice is louder then I am comfortable with”. Some examples would be helpful.

Is Amanda one of those angry atheists and feminists who doesn’t help much and probably does more damage? How are we to reach Middle America without raising our voices and educating them on their positions of privilege?

Atheists, feminists and other advocates of reason and equal rights get the reactionaries upset just by existing. There is no way to get what we want without upsetting a few people.

“No one gives you power, you have to take it.”
–Richard Dysart

As a feminist I can assure you that we work to eliminate all forms of discrimination. Our focus may be inequality of women but that encompasses poverty, race, pregnancy rights, and yes, transgendered rights. I don’t appreciate being told what my movement does or doesn’t do; it’s insulting.

I agree 100%.

I mean, whoever wants to pull the whole “women and men aren’t different, haven’t you heard of the whole separate but equal” schtick should really ask themselves this question: What’s more important? A fireman or a surgeon? They both save lives, but in completely different ways. They are entirely different professions, and they work toward a similar goal, but they are both extremely valuable. 

Don’t try to make sense of it. They don’t know what the word privilege means.

No you are doing it wrong. Penis means privilege. Whether it is that trust fund every male gets at birth or the fact we are allowed to vote it’s well known that being male in this country means not having to lift a finger.

I think the reason why the word “feminism” is disliked by many men is that they focus on the bad examples and ignore the good. Most of what modern day feminists argue for is positive, but you can always find exceptions that aren’t so logical. The men see examples of women making claims that they feel are exaggerated, making negative accusations about men that they feel aren’t true, or making sexist comments about men and they falsely assume that all feminists are like this.  They need to look beyond the examples they disagree with to see the broader issues.

 There really isn’t a term to differentiate between feminists who make logical points and those who make bias ones, so people automatically assume that the word feminist always refers to one or the other, depending on where they fit on the political spectrum. Hopefully some sort of term can be developed to differentiate between the two because I feel like there is more agreement between people that we see. It isn’t a war between those who hate women and those who hate men. Rather most people agree on gender equality, it is just a matter of showing evidence that proves a particular part of society isn’t gender equal and correcting it. I think most people would support that. 

 I agree that privilege can be invisible to those who have it, but we always need to remember that in the end it is the facts that matter, not the gender of the person arguing. People who assume that any feminist is automatically exaggerating needs to be able to back that up with facts and people who assume that any feminist is automatically correct also need to be able to do the same. Rather than decide that one side is always right, we need to look at the facts in each case.

I agree that there are people who automatically and rudely disregard all things feminist on Pharyngula, but PZ’s response seems to be to ban anyone who criticizes feminism (regardless of how they define that term) which I don’t think is helpful either.  

Also (just to add a little more for people to argue over), I think we should deal with examples of sexism individually rather than present it as a “patriarchy” (or in the case of racial issues, “the man”) which makes it sound like it is a behind the scenes conspiracy. It isn’t something that is organized. The vast majority of people support gender equality. Yes there are examples of gender double standards, especially when it comes to women, but saying that gender double standards that affect women are evidence that America is a Patriarchy doesn’t make any more sense than saying that gender double standards that affect men are evidence that America is a Matriarchy.  

Personally i see feminism at this time in history in the west the same as chaeuvanistic males were in the 50s.If women do the same job as men,then they get the same pay as men. Women in the middle east ,infact most of the 2nd and 3rd world countrys,well now they have somthing to complain about

I’m going to address your
points all out of order, and for that I’m sorry.  Please let me know if you think I edited
anything that twisted what you said.

So you’re
proposing a tactical alliance between feminism and atheism? You’re certainly
right to point out that these two movements whose cases are both based on
claims of fairness and justice have much in common. And I would also agree that
it’s the right thing to do as humans. But to say “As an atheist you
should…” is at best a tactical argument and an eminently debateable one.
There are plenty of people giving voice to feminist causes and relatively few
activist secularists. To suggest that the cause would be better served by
diverting these sparse resourses is, I think, highly questionable. Nor is it
true that all or even most feminist organisations hold sympathy for atheists.
This could turn into a very one-sided bargain indeed.

Yes, but the discrimination that was the
subject of this article is not discrimination against female atheists qua atheists.
Pick any group you like and you’ll find some atheists among them… But it does
mean that cause should not feel entitled to a person’s support simply because
that person is an atheist.

I’m going to break off parts
of these two quotes to talk about later, but I wanted to first talk remark on
this idea that atheism are two competing causes—that there is a finite amount of
resources or attention, and contributing to one necessarily takes away from the
resources of the other.  In regards to supporting
projects like an atheist convention or a domestic violence
shelter, that is true.  However, as far
as awareness and support I find that there resources are not so limited, especially
when feminist/atheists issues happen across their boundary, such as fostering
female atheist leaders or ending religious persecution of women.

So you’re
proposing a tactical alliance between feminism and atheism?

I
think that is what Amanda is purposing. 
When it comes down to it, I believe something slightly different.  If humanitarianism is really about equality
and ending suffering, than implicitly that worldview is also an anti-racist,
pro-lgbt and pro-feminist.  (Humanitarianism
and atheists are also not completely overlapping groups, but if there is an
atheist morality based on hierarchy of people and ambivalence to suffering I
would be interested in hearing about it.) 
Feminism and atheism are two lenses that we use to look at the world,
and they make us sensitive to certain causes. 
At the least, everyone should strive to understand how issues impact intersectionalities
differently based on racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, etc.

