A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
Reminds me of a Family Guy episode-” Did I mention that the tank is a tank?” “SOLD!”
It seems the less people know,the more the are buying in to it.
Yup. I have housemates that buy into New Age woo.
Just a few hours ago, I bumped into a banner ad for “Quantum Jumping” for the first time. Clearly, my alternate selves on other quantum frequencies are trying to tell me something!
lol
Uh, interesting that the New Age huckster is a woman of color…
… and that’s interesting how exactly?
Yeah, I’m not getting how that’s in any way relevant? Are you saying that no negative character should ever be portrayed as black? That all stupid / bad / deluded people are by necessity white? Or that all stupid / bad / deluded people should be portrayed as white?
I’m saying that it plays into stereotypes, and that you might want to be careful of that considering how alienating the atheist movement already is to women and people of color.
Yes, and in case you missed it: You’re wrong. I would LOVE to hear you justify your view that “the atheist movement already is [alienating] to women and people of color”. Honestly, I have no reason to think that opinion is anything other than complete crap, but feel free to prove me wrong.
And by the way: This comment is not alienating to women just because it challenges one individual woman. Just in case you go for that straw-man.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/09/race-sex-atheism.html
I’m sorry, but with respect to Greta (who I enjoy reading), the first part of that entry was made up of: “We accused the atheist blogosphere of being sexist, racist xenophobes, and they reacted angrily to the accusation – therefore they’re sexist, racist xenophobes”. I’m sure I don’t have to go into the logical fallacy of that, but suffice to say it’s a nonsense argument. The rest of the blog post is, in the nature of a blog post, an opinion piece. What it does not contain is any actual evidence; certainly it doesn’t in any way make a convincing case that the absence of women and people of colour in visible positions in “the atheist movement”* is the fault of white men as opposed to being down to women and people of colour themselves. I assume Greta doesn’t read Hemant and for some reason doesn’t consider herself in this category, but I digress.
Straw poll for women and people of colour: Do you feel alienated by other atheists as a demographic?
* “The atheist movement” – a term I have problems accepting since it implies some degree of central organisation that doesn’t exist in my experience.
I just realised that Hemant and Greta are fund-raising for Camp Quest together. That kind of implies she’s aware of him.
“We accused the atheist blogosphere of being sexist, racist xenophobes, and they reacted angrily to the accusation – therefore they’re sexist, racist xenophobes”
That’s the bit I found funny … what sort of argument is that?
You may want to click on the links in that piece.
Just sayin.
Honey I think its just adorable the way you just hand-waive us to an article and expect us to mine it for usable arguments while you present none of your own. There’s no need for you to sully your dainty hands by dashing off a few relevant points from Gretta’s article. Just let us men do all the work, that’s what we’re here for after all.
Don’t let these misogoynistc bigoted A Holes get you down. I’ll take care of you baby.
Yes, because I really want to waste my time engaging with people who call me ‘honey,’ ‘adorable,’ and ‘baby’ when I point out the sexism in the atheist movement.
BWAAAHAHAAHAHA!! (you might want to get your snark/irony/sarcasm detector looked at, it’s utterly broken)
Yet here you are wasting your time responding and taking offense to my obvious joke instead of the point I was making or of the others who’ve responded more politely and with less levity.
Or someone is feeling sorry for herself and chooses not to acknowledge the snark/irony/sarcasm so her sadface and reverie of self-pity won’t be interrupted.
That or a certain person is attempting to goad a certain community into giving her material for a wannabe-Greta blog post. Though in fact I’m sure LoriA is far too busy challenging norms as a “radical feminist” porn actress / model (how very empowering it must be to exploit her sexuality in order to provide us evil men with whacking material) to engage in such silly games.
Yeah, congratulations. Several of you proved my point for me.
LOL! LoriA, there are several women and at least two people of colour ripping chunks out of you here – the fact that you don’t know who they are is more than enough for me to say that your point is quite adequately DISproven.
And once again: The fact that we’re attacking YOU does not mean that we’re attacking all women. YOU stomped in with a bee in your bonnet and starting flailing, YOU earned some scorn. But YOU do not represent all women. Nor even all radical feminist porn actresses.
“Yeah, congratulations. Several of you proved my point for me.”
Oh please, declaring victory and running away is so last year …
@LoriA
“Yes, because I really want to waste my time engaging with people who call me ‘honey,’ ‘adorable,’ and ‘baby’”
Can I enquire what the A stands for in LoriA?
Apparently it stands for “adorable”. Her blog isn’t great reading, but there’s some interesting porn shots of Lori being all “rad-fem”. And naked. Because being in porn just screams feminism, you know.