…it does mean
that cause should not feel entitled to a person’s support simply because that
person is an atheist

Well,
no.  I don’t think that because there are
atheists are involved in Keep Tahoe Blue
or Locks
of Love that all atheists must be involved in these charities, as
worthy as these causes are.  But I do
think that when it comes to advocating for rights or ending abuse, that
humanitarians need to support these things as best they can—volunteering time, signing
a petition, standing up to a bully, or at least making sure that they don’t
practice discrimination or abuse themselves.

atheists
are very good at recognising when their rights are trampled, but is there any
reason to assume that this very personal level of perception should apply to a
third party? –Paul

Yes, because women are NOT a third party.  Women are also atheists. -Rebecca

I’m going to assume that the original article
was directed at men. Because if we’re talking about women not realising when
they’re discriminated against then that’s a whole other conversation. So there
is that separation there.-Paul 

Then you were saying “atheists” what you
really meant men.  Then this is what you
said, “Male atheists are very good at recognizing when their own rights are
trampled, but is that any reason to assume that they should apply this very
personal level of perception to women’s rights?”  Then as problematic as I find this statement,
I find it better than equating men with atheism and women with feminism.  Not all men are atheists or women feminists,
and both men and women can be atheists and/or feminists.  (Also, I still think the answer is yes—at
least ideally.  Seriously speaking, why
should men be apathetic about women’s rights being trampled?).
 
The author bemoaned the strawmanning
that she sees, I posited a theory for some of it. I think calling it a red
herring is a little harsh. You admit that feminism is multivocal. Is it much of
a leap to assume that this confuses some people?

It was a little harsh, and
I’m sorry.  I think that if only feminism
was multivocal than that might be a good reason, but really every social
movement is multivocal.  Martain Luther
King Jr said, “I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with
its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words
of “interposition” and “nullification” — one day right
there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands
with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Malcom
X said “The common enemy is the white man.” 
These were two radically different leaders with extremely different
messages and different goals; I am still clear that the common ground of the
black power movement is the cessation of black oppression.  

There are plenty
of people giving voice to feminist causes and relatively few activist
secularists

Really?  I can name quite a few prominent secularists,
and although only 2% of the US population is religion free, that’s still a lot
of people There’s no numbers on self declared feminists, but I anecdotally I
find them to be few.  Being a self
declared feminist, I’m familiar with a lot of feminist thinkers, movements, and
causes, but I’m not sure about non-feminists. 
I’m not sure about you being feminist or non feminist, but without
googling, how many feminists can you name? 
You said in your first post “radical feminists is going to react very
differently to that statement to someone familiar with more moderate feminists”—which
feminists did you mean?

The point of my questioning
is that I think people strawman feminists is not that feminists are so radical
and out there that they’re really hard to relate to as reasonable human beings,
but that people don’t know feminists theory except for stereotypes, but what
they do know makes them so uncomfortable it is easier to discount them as crazy
as to really reflect on what they are saying. 
(Once again, like other margainized groups, including atheists). 

To suggest that
the cause would be better served by diverting these sparse resourses is, I
think, highly questionable. Nor is it true that all or even most feminist
organisations hold sympathy for atheists. This could turn into a very one-sided
bargain indeed

I think by this point in
the post we can see that I don’t mean to take all the donations for Freedom
from Religion and donate them to the National Organization for Women.  But if something is impacting human rights-
if  effects women or atheists or
Asian-Americans or any other segment of humans or combination of
race/class/gender/etc—that we do our best to stay informed and do our best to
help as humanitarians.

But you could just as easily argue the opposite, that butch lesbians are seen as acting like dirty men and that gay men are seen as too ugly and clumsy to ever be attractive women. In that example it is the feminine beauty that is held in higher respect than the masculine beauty. You could provide plenty of examples of the above if you looked. Both the what I listed and what you wrote are examples of people seeing what they want to see when it comes to gender. It isn’t a scientific differentiation because it doesn’t provide evidence that is exclusive to one interpretation. The evidence could be used to support multiple interpretations.

Also, contrary to the picture you painted above, I should note that there are plenty of examples of female privilege in sexuality and relationships just as there are examples of male privilege. When a wife feels unsatisfied sexually by her husband and cheats, the husband is often mocked by society and told it is his fault. When a husband feels unsatisfied sexually by his wife and cheats, he is considered a scumbag and all blame is put on him. Another example of female privilege in relationships is that when the husband is the breadwinner, he is expected to share financial decisions with his wife. When the wife is the breadwinner, however, society is much more accepting of her making the financial decisions herself. It can be insulting to men to tell them that these are all examples of the patriarchy when it is the men who are being viewed negatively.

http://volokh.com/2011/09/07/the-puzzle-of-black-womens-marriage-patterns/

 (Humanitarianism and atheists are also not completely overlapping groups, but if there is an atheist morality based on hierarchy of people and  ambivalence to suffering I would be interested in hearing about it.)[…] But I do think that when it comes to advocating for rights or ending abuse, that humanitarians need to support these things as best they can—volunteering time, signing a petition, standing up to a bully, or at least making sure that they don’t practice discrimination or abuse themselves.
Agreed in respect to your final statement, but you’ve gone from saying that atheism does not demand a heirarchy of people or ambivalence to suffering to equating atheists and humanitarians. I would be nice if all atheists were humanitarian. It would be nice if all people of all stripes were humanitarian. But neither is true.

But if something is impacting human rights – if  effects women or atheists or Asian-Americans or any other segment of humans or combination of race/class/gender/etc—that we do our best to stay informed and do our best to help as humanitarians.
Yes, but not as atheists. (And please note the destinction. I’m not saying that atheists should not be interested, merely that we should not be interested by virtue of our atheism.) Amanda seems to be expressing disappointment that she has not received greater support for feminism on atheist message boards. I don’t know the context leading up to this essay, but it seems somewhat presumptuous of her to assume that comments unrelated to a board’s topic would be welcomed.

Then you were saying “atheists” what you really meant men.  Then this is what you said, “Male atheists are very good at recognizing when their own rights are trampled, but is that any reason to assume that they should apply this very personal level of perception to women’s rights?”
No, but I can understand your interpretation, and I regret muddying the waters in the way that I did. I was responding to your statement, “Yes, because women are NOT a third party.  Women are also atheists.” As far as our group identities go, we all wear many hats. What I was trying to say is that we perceive the world through the lens of the groups we identify with. Atheists, male and female, are very good at detecting when their rights as atheists are trampled. Women (I assume) are very good at detecting when their rights as women are trampled. But to suggest that any given atheist should be able to detect when women’s rights are trampled does not follow. Male atheists, even very sensitive ones, will simply not be as attuned as someone who is affected directly. Female atheists, while they can be expected to notice, will do so as a woman, not in their role as an atheist.

I think that if only feminism was multivocal than that might be a good reason, but really every social movement is multivocal.
And I suspect that, for this reason, every social movement suffers much the same strawmanning that Amanda was complaining about.

I’m not sure about you being feminist or non feminist, but without googling, how many feminists can you name?
Dworkin, Mackinnon, Greer, and I’m starting to stuggle there. But I’m talking less about the profile of individual leaders and more about organisations. You mention NOW. According to Wikipedia, they have half a million contributing members. Can you point to an atheist organisation of similar size? Freedom from Religion Foundation which you also mentioned claims a mere 16,600 members.

You said in your first post “radical feminists is going to react very differently to that statement to someone familiar with more moderate feminists”—which feminists did you mean?
Early feminists, such as those I named above, advocated improving female circumstances in a very anti-male way. They have modern day counterparts but for the most part the conversation recognises that men can be partners in female equality. Those are the two sides that I was referring to.

people don’t know feminists theory except for stereotypes, but what they do know makes them so uncomfortable it is easier to discount them as crazy as to really reflect on what they are saying.
I think you’re right. And this is probably another reason behind the strawmanning, but certainly not the only one. 🙂

 A couple of quickies before I go to bed.

The “Privilege” argument is bullshit.  It is a hybrid of the ad hominem and personal experience fallacies that is brought out when ever it is pointed out that a feminist hasn’t made her case.  Feminist states X.  Sceptic ask for evidence of X.  Feminist claims that the sceptic can’t see it because of his privilege but if he had the feminist’s experience he could.  If a phenomenon is real it can be objectively demonstrated.

Feminists love to talk about “the Patriarchy” without ever defining it.  Is it a conspiracy or some kind of mystical force.

Ok, more than a couple.

Feminist are never willing to give up demonstrable advantages women have such as the greater availability of educational assistance to women in spite of the face that men and boys are faring far worse in school and graduating college at a lower rate than women.  And, a myriad of other advantages.

I’ve never seen the wage gap demonstrated.  If someone knows of a study that includes all the factors that affect wages, all the non monetary compensation used, and uses proper time frames.  I’d love to see it.

Until feminists are willing to have their articles of faith examined, they are not sceptics.

To add, the students I’ve had in my history/philosophy of science class who come from “postmodern” backgrounds (and often ethnic or gender studies) are wont to claim science is a result of the patriarchy or European hegemony or something. Which I really hope isn’t a standard thing they teach over in those postmodern departments, because it’s complete nonsense. Individual scientists, scientific organizations, cultures in which some important scientific discoveries took place – these can be sexist, racist, etc. Science itself is absolutely not.

So I’ve also come to associate “postmoderism” with “I don’t believe in object reality, but for some reason I keep eating meals, and if that’s logically inconsistent, then dammit, logic is an oppressive tool of the white, male, Eurocentric hegemonarchy!”

I sincerely hope this is an incorrect characterization, but it’s what I’ve gotten from talking with and reading people who call themselves postmodernist.

“Feminism” will NEVER be anything other than about female issues by its very definition. If people are moving beyond that scope, great, but they’re not feminist anymore

Supporting males being treated equally and advocating for male infants’ personal autonomy (on the circumcision issue), makes me “not feminist anymore”?

I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense.
 
When you look up the definition of ‘feminism’, the #1 entry is some form of the following:

‘Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes’

‘: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes’

Doing anything that’s consistent with that definition doesn’t make one (or their actions) “not feminist anymore”. That’s a misconception.

Why do women get maternity leave and men do not?

Where do you live??  because men certainly DO get paternity leave here in Canada.  One of my students is currently ‘on leave’.

You’re not the only one, I keep doing double-takes when I read posts not by Hemant where it isn’t clearly announced that it’s written by a guest poster, but then things like stilettos and Catholic families are mentioned. The grey-on-grey text with the poster’s name isn’t exactly obvious.

The mental image was still great, though. I for one can’t wait for the day when that’s considered acceptable clothes for a male teacher. 😀

The US.

Silly arguments?Using ‘gay’ as an insult  hurts lgbt, using ‘retarded’ is degrading to the disabled. I can go on. Dick would also qualify. You definitely do need help seeing your privilege.

You and your smarter than thou attitude are why women don’t speak up in the atheist movement. It is shameful. Since you don’t identify as a feminist, how about you let us define what it means. There’s a difference between a dictionary definition and a definition. It doesn’t make the latter wrong because it doesn’t true up with the former.

That sounds logical at first glance, but it is a huge red herring.

The facts are, there are differences between the sexes, and not just physical differences. Yes, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is a fact.

To ignore this or play pretend or a semantic shell-game is an injustice for all.

I think part of the problem is that ‘feminism’ has grown to include many things, some questionable. 

Obviously, legal rights is a no brainer. Personal freedom is a no brainer.

However there are branches of feminism that are decidedly very very woo.