@Custy
I’ve read a bit of the her blog and it comes across as someone who desperately wants to be considered different and an intelectual but just doesn’t have the abilities to do either* This is re-enforced but the posts here …
The atheists movement alienates non-whites and women; so why is that; because I read it on a web-site but don’t ask me to explain why it’s true as I don’t understand it but it is true. I mean really what sort of crap is this?
*I’m sure this will be used to “prove” how right she was with her original point.
We shouldn’t rip on her too much. She probably just came in with a predisposition that atheist = sexist. We should politely try to convince her otherwise, i’ll start:
@LoriA
We can say, for example, that ‘the Western Example Church condones homophobia’ because it preaches a specific set of values that members are encouraged, if not obliged, to follow. Atheism is not like that. Firstly because it is not a single organisation. It is not even a group of like minded individuals, it is simply a philosophical point that some people believe, with a multitude of variants. I cannot claim to have been in any community long enough to make any definite comment on sexist persuasions, but from what I have seen personally, atheists tend to be less sexist than their religious counterparts. Most religions enforce some kind of female submission, weather that is being the property of your husband, forbidden from participating in male discussions, being killed if you have sex outside of marriage, being forced to wear certain clothing, and many more. Since atheists tend to reject these values, and I have seen many atheist blog posts condemning them, it is logical to assume that the general atheist community is pro female liberation.
“Everything has its limits. You cannot educate iron-ore into gold.” – Mark Twain
@Custador True, but we can damned well try!
Straw poll for women and people of colour: Do you feel alienated by other atheists as a demographic?
I’m a disabled woman, and no. I don’t feel alienated by atheists at all. I’m still not sure where I am, religiously, probably “apathetic agnosticism”.
@WMDKitty
Sure the front of your blog and it reminded my of this …
Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip, and after finishing their dinner they retire for the night, and go to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend. “Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.” “I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes” exclaims Watson. “And what do you deduce from that?” Watson ponders for a minute. “Well, astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. What does it tell you, Holmes?” “Watson, you idiot!” he exclaims, “Somebody’s stolen our tent!”
“Sure”… erm “Saw” … doh!
Epic!
@Jabster — Dude, that’s hilarious! I just wish I could remember the whole thing, ‘cuz my uncle would love it.
Nope, don’t feel that atheism is a white, male movement. People who question everything, tend to question EVERYTHING, sexism/misogyny included.
Guess why they stopped letting me go to Sunday School…
Yup. Questions.
You complain about sterotyping and then post a link to that – LOL
If you’re a regular reader of SMBC (the depicted comic) you’ll notice that the comic author blends genders and skin colors indiscriminately. Your concern is noted, but you’re being oversensitive. This is not a case of stereotyping, neither does it have anything to do with atheists alienating anyone.
I am not a regular reader. If that’s the case, then I’m probably wrong.
Everyone else’s arguments, however, are unconvincing.
Nobody else has made an argument. In fact, neither have you. You’ve made an assertion, and we’ve called you on it.
What arguments would those be … I must have missed them?
I found your race and gender analysis of the cartoon to be incomplete. For example, the passive-receptacle character in the cartoon (which is, memetically, a female and/or color position) is occupied by the white male. If the colors and genders of the cartoon characters were purposeful (which we know it isn’t), the embedded message is of a savvy black woman who hoodwinks the benighted idiotic white guy, for profit no less.
In your experience with identity studies, which is the more privileged, more powerful role: the person who fools, or the person who is fooled?
Actually, if both of them were women or people of color, it would be less problematic. As is, the ‘huckster’ character lines up well with the meme that minorities are out to get the white man.
Actually, if both of them were women or people of color, it would be less problematic. As is, the ‘huckster’ character lines up well with the meme that minorities are out to get the white man.
See, this is how identity analysis gets all slippery.
You claim that if they were both members of disempowered groups that somehow that would make it more OK, but I could say that it would instead be an indication of the author’s contempt for both groups (since the joke of the piece is mostly on the recipient of the “philosophy”, but the philosophy itself is presented as vacuous, ergo the one who holds it to begin with is either a fool or a charlatan). I could even go all Marxian and argue that such a presentation would reinforce the superstructural manifestations of underlying class dynamics, specifically how the powerful use coordinated ideas (religion, philosophy) to undermine the underclasses and turn them against one another.