There are those who try use laws to coercively force their world view on others.  There are branches of feminism which would advocate laws which trample on free expression. There are feminists who proclaim ‘hands off my body’ when it comes to abortion, but are all for government criminalization of women who freely choose to use their bodies in porn or sex work.

Some feminists are obsessed with ideology over evolution. They choose to ignore the fact that we are mammals, and mammals, perhaps more than other groups, have significant behavioral specializations.

That unless you see exactly the same statistical outcome in employment choices, for example that there MUST be some male hierarchical plot causing it to be (ignoring the conclusion that, if men and women WERE actually identical, we would see matriarchal power structures as often as patriarchal ones).  They seem to want to ignore that so many years of evolution have tuned male and female survival and reproductive strategies, and behavioral components like aggression and social organization styles very differently. Evolution ‘rewards’ what has worked.

Equal rights is a damned good idea. Feminism often goes far beyond equal rights into questionable ideologies. And feminism sometimes behaves like religion, going beyond making sure the same law applies to all,  trying to use the coercive force of law to artificially enforce an ideological position, which is a place law does not belong.

Well, DUH.  I’m sure many religious beliefs and practices were invented expressly to subjugate women.  There are tie-ins to ancient agricultural practices and division of labor, too, but I’ll skip the anthropology lesson today.

It makes sense for women to be atheists, because our bodies, our freedom, and our education are so often the targets of religion.  Have you seen the frikkin’ news?  This isn’t a philosophical discussion for women; our health, employment, voting and property rights are continually under attack.
I overheard my Daughter (studying modeling & simulation) talking with girl friends, and they were debating which country would be best to emigrate to.

“significant behavioral specializations”   Most of which have been irrelevant for decades, all of which can be compensated for, and some of which are actually advantages. 

I’m 59, and I’ve been angry at patriarchy and religion since my early teens.  They are two assholes in one set of pants.   Men need to grasp one simple fact:  It really pisses people off to be treated as inferiors.

“Feminine beauty that is held in higher respect than the masculine beauty.”…. that’s female as an object, because men are the subject.  When women are valued more for their looks than any other attribute, that’s not an example of political progress.

One could say the same thing about atheists in the middle east, and many global south countries.

This!  I see a lot of people who basically say “well yeah, feminism addresses valid problems, but why should the atheist movement care so much?  What does it have to do with atheism?”  

I argue that the vast majority of the major feminist battles stem directly from religious ideals, and thus atheists should join those fights for the same reason we speak out against the spread of creationism in school, or in favor of separation of church and state: because they are strong examples of religious ideas being imposed on the public at large.It’s not just the right that commonly tries to curb women’s reproductive rights, be it birth control or abortion, it’s the religious right, and they use explicitly religious rhetoric to do it.  It’s not just conservatives that have been trying to legally enforce gender roles (through opposition to alternative sexual orientations/approaches), it’s evangelical conservatives.  Why should atheists care about feminist issues? Because many if not most of those issues ARE atheist issues. 

 No, he’s right, you’re wrong. Your argument was that ‘pussy’ is an insult because being a woman is considered bad. The exact same logic would suggest that ‘dick’ is an insult because being a man is considered bad.

That is patently absurd – your premise is simply wrong.

 @ axxegrrl Sorry but your point about how some feminist are aware of and address gender issues from more then one side. Does not change the point that as a whole the movement is very single perspective focused.
If this article is accurate in pointing out some blindness on these issues in the atheist/skeptic communities, than the broad brush point would apply more solidly in pointing out that the feminism movement is seriously marred by the far to narrow focus.
You say some are first exposed to issues of men being beaten in a women’s studies class.
The very fact that this was the first exposure to the issue shows the “privilege” the woman was speaking from. As she was not aware of such a huge issue before, while she almost certainly was aware of the issue of violence against women.
Why? Because domestic abuse is written about and discussed in the context of female victims 99% of the time. Go to any social service office with free brochures. Out of all of the “there is help available” brochures, if they are gendered (and they are about 90 percent of the time) they are exclusively written with the female as the victim terminology. The best one can hope for are a few that are gender neutral, ie “spouse” language.

Palaverer was arguing that gay men are shamed by society because they look like women instead of men. Does that mean that the men are being objectified under Palaverer’s view because they are being judged for their looks and aren’t allowed to dress like women? I think that again this is a simple case of homophobia and people are trying to increase the victimization by dragging the unrelated issue of sexism in there.

Now, I know that completely redefining words is popular in today’s culture

I understand you feel that the term ‘feminism’ is somehow inherently limited, but my point is that the actual definition of the word isn’t…….

and what i offered isn’t a ‘redefining’, it’s the definition that’s been used from dot.

It’s a ridiculous argument to say that we have no differences, or that our differences aren’t important.

Of course we’re different. I don’t know about anyone else, but I certainly haven’t suggested otherwise……

But the more important point is:  how should our differences affect how we treat each other?  And again, what good comes out of holding some idea of what “men are like, generally” when we can just react to each other and treat each other as indivduals?

 @axegrrl And the reason it has been a blind spot for society at large? SEXISM! But anti male sexism in this case, which argues for using inclusive terminology, so if one wishes to fight for equality for all gender classes etc feminism which is gendered terminology might not be a good word to connote that stance.

the only times I’ve really read discussion on the problems you’ve brought up -minimization of male victims of domestic violence (and rape, please don’t forget that), the draft, etc it’s been by feminists

And I see precisely same thing all the time…..too many times to count…..(not that it’s ‘only’ feminists who table these issues, but very often is)

So, whenever i hear someone say “feminists only care about women”, I automatically think:  ‘if that’s your conclucion, then you probably haven’t been paying very close attention’……or perhaps haven’t been exposed to discussions involving feminists to the same extent that i have…..because i’m a feminist, practically every female friend I have is a feminist (and most of my male friends, too) and none of them care ‘only’ about women.
 
I’ve seen far too many instances of feminists coming to the defense of men, on a variety of topics, to not bristle when the ‘feminists are only concerned about women’ line comes up.

This is why I don’t identify as feminist, even though I’ve been told, based on what I actually believe, that I should.

‘told that you should’.  Yikes. I don’t think anyone should be told what ‘personal label’ they ‘should’ take on for themselves.  That’s a personal decision.

it’s a sticky issue when it comes to ‘personal labels’ involving terms that also have objective ‘dictionary definitions’. Feminism AND atheism are both great examples. There are people who support and believe in “the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes” (the dictionary def of feminism) but who eschew that label for various reasons ~ often because the term has acquired some unpleasant ‘baggage’ along the way…..Would I say to such a person ‘you’re a feminist whether you like it or not’ ? No. Because the only person who can choose a ‘label’ to represent them is the person themselves. But would it be invalid to assess that person’s position and then say “that position fits the defintion of feminist” ? Absolutely not.

In response to the education topic:

Part of the reason why there’s so much focus on girls’ education is because there’s a long history of not letting girls go to school, an idea that is even pushed by some religious groups to this day.

Still, I tend to agree that improving education should help everyone, not only one group. I think feminism has gotten this undeserved reputation for not caring about education for boys due to the fact that so many of the suggestions for improving education for boys include gender discrimination, like sex segregated schools, rather than actually addressing the problem of bad education. So, of course, many groups are going to be against gender segregation, since it’s separate and unequal, and they unfairly get a reputation for not caring about boys’ education when they’re actually opposing a bad suggestion that’s not really a solution.

http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/sex-segregated-schools-separate-and-unequal 

http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/single-sex-education-will-not-save-minority-boys 

That isn’t true for many -isms. Those who support second amendment rights are refered to as ‘gun nuts’ by their opponents. Environmentalists are refered to as ‘tree huggers’ by their opponents. Whether or not you think this kind of activity is good, the fact is that it allows opponents to take the middle ground which wouldn’t be possible if they just criticized “gun owner’s rights” or “environmentalists”.

Why can’t all of the issues be worked on at the same time?

That really wasn’t the issue I was talking about. You know how being “forward” and being “agressive” both refer to the same kinds of activity but just put in a more positive or negative light? The terms “gun nut” or “tree hugger” exist to allow opponents to take the middle ground without being forced to take the opposite extreme position. But the word ‘feminism’ means different things to different people and it is hard to tell what part of the spectrum people are supporting or opposing.

Well said.

At least you have the stones, or ovaries to just show your feelings. I liked this as a result.

Yeah, I bet you are a real bug at cocktail parties….

 Are you thinking that you and I disagree?  If so, where?
 
Mostly, I agree with you to treat each person individually, and try to self-monitor where my biases try to arise (since we all have biases).  However, I also do not try to dismiss part of their identity either.  I would never ask a person of color to be color-blind, because to be a person of color is part of their experience.  Same with someone who is a male, or female, homosexual, christian, etc.   To ask to be allowed to dismiss that part of their identity is another way of denying their experience or asking to have it all on your terms.  “You can’t be different than me and still have value, so you better be a blank if you want to try to start at having an even playing field with me.”
 
What we have been talking about is how the biases or prejudices have come about.  So while you treat each individually, you don’t throw away all the things about their makeup.  Historically, the standards of measurement and performance for the military was based upon the male average, and gear was also developed for the male, and when women were allowed to enter, then they had to fit the male standards.  On average, yes the standards should be different for women than men.  Does not mean that only one can serve.  Does not mean that only one is fit for battle or can’t take the pain of battle- which is where I was going with the pain threshold statement, since it wasn’t self-evident.  And, brute force and brawn is not the only valuable resource or tactic in the military, to carry this example out ad nauseum.

 Me as well.   Where did you guys get that we were saying otherwise?

So… when you are a feminist, you can see the invisible aura of privilege around the evil menz.

What a crock of shit. Boy has this site gone down hill.

Well, being that we’re running out of usable space in this thread (stupid comment system) and you’re just stuck in loop here, I’ll take your half-admission that I have a valid point and be satisfied with it. Best I can hope for really.

Now that there’s an agreement that there is an issue here, I suggest you stop trying to wiggle out of it and do something constructive with it instead.

Those who support second amendment rights are refered to as ‘gun nuts’ by their opponents.

And as ‘patriots’ by those who are on a different point of the political spectrum.

Environmentalists are refered to as ‘tree huggers’ by their opponents.

And simulatenously, they’re characterized as principled, responsible citizens by others.

And women who merely support/endorse equality between the sexes are sometimes to as ‘feminazis’ by their opponents.

This type of purposely dismissive labelling happens all the time, especially when the topic is politicial…..

As you yourself said a post or two above:

‘people automatically assume that the word ____ always refers to one or the other, depending on where they fit on the political spectrum.’
There are nutso members in almost every group and intelligent, reasonable members in almost every group…..the issue of ‘who’s the ‘true’ representative’ can and does exist in almost every group in existence.

yeah, not so much.
http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

Baby vs. Kidney stone isn’t really a good comparison. It’s almost like you’ve forgotten that women also have urethra’s. I’ve even heard some women say that passing a stone hurts even worse than giving birth does. Something about shoving a rock twice the size of a tube meant for carrying a liquid should understandably cause any person some serious pain.

Yes the photo has been used to argue several different viewpoints including Christians don’t care about women or see them as less than Men. PEOPLE! There were two different panels. How many of you have seen the picture of the second panel that included women as well as men? Probably not very many eh? 