On the flip-side, if both characters were white men, we have serious problems of exclusion and invisibility. If the female/minority is the only such character and is in the passive position in the conversation, that’s a straightforward expression of white/male dominance. These two possible arrangements are, I would think, the *most* problematic. I personally think that the least problematic arrangement is the one actually presented in the cartoon. As you say, there is a problem with the whole “female/minority undermining the white male through deceit and trickery” angle, but it is the only one that grants the female/minority character power of any sort, and in juxtaposition with a white male character looks good all around. There is plenty of social space in most cultures for a trickster character to be afforded respect and autonomy (a ‘Loki/Coyote archetype’), while much less for one who is the victim of such a deceit.
Ultimate point is, it is impossible to create texts that are unproblematic from an identity analysis lens. When it comes to wider attitudes in the “community”, atheists are at a disadvantage from most other groupings (given away by the scare quotes around community, there) that it is at best more inchoate than the least organized or identifiable social grouping it might be compared to (except, perhaps, agnostics, but they aren’t real people anyway). As such, the misogyny, racism, homophobia et al. that one might find in any collection or grouping of atheists is likely to be a reflection (insofar as it exists) of unrelated social narratives, and not so much having to do with the material fact that they are atheists.
Your concept of how narratives of oppression operate is way off. And no one ever said that atheists are racist and sexist *because* they’re atheists.
LoriA, ‘Nope is a far more skilled and studied sociologist than you. That much is very, very plain. You’re just trolling now.
You also missed the fact that his jumper and eye brows identify him as middle class …
A jumper in American English is a dress for little girls.
http://www.carters.com/oshkoshbgosh/Blue-Purple-Plaid-Jumper/V_434-554,default,pd.html?dwvar_V__434-554_color=Plaid&start=3&navid=oshkosh-search
Yes well “American English” says it all, as it not English :-)
I’m an American, and I agree with Jabster. We’ve thoroughly mutilated the language.
mutilated, perfected, it’s a matter of perspective.
Ever seen Wheel of Fortune? Vowels cost money. Think of what we save by cutting out all those extraneous u’s and a’s.
I think requiring that characters in a comic fit your assumptions of gender/race equality, particularly when that is irrelevant to the content of the comic, is indicative of some pathology of your own, not of the artist. Please note the response from Elemenope for more clarification.
As Custy has already said, you really need to back up you statement “considering how alienating the atheist movement already is to women and people of color”. Honestly what you just said sounds just like the sterotyping that you’re implying there is.
1. There’s a movement? I totally missed the boat on that one. Am I supposed to register, pay some dues, get a card? If any of the meetings are early in the morning, or while I’m at work, or after work when I’m relaxing at home, I’m out. And you should know that I will not sell any t-shirts or raffle tickets. Don’t think I can’t make my phone go off. You don’t know if I’m really on call or not.
2. The best way to join the white boy table is to pull up a chair, jump into the conversation, and act like you belong there. Can’t say as this method has back-fired yet, and I’ve been using it since childhood. Standing next to the table and making remarks about being ignored earns you the defensive scorn you’ve just witnessed.
And this is it. Because the truth of it is, we’re not trying to exclude anybody, even when there happen to be more of us around than everybody else. If you pull up a pew and join the conversation, nobody will even notice your race or gender unless you point it out. On the other hand, if you scream that we’re all bigots because there are more of us around, we’ll (quite rightly) tell you to go fuck yourself. Swings and roundabouts :-)
Oh man. Next you’re going to tell me society as a whole isn’t racist or sexist either.
Excuse me, but how is that straw-man in any way relevant?
“Next you’re going to tell me society as a whole isn’t racist or sexist either.”
… but you’re not – am I right. Only you and the people you know have risen above the rest of society. Just how arrogant a statement is that?
I generally stay out of “discussions” like this, but i just felt the need to drop my two cents in.
Often people looking to “empower” themselves simply have to find something to fight for even when no such battle exists. If you’re looking for a fight, you’ll most likely find one if you pick at it enough.
Walking into a place (be it a room, forum, laundrette, etc.) with a preconceived notion that everyone in there is in some way out to get you, or degrade/dismiss you is a horrid and amazingly cynical way to look at things. It reeks of generalized stereotyping, which, if i’m reading things the way they’re written, is the basis of the argument being presented in the first place-and just as wrong as assuming that just because of the circumstances of birth, one is predisposed to be a certain way, or react a certain way to certain things. In truth, are there racists/sexists prevalent in society? Yes, there are, but to assume that simply because you’ve met with a small-minded, bigoted view from some people doesn’t mean that you can simply lump everyone that meets your narrow view of what people are into an anger-inducing category before even trying to consider that the individual may be something other than what you believe.
I am from the south, i’ve not been to college and i work in a factory where i move boxes from one place to another all day. Does this mean that i’m a stupid, beer-swilling,Nascar watching, gun toting redneck? Some would assume that, sure, but they don’t know me from anyone else they meet on the street. Would you have been able to tell me where i was from, what my race is or what my views are without me revealing them to you? probably not.To simply put me into a category that i’ve been put into quite a bit before people actually get to know me is simply the same kind of narrow-mindedness that you are touting to inflame your “grrrrrrrl power” stance on how atheists are oppressing.
I can read into things as much as the next person, and i’m extremely open minded. I have no biases against women or those whose race differs from my own. I generally take people one by one as i can (obviously i can’;t get to know every single person i encounter personally, nor would i try) and give them the benefit of the doubt before i smack a big fat label on them. Treat me with respect and i will do the same for you.
Made me think of all the sciency things that could been put in place of “Quantum Mechanics” over the years. Electricity, magnetism, radiation, etc…
“Luminiferous aether” would be my favorite quack chocolate from the historical list. Or maybe “melancholic humour”.
Beer. I’ll buy it.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20061021.gif
I just wish there were more concern for other’s feelings here. If LoriA feels the way she does, maybe her experiences are what she is going on and we should try to understand what she means instead of villifying her and trying to make her appear foolish for her feeling the way she does. There are more important things than just solid arguments. Nobody likes a smartass, especially a non-caring one. Some people need to understand in their own way, but they may never understand if others make fun of them. The fact that LoriA produced a link to show her side may just mean that she thinks Greta gets her point across better, not for any reason other than that, isn’t that possible? I mean some people just have a better way with words than others, does that necessarily mean then that they have a better point?
“A person doesn’t have to be wise; he doesn’t have to know what he is talking about; he merely has to appear to the ignorant to know more than the person who does know what he is talking about.” from the book Nonsense by Robert J Gula page 17.
“The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.” “The world does not need another smart aleck.” also from the book.
Just sayin.’
“The fact that LoriA produced a link to show her side may just mean that she thinks Greta gets her point across better, not for any reason other than that, isn’t that possible?”
Yes it’s possible but the fact that she was incapable of even saying what the points were suggest that she saw the article and her logic was Greta says it’s true so it must be true.
Oh Raymond. Plenty of us were nice to her. I don’t think she’s smart enough to understand the argument. She can’t expect a lot of pity when she refuses to alter her stance after being presented with perfectly reasonable and logical evidence. Treating her different because she’s female is sexist.
I don’t think Raymond meant that. I think he meant that if there is a person in the midst of this forum who has difficulty explaining her/his position and uses someone else’s words to do so, it’s not a logical crime, per se. The person understands the argument, possibly, and just lacks confidence in her own words. While I agree LoriA has a chip on her shoulder, to beat her over the head with one’s arguments and logic can serve to dis-invite those hanging on the fringe who want to join the party but are intimidated. Honey, not vinegar, people. (Okay, that’s not a good analogy.)
Playing the “click this link to find my intelligent argument, or unbiased irrefutable facts” game is highly irritating – especially when the linked-to site/page is refuted and the person that linked the site has nothing to say but “check the link”. I’m sure you can understand how insanely irritating that can be.
I’m almost certain that someone that wants to post, and says something along the lines of, “i’m having a difficult time explaining my position, but here’goes!” would be received much better than a clickthislinker.
Honey, not troll-food, anon. (I like this analogy a little better)
Thanks, anon, You understood my point, oh, and I was not being sexist, oh, please. If the point was made by a man, which I have heard simiarly comments made by men, I would have said the same thing. When people kinda gang up on someone, the person will probably never be convinced that they may have a bias, due to trying to save face over so much overt hostility. People do learn at different rates, and making a point gently, and I may be wrong, is more important than being militant about it. It just seems that the more LoriA was attacked the more she became steadfast in her, possibly misguided, view.
And anon, you are right and really understood my point exactly, thank you. Honey not vinegar as you say. As in attracting more flies with?
No one likes to be on the receiving end of a not so well thought idea that really gets hammered logically, but then no one is perfect. We all have our blind spots.
I’m more than happy to be on the receiving end of any hammering from illogical statements/arguments I’ve made. I’m certain I’m not the only one.
The fact that I’m slut-shamed and called stupid for disagreeing speaks *for* me.
By the way, I’m an atheist.