The media only tells you what they want you to see and think. Great job drinking the kool-aid though. Here’s the address of a picture taken during the 2nd panel hearing.

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/oversight/6888108467/

You are making a gender essentialist argument, and just FYI its nonsense and is the main excuse  to justify discrimination . So what are this differences between men and women exactly? 
Let me help you out…
 “men are stronger than women” – some women are stronger than some men, so how is the average important in any way?
“women have vaginas, uteruses, etc” – not all women have uteruses, not all women menstruate, not all women have breasts. What about intersex people? Trans people? Do they get othered to some third gender because they don’t fit your idea of what a man or woman is, regardless of how they themselves identify?

Men and women are not opposites, masculinity and femininity are not mutually exclusive. 

See also Feminism 101 FAQ: But men and women are born different! Isn’t that obvious?
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/faq-but-men-and-women-are-born-different-isnt-that-obvious/ 

there is far more variation among the group of all men and among the group of all women than there is on average between individuals of “opposite” sex. 

Honestly these posts on feminism are the main reason I still come here, so thanks. In general the atheist movement basically seems to ignore women’s issues and I have no interest in participating in a movement that doesn’t address (or flat out belittles) my concerns. The oppression I face as a woman is much greater and more pervasive than any oppression I face for being an atheist. So I have chosen to get involved in other groups that do have an intersectional analyses. Anarchist groups are mostly white dudes too, but at least they are willing to educate themselves, challenge their privilege, accept criticism, and fight ALL sorts of oppression (economic, sexist, racist) instead of just their own. 

I’ve always liked

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is:  I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.

        –Rebecca West (1913)

1)On defining ‘feminism’ — I still find your definition lacking one vital component.  A good definition should include these three elements, at least implicitly: A) no one should be disadvantaged because of gender, B) women are disadvantaged because of their gender C) feminists work to end disadvantage due to gender.  The first two describe sexism, the third describes the end of sexism.  Feminism is about the end of sexism.  Defining sexism is really helpful for that purpose, but without talking in some way about the end of sexism you fall short of defining feminism.

2) I must confess my first thought on reading your part 2 is that you must not like epistemology, metaphysics, or cultural relativity much either.  My second thought is that I intended to defend postmodernism and somehow ended up in the position of defending postmodernistic. I stand by my definition of postmodernism as deconstructive rhetoric and not unbridled relativism I’m not alone.  But I do acknowledge that often people that believe in extreme relativism claim postmodernism, and I  think that makes “postmodernistic” is a fair term to use to describe it.

Do I think postmodernisticly?  I cringe to admit I think are some things that are relativist, because as Charnon so bluntly points out scientists assume that I reject reality entirely and stop listening to what I have to say.  I believe that there are other methods of knowledge production other than science that are valid, like history (non-repeatable) or art (not objective). I believe in the (weak) Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language guides and shapes (but does not determine) what we think about.   I think that because knowledge is produced by people it’s always reality + culture, and sometimes that culture is has a negligible effect (like gravity) or important (like race theory).  I also think that scientific truth is based on logically coherent theories backed by data, and some theories are so well supported (gravity, evolution) you can call them true.

I grant, of course, that privileged white male colonizers have often appealed to what they believed to be truths in order to oppress other people. But the problem is not that they were claiming that truth existed–it was that they were claiming that those propositions were truths. Right?

Right.
I think really the biggest divide that I have between anti-postmodernistics and my worldview as I don’t think it’s as easy or (or even completely possible) to be unbiased, because your culture is so engrained in you that its impact seems completely natural to you. Or I think there are many rather interesting theories that compete for the “Truth”, and sometimes its hard to chose between them.  However, I don’t think the next logical step is to declare “Everything is equally true–there is no Truth!!” I just tend to have a healthy skepticism for things that are declared universal perhaps prematurely, like studies on western educated industrialized rich democratic (WEIRD)  students that are supposed to describe all of humanity, not reality as a whole ala the man who controls the universe in the Hitchhiker’s Guide series.

Warning: when you say “postmodernism” to a scientist, such as myself, their first instinct will be to ignore anything you say. 
That’s why when I’m talking to scientists I usually lead with my interest in phrenology, crystals and lamarckian evolution, so I can get some respect.  (I’m kidding.  I hope that it would be obvious, but I’m half afraid that you would take me seriously.)the students I’ve had in my history/philosophy of science class who come from “postmodern” backgrounds … are wont to claim science is a result of the patriarchy or European hegemony or something. Which I really hope isn’t a standard thing they teach over in those postmodern departments, because it’s complete nonsense
Well, I guess it would depend on the professor.  I think really its the privileging scientific knowledge above all else that has caused some problems.  Especially when not everyone could get scientific training, and scientists put credence to claims that are sexist, racist etc.  I don’t think we should stop science or that ending science will help stop patriarchy.   Students tend to drink too deeply of the departmental kool-aid, in my opinion.  

PS.  I think it’s interesting that Sokal it was perceived as a knock against postmodernism and such and not against the dangers of forgoing peer review, but when Philip Davis’s fake article gets accepted to a peer reviewed science magazine,the controversy is on the ethics of open access journals.  

 It means that women marry up, men marry down. Many female nurses marry male doctors. I wonder what sorts of men female doctors marry. I bet it’s not dock workers.