Oh PLEASE! You weren’t slut shamed, nobody said that there’s anything wrong with being in porn – but the fact that you call yourself a “radical feminist” at the same time as you post pictures of yourself stripping naked from a skimpy school-girl outfit puts a huge question mark over your integrity. I’m not saying it’s impossible to be a “rad-fem” porn actress / model, but I am saying that you aren’t it. You also weren’t called stupid for disagreeing. In fact, did anybody call you stupid? I must have missed that one, but I’ll go ahead and say it: You’re stupid. You’re not stupid because you disagree, you’re stupid because you pitched up with a bunch of offensive preconceptions, about which you are wrong, and then decided that anybody who didn’t instantly agree with your stupid, asinine views must necessarily be racist, sexist and picking on you. That is why I think you’re stupid – because you keep on providing ample evidence that you’re stupid.
Did you read my fucking blog, asshole?
THIS is sexist, slut-shaming bullshit.
I’ve encountered so much racism and sexism in online atheist forums that when I saw this cartoon and thought it was a one-off, it raised questions. Instead of responding to my questions, you call me stupid and tell me I can’t be the kind of feminist I say I am because I’m also into kink. Fuck. you.
Cry more and keep telling me bullshit tastes like pumpkin pie, that’ll work.
“Slut Shaming” is that what you call it when you consider a persons stated goals with what they’ve written and after following their reasoning or lack of it, you tell them they’ve failed and back them up with examples?
They then reply with more mewling and fabricated claims of persecution topped off with a complete inability to back up any of the assertions they’ve made?
Then yeah we must be slut shaming.
LOL! You think I judge you because you’re into kink? You really don’t know me at all! You’re not a feminist FULL STOP, because a feminist wouldn’t exploit society’s dual personality over paedophilia or it’s pop-culture fuelled school-girl fetish by doing a strip-to-naked out of a school uniform and then posting explicit photos on the internet where, I think you’ll find, you’re basically getting laughed at by a bunch of dudes using you as whacking material, while you seem to think you’re being all empowered. Even IF you really have feminist ideology, as opposed to just claiming it in a defence mechanism against accusations over the pretty unsavoury memes that you’re propagating, you must necessarily be either incredibly stupid, incredibly thoughtless, or both. In short, yes I read your blog, and I found it to be as full of shit as you’ve amply demonstrated yourself to be here. Perhaps you think it makes a positive statement about womanhood to enable school-girl fetishists, but like I said, you may say that bullshit tastes like pumpkin pie, but I ain’t gonna bite it.
“LOL! You think I judge you because you’re into kink? You really don’t know me at all!”
Haha! Truer words were never spoken. I know way more about Custador’s sex life than I ought to! What was that Japanese tying-up thing that you were into, C?
LOL!
:P
Kinbaku Shibari :-p
From what I’ve read, you haven’t actually said anything. As mentioned above, it’s obvious that you have no opinions of your own, rather, you read something you liked and said “hey, look at what I think!”.
Completely irrelevant.
Atheism has nothing to do with you being a complete imbecile, nor does it have anything to do with your feminism/sexism/pornographical hangups.
**side note**
Setting yourself up to be slut-shamed is a marvelously troll-ish act. Well played.
Setting myself up for it.
Yeah, I was just asking for it.
And it is relevant that I’m an atheist, since people further up thread somehow assumed that I’m not.
You haven’t backed up a single assertion you’ve made.
You totally suck at this “Playing the Victim” game you’ve got going.
I don’t think anyone here begrudges your blog traffic. I took a look myself, but alas, I’m not impressed. You’re cute & all, but your pics aren’t very moving. And the “schoolgrrl” gallery does pretty much undermine your claims of being a “radical feminist.” Does “radical” mean you can shit all over the basic precepts of feminism? I did not know that.
Nearly every response to your initial post has taken you to task for your unsupported assumptions and lack of intellectual honesty, yet you continue to try and frame the debate as an attack on you as a woman. Nobody is arguing against you because they disagree, they argue because you still have not offered any support to your original post. Instead, you misinterpret people’s comments and claim that they’re “slut-shaming” you or calling you stupid.
Try showing that you’re not stupid by responding rationally, with evidence and self-consistent positions.
Oh, but thanks for all the blog traffic everyone. I mean, I kept trying not to engage here further, but y’all just keep coming over to visit me.
As if anyone cared enough about you to do anything but look at the pornographic photos of the girl making such intellectually vacuous posts.
You should really try to do something you’re good at. It’s obvious that writing, thinking for yourself, and posing/taking pictures aren’t your strong points.
Oh noes! People are looking at the pictures I posted specifically for that purpose!
Thanks for reinforcing my point yet again. Good to know I’m not even good at porn, let alone rational thought.
Will people be allowed to defend themselves on your blog, or will the comments for those here be disabled?
@ TQ: No, she’s pre-moderating comments. Quel suprise.
Thank you for the warm glow of being right about your cynical motives with your latest post. Hopefully some folks will follow the link, read the whole exchange and realise what a moron you are.
I wish Kodie’s internet was working so you could meet an actual feminist, since you clearly lack the capacity to distiguish between a feminist and a female misogynist.
Right, blog traffic. Since the content of your written contributions is so severely lacking.
If you tried to make a point at any time here, you miserably failed to mention how anything, or anyone, at any point, reinforced it.
Learning! You might be good at that! Maybe you should go back to school and learn about feminism, sexism, logic, rational thought, making a point, and arguing for that point.
I’d definitely look into going back to school, ‘cuz your contributions here don’t make a great case for anything but the ‘get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich’ meme. In other words, it’s women like you that propagate such thinking, while the women responding to you here tend to be the types that crush it.
Did you read LoriA’s latest blog post? Basically she’s claiming to be a world-destroying internetz deb8r, plus that she’ll stab / slash anybody who messes with her. Also, her “about me” page? Probably the most egotistical thing you’re ever likely to read. I recommend buffing her hit count if only to read that and have your jaw drop :-p
Wowww…. she has some serious issues.
So only the supportive comments are allowed?
There was so much stupidity in her post about being wrong on the internet that I just can’t help but think that her idea of quitting the internet, and life, might be the smart choice for her. I just hope she’s pro-choice and never reproduces.
I posted what I thought was not a negative comment on her blog and it never made it. And a non-negative response that I posted to a positive comment led to that positive comment also being removed. I guess she only wants a positive view shown (positive to her, that is). Rather like the fundagelical sites that drop (or worse, edit) comments they don’t like.
But you’re right – her About page is pretty jaw-dropping.
I did like one or two of the pics though.
Dude those photos? HUUUGE turn-off. Not sexy. Not kinky. They’re like a cold shower, except even more of a libido-killer.
…and she calls herself “sexy”?
Just thought you might like to see this. It’s a little experiment I tried.
This is a direct copy/paste email conversation with LoriA.
Me: I’d like to have an honest discussion about your viewpoints, and ask questions if I may. What I’m looking for is an open and honest respectful dialogue on both sides.
Lori-Fine. Go.
Me-Arighty.
Does the gender of a person ,in your opinion, automatically disqualify them from being able to understand the position of the other?
What would you do to help teach those who do have sexist suppositions the error of their thinking?
What sort of standards do you hold yourself to when it comes to gender respect?
Lori-You’re clearly unacquainted with feminism, and I don’t have time to waste educating you. Go read a book.
Me-I’m quite acquainted with the topic. I was just asking your opinions on the questions.
Note that none of the questions were asking you to explain any of the aspects of feminism, but rather YOUR individual opinions on the subject.
(No reply as of yet)
LoriA has anger issues, a severe attitude problem and hates men. She rationalises these negative character aspects by calling them “feminism”. By confronting her and asking her to tell you what a feminist view would be, you force her to realise that her viewpoint is not feminist – she’s actually a misogynist. Since she lacks both the will and the mental capacity to take that step, she instead claims that, despite being unemployed, she has no time to correct you. Simultaneously, she adopts a confrontational, accusatory tone to try to put you off of further discourse.
Excellent psychoanalysis – just wondering, how did you make the link to misogyny?
@Hamish Milne — I suspect she’s a self-loathing woman, and as an extension of that self-loathing, applies her hatred to ALL women, and justifies it by calling it “feminism”.
@Custador — I don’t mean to jump in, here, so by all means feel free to continue your dialogue. I’m just offering my $0.02.
Ah, I kind of see, though I personally wouldn’t call her self-loathing. To me she seems the opposite: exceptionally arrogant, thinking herself above the rest of society, always correct no matter the circumstances, and far too intelligent to answer the petty queries of lesser creatures.
Meh, what a waste of time. She might as well go to full blown sockpuppetry.
@ Hamish: Because she very clearly regards one gender (hers) to be superior to another (men).
@ Kitty: That’s why it’s called a forum :-)
@ Sunny: I guarantee you that she is sock-puppeting. Look at the “supportive” comments in comparison to her replies to them; the writing style of almost every comment is identical to LoriA’s.
Since LoriA has chosen to “deny [us] a platform” by pre-moderating replies to her blog and filtering us out, at the same time as she’s totally misrepresented the views, posts and discussion on this thread, I will block her if she comments here again.