Uh oh I think Rebecca just outed herself as a sexist individual. She does not even accept that men can even in theory be treated in a sexist manner, that would in her words “make it (sexism) nonsensical”.
The word itself in Rebecca’s view can only refer to women suffering from being treated through the paradigm of their of their biological gender.
Rebecca please look in the mirror and try to reconcile this blind and sexist attitude with being a rational individual. 
Remember even if it is true (as it certainly was historically, and is currently in much of the world) that sexist attitudes mostly disadvantage women, it would not mean that sexism does not occur against men in individual cases, and for you to maintain: “Anti-sexist does not mean gender neutral.   That would mean that sexism applied to both women and men;” is bold faced sexism.
 You then try to make sexism about some statistical average, that it requires a higher statistical risk for sexism to occur.
What if someone lived in a very non homophobic area, which actually had such a significant number of gay people that they were statistically more likely to benefit socially from their sexuality.
Would that mean that since they suffer no statistical disadvantage they cannot by definition be a victim of homophobia? Please think things through. Thank you.

Achron, I think you should try listening to what actual feminists say the word means instead of finding definitions from over a century ago. Isn’t that what religious people do to us when they try to define what atheist believe?

sorry for the wall of text. I thought I had formatted it.

The premise is not wrong. Charon is correct, the term “dick” is an insult to men and should be avoided. However, men are already in a position of privilege so the term is not as insulting. It’s like a white person being called “cracker,” it doesn’t hurt as much because the word is not attached to centuries of abuse leveled at that person’s race.

Damn, it should read: (more subtle than out in the open, but the* implications were clear)

MOAR editing

While I wouldn’t consider myself a postmodernist feminist, I really appreciate your explanation, and a lot of what you addressed resonates with how I’ve come to understand the issues surrounding gender expression/roles and other binaries in society. I think I might read more about this, maybe I just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what postmodernist feminists actually say. 🙂

The reason it uses the term “women” instead of the gender neutral term “individuals” is because it is a common misconception that feminists only want to benefit women, therefore, this definition is addressing that concern. At least, that’s how I read it.

In this culture (by that I mean Western/American) women are more negatively affected by sexism than men are, so yes, she’s correct in saying it’s absurd to apply it to both genders (basically, if you fix the sexism against the one, the few negative consequences against the other would go away). The opposite would be true in any culture that is inherently sexist toward men (the godless bitches had an example of one in India that they did a show on).

Uh oh I think Rebecca just outed herself as a sexist individual. Why are you talking about me in the third person?  Did you just whisper an aside to the audience, like a character in a Shakespearean play? 

biological gender
actually, it’s biology = sex, culture = gender.

 then try to make sexism about.. Ok, alconnolly, what is sexism? 

What if someone lived in a very non homophobic area, ..
Like in contemporary Haight-Ashbury or like Ancient Greece 7th century BCE?   

Alconnolly, you’re being very patronizing and rude.  On the off chance that you’re not trolling me I’d be glad to reply if you can be civil while answering my questions.  Thank you.

The sad thing is that on issues unrelated to feminism xe’s actually able to contribute to the conversation (and sometimes is really funny).

Again, I love your responses and conversations. I wish I could explain my thoughts as well as you explain yours.

One thing, IRT feminist straw-men, I’ve noticed is that the typical stereo-type or straw-man of a feminist is the worst possible one. I can understand somebody not familiar with the movement to misunderstand the exact definition, but the fact that they go for the absolute worst interpretation of what feminism means belies a deeper attitude that person holds (who probably doesn’t even know it).

When somebody tells me they are Muslim, I don’t immediately think they are a terrorist or that they hate women. When somebody tells me they are a Christian, I don’t immediately think they are a young-earth creationist/right-winger set to destroy religious freedom. But for some reason, when I tell people I’m a feminist they immediately think I’m some sort of man-hater.

The fact that people immediately go to the worst possible interpretation of that word shows how they don’t really have an interest in learning about the subject, heard one man-hating feminist (or a man-hating straw-feminist characterization) and decided that’s all they needed to know. (It works the same when I tell people I’m an atheist, and they immediately think I eat babies).

That’s why when people use the excuse that “it’s ill-defined within the feminist movement,” I have to wonder why they went with the most offensive interpretation rather than the most reasonable.

Your post is patently ridiculous. I’m just hoping that it’s a result of poe’s law.

Amyc, you have made me day!

 This is such a strawman. Who in the last few centuries has gone around saying that women aren’t human? On the other hand, the most devastating insult feminists can throw at a man is to call him an MRA – apparently it’s an unthinkable idea that men have rights.

Again you are doing it wrong.  Penis starts with “P” and therefore goes with “P”rivilege, whereas vagina starts with “V” and goes with victim.   Therefore it is impossible for anyone with a penis to be a victim.  Simple as that.   It doesn’t actually matter what the words mean or the actual reality of any individuals situation.   Paris Hilton is a victim because she has a vag, and that gay guy who just got beat down by a bunch of lesbians was privileged to get that beating.

Formerly Not Guilty  wrote:”As a feminist I can assure you that we work to eliminate all forms of discrimination. Our focus may be inequality of women but that encompasses poverty, race, pregnancy rights, and yes, transgendered rights. I don’t appreciate being told what my movement does or doesn’t do; it’s insulting.”THAT is the very essence of dogma:  I will tell you what the truth is in regards to my particular belief system and how it IS or SHOULD BE defined.  I know best and I know all about the topic of gender so can’t tell me one thing- because I, know-it-allTHIS is exactly what a skeptic is expected to refute and fight for a scientific understanding and prescription. FEMINISM IS NOT that- it is not a scientific approach to gender/social relations.    A skeptic needs only social science- a careful study of sociology/social psychology/behavioural econ. Not feminism.

What a laughable argument.