Ah, I think you mean misandry. Misogyny is the hatred of women, that’s why I was confused :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
Aaaah, I didn’t know that there was a separate word for the same thing in reverse (if you see what I mean) :-p
@ TrickQuestion
That matches perfectly with my short experience on this thread. I was trying to lead into a subtle point about the dangers of overemphasizing identity analysis or treating one reading of a text, especially through such a lens, as dispositive (because social power relations, above all, are dynamic in nature; and the Hegelian master/slave dynamic that underwrites those relationships is dialectical in nature), and I didn’t get further than a dismissive “yer doin’ it wrong, g’bye” from her.
I did find one other of the conversations that she linked to to be interesting (the first one), where she was offending other self-described feminists with her dogmatic sex-positive and pro-pornography stances. When others pointed out that such a stance puts pressure on all women to be aesthetic sex objects (whether they want to be or not), she became very defensive and angry, as if the notion either never crossed her mind that her erotic actions could have impact on others (making her lecture to you about “go read a book about feminism” especially precious), or it had and she didn’t care. That would be an odd stance indeed for someone who purports to be concerned about the perpetuation of harmful narratives. And it’s not like there aren’t some brilliant defenses of sex-positive and pro-pornography feminism which address these concerns (Susie Bright, Gayle Rubin, Wendy McElroy all come to mind), they just didn’t seem to be on her radar screen.
‘Nope, I actually love your giant brain. In a purely platonic way, of course.
@ WMDKITTY:
Those voyeuristic faux vulnerability poses scattered about the first page of the blog had the same erotic impact as a plastic wrapped dildo in a vending machine.
@Custy
:-)
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-06-03/
She certainly baited us in a masterly fashion.
I post here a fair bit and I am a fairly rare ethnic minority in the atheist movement (while being the ethnic majority of note…) Atheist Indian (ex-hindu) much like Hemant.
Do you want to know the honest truth? Most of the homeopaths and alt. medicine hucksters who bankroll the vocal idiots like Mike Adams (the health ranger) or Dr. Mercola do their research out in India and China. Most of the homeopaths look brown. And this isn’t racism, this is a simple fact.
In India and in China they regard alt. med as equal to medicine. Infact irritatingly all medicine as “Western Medicine” and actually use that moniker to insult it (It’s foreign! What do dirty foreign people know about chinese people!)
It really annoys me when people see racism for no reason. What! Black people cannot be portrayed as charlatans? Maybe she is Indian! Why must you see a person with dark skin and automatically assume they are black? It could be a mexican or someone from south asia or a tamil or a australian aborigine.
Women and minorities are under-represented in atheists because women are only now coming through the education as scientists. During the 1960s women were expected to stay home (because those 1960s plates won’t wash themselves!) with a few breaking the chains of society to go have equal jobs and careers but the idea that women should be equal to men was entrenched in human mentality this period. These people had their kids in the 70s and 80s resulting in a surge of parents who thought girls were equal to boys and so encouraged them to go into science. This thought process was most seen in the 80s, 90s and 2000s. AKA now where we have people like Jen McCreight and other atheists coming out of the woodwork.
This is seen in biology where the gender ratios are roughly normal (50:50) but in chemistry and physics is still skewed towards men (but improving). This has caused an equal influx in the new generation of atheists. However the old guard still exist and are going strong (Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Condell) so skew the ratio of atheists back towards the men. Also these are famous atheists who aren’t going away any time soon to let the newer generation be heard.
Most of the newer female atheists are my age (I was born in 85), Most are born between 75 to 90 and this shows as they are now being heard in greater numbers. It’s not sexism, it’s more to do with demographics.
Blogs/conference attendance is problematic since it’s a self selecting sample. Conference happen, almost exclusively in north America or Europe and these are also the regions where internet access is most common. Since these parts of the world are majority white/christian it make sense that the majority of local atheists will be white/ex-christian. You make a good point about the generational element and if you look at more recent meetings (Lori’s link is from 2009) you can see that the lineups are more diverse as the organizers became more aware, due to voices like Greta Christina, Jen McCreight and others, of the existence of other interesting speakers beside the old guard of Dawkins et. al. There is also the point that while in the US you’re not likely to get killed for coming out as atheist it may still put your job at risk, especially if you’re not in a senior stable position. That’s why PZ Myers, who is a tenured professor, feel safe enough to be as confrontational as he want while Hemant, according to his blog, feel like he have to watch his steps in case some bigot complain to the school board and get him fired. As more women and non-whites get into the kind of position that give them the ability to speak up and/or we make atheism more socially acceptable, these voices will get heard more.
I’d even go as far as to back up your birth year range. Most of my med school classmates were born between ’74-’76 and 60% of the class was female. It was 70% by the time I finished residency. We didn’t start the trend though. It’d been picking up in the years prior to that.