I feel like we’re not on the same page  here and it’s causing us to talk past each  other.
I’m getting the same feeling. But I thank you for the good grace with which you’ve responded to this… ?confusion?.

there’s 34.2 million Americans who  claim no religion, and of those 1.6
million of  those claim to be atheist.  Maybe atheists  don’t like joining
NPOs?
Whereas there are approximately 156million women in the United States. Looking at population numbers as opposed to organisational membership doesn’t change the fact that feminists wield a lot more power, both real (presently active feminists and secularists) and potential (total population of women and atheists). I’m not seeing the sort of shortage of resources that would necessitate petitioning other causes for assistance, no matter how great the common ground.

Ok, well then if you take it to that  extreme, atheism as just not
believing in  gods/supernatural/etc, than no, there is no  innate morality
or community in  atheism.
Morality, no. (And don’t get me started on Sam Harris.) But community, certainly. As with any community, there will be a natural rallying cry for issues that affect the interests of that community; for example teaching of creation in schools. There will be other issues that affect certain members of the community more than others; the world trade center cross for example drew strongly varying reactions from atheists. Finally, there are issues that while affecting many members of the community, have nothing to do with the defining elements of that community; feminism, I suggest, is one of these issues. This is not to say that it is not a worthy cause, only that it is no more an “atheist issue” than any other worthy cause.

I have an idea of why I think atheists should mobilize and what constitutes an atheist issue, but what about you? I’m not sure why women’s rights are so far out of the norm.
I nearly responded to these sentences separately, but I feel that for you they’re closely wedded and I’m trying to get a handle on why that is, so forgive me if I end up misinterpreting you. Firstly, I don’t believe that women’s rights are in any way “outside the norm”. I think that they’re important both for reasons of justice and fairness, but also because it seems to me that society flourishes better when women are valued. I also believe that men have a part to play in this. The distinction that I’ve been trying to make is that I don’t believe that someone’s irreligion should change the way they respond to the rallying cry of feminism, for good or for ill. This seems to be where we’re missing each other. You seem to see atheism as something “more”, but I’m not clear on what or why that is. You seem to be equating atheism with progressive morality and I’m not sure that’s justified.

People don’t have to say, or even believe, that women aren’t human to treat them as if they are less human than men.  Look at how women are treated in parts of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.  Things certainly aren’t that bad in the west (no female circumcision, burqas, etc.), LESS BAD is not the same as NONE BAD.  

While I can see how the above post could be construed as a little bit of a strawman, even more of a strawman is your assertion that “the most devastating insult feminists can throw at a man is to call him an MRA,” since no one here is doing that yet you lump feminists together as people who do do that.  That some feminists might also be jerks or idiots does not necessarily demonstrate that feminism itself is idiocy.

Because being associated with gays is bad apparently?  I’m not seeing why this is such a bad thing.  Are gay people such a terrible group that association with them is seen as a negative to you?  Or is this more the idea of being labeled a Conservative when you’re a Liberal?  Or being called a woman when you’re obviously a man?

I will readily admit that there is a value judgement there with some, possibly most people, but the idea that you simply don’t want a label applied to you can easily be value-neutral and I’m responding to what seemed to be your assumption that anyone who took offense to being labeled “gay” when they weren’t was homophobic.

I’m not implying that being gay is bad or terrible, just that people can be justifiably perturbed when they are mislabeled.

I do think that it is also worth noting that there are still places where being labeled the “wrong” thing creates an actual, real danger.  It could be that someone doesn’t want the label applied to them not because they disagree with the group, but because they don’t want to get jumped or they don’t have the luxury of getting involved in a cause.

Thank you for arguing with me so long.
Thank you. It’s been an interesting discussion. I’ve followed your lead with the footnoting by the way. 🙂

I’m still not sure what you mean by asking for assistance from atheism.
This is what I mean: “[Atheists should see the] lack of women in positions of economic or intellectual power, the lack
of representation in government, the pay gap that still very much
exists, and the increased risk of sexual violence that women face. […] So, how about it, atheists? We can see religious privilege, and we really, really like to point it out, but can’t we take a look a gender
privilege as  well?” I read this as a call for atheists to take on the broader feminist agenda as well as a suggestion that doing so is the “atheistic” thing to do.

I want the atheist community to be feminist in two ways.  The first is concerning eliminating sexism within the atheist community, make sure that the community itself is friendly to women. [..] Women should be given equal chances to be leaders or speakers. Any
concerns that would stop women from full participation should be able to be aired and if not solved, at least taken seriously.
Agreed, both in terms of the sentiment and its appropriateness as an “atheist issue”

If it would be an atheist issue with only males affected, than it should also be an atheist issue if it only females were affected.
I see where you’re going with this and I agree. And I think that the example given by Amanda is a good one in this regard. Was the religious dominance at the oversight committee an outrageous display of religious privilege? Absolutely! And I expect that most atheists would consider this to be a clear atheist issue. But look at how Amanda described it: “what a perfect, visual example of the patriarchy.” She had a perfect piece of red meat to set off an atheistic feeding frenzy and what does she do? She rails against the patriarchy.(*) I think that bringing feminism into these issues is unhelpful and unnecessary on atheist boards. Most people aren’t there to talk about feminism, even if they happily do so elsewhere. A men-only group is not an atheist issue. A clergy-only group is. If there’s an atheist issue that needs the attention of atheists, why not describe it in those terms?

I think that although there are many great men and women atheists, it is still somewhat andocentric and misogynistic.  I do not think it is worse than the world in general, but if I’m trying to make the world in general better, than I should also include atheists. 
From reading your posts and the original article, it seems to be that you and Amanda are taking a slightly different approach to incorporating feminism and atheism. For what it’s worth, I support your approach.

Cheers,

Paul

(*)As an aside, I believe that by casting the patriarchy as the issue, Amanda is actually mischaracterising what was going on. I mean, if they were all nuns, would that have improved anything?