In most of the world doctors tend to not have big science backgrounds. In India they are often host to some really stupid ideas so I didn’t include them in this.
nice breakdown, Avicenna. I agree with you entirely.
Pfffff, what do you know about race, gender or medicine, Avicenna! You… You… Female doctor of Indian heritage, you! Oh… Wait…
Goddamnit! Avicenna is a male name!!! Your worse than those dumbasses on Negotiation is Over (Crazy Animal Lib who I harass). Male Medical Student of Indian Persuasion. Also British…
Stop being so gender-fixated you misogynist :-p
Never! How else would I maintain my collection of the most sexist jokes known to man?
duh, it’s a boy’s name. :)
Back in residency, one of my female Indian collegeagues told me Indian parents give their boys long complicated pretty names and treat them like princes, and girls are given simpler names. I have no idea if she was telling me the truth though. After she said it, the lone male Indian in the group spoke up and said in his family it was his sister who was spoiled rotten and this lady didn’t know what she was talking about. In her defense, he did have a long name that took me a week to pronounce correctly.
Er… All boys and girls are named in complex ways. Avicenna is in latin (I routinely mock Animal Lib and have family who I wish to keep away from the inevitable “kick avicenna’s arse” plan that animal lib so love).
Both genders have complex names and indeed the whole “girls mistreatment” is mainly in really rural india (which means 72% of India but that’s 72% you will never ever talk to…)
I am british for all intents and purpose (Like Custador who is a sheep loving welshman, while I am from Scotland. We like cows… It’s because we are taller ;))
You can’t tuck a cow’s hind legs in your welly-boots. Instant loss of points there versus sheep.
European culture is fascinating.
Yes but you lot don’t wear kilts…
How does a Welshman find a sheep in tall grass?
Very nice, thank you.
I’ll get me coat …
@TrickQuestion
At the risk of starting a flame war…
I was going to simply correct you, but then I realised, around half of Britain thinks themselves European and half emphatically do not. It’s a pretty controversial issue, especially with regard to the EU and their ability to essentially overrule our own parliament (don’t hate me!)
Anyways, if you went up to some British people and said “You’re all Europeans!” you’d probably get some funny looks, whereas in France or Germany (I have visited both) you would not. Just sayin’.
@Hamish- good to know. I honestly never knew that the opinion was divided that way.
I learned something today! Int +1!
Congratulations. You proved my suspicious correct. You’re just an insipid blogger trying to scare up site hits in order to justify your continued megar existence to your advertisers.
Oh man! I thought that being a contributive poster will drum up blog traffic. Curses! In my hubris I forgot how the internet works….
LoriA,
the problem in this conversation is not that you may or may not be wrong on the internet, nor that you are female, nor that you choose to post pictures of yourself on the internet, porn or not. What you are being called out for here is failing to provide proof for your assertions or a logical argument to back up your original statement. You provided a link to someone else’s blog (opinion piece) without comments of your own, and that is all. No links to studies or serious analysis, not even any advice to click on what you considered the relevant links-behind-links until someone commented. When Elemenope gave you an analysis you didn’t take up the discussion in any way, just told him he was wrong without any reason given.
This blog tends to be read by people who like to debate and discuss ‘why’, not just have someone’s opinion shut down the discussion. You may be very intelligent and have something relevant to say, but you’re not engaging in the discussion in the way which is customary here. That’s just the way it is, and there is a tendency for some people to get their snark on if newcomers don’t realise that very quickly.
Just as a matter of interest, I’m female and have never felt out of place in the atheist community, such as it is. Then again, it’s a bit different where I am (Australia). I must say I hadn’t even noticed the colours and genders of the cartoon characters until you commented. Maybe there’s a relevant point there, but I’d like to see some links to proper studies rather than to someone’s blog, and a genuine discussion rather than someone just saying “you’re doing it wrong, and also mean!”
I think what a lot of people (and even myself think) is that we have become so fixated on the bigger blogs (because frankly we are the internets) that we forget that there are many many young smart atheists from communities not normally represented who feel isolated because they lack idols who also fought the same fights as they did or who have the same issues with their old faith.
Hemant is the only ex-hindu of note. There are a handful of muslim atheists and they don’t get the kind of airtime as the bigger atheists. How are we to encourage more of these people to come out without encouraging people who can match the standards of other “famous atheists” from these communities. Maybe it is time to encourage a more broad approach and start being more global in our attitude to atheism.
The world needs role models. Women are starting to find theirs in people like Jen McCreight and the various plethora of female atheist blogs. We need more from other communities. No one can fault the quality of Jen’s work. It’s not a case of a shoddy candidate who was pharyngulated to glory. It is a case of someone discovering someone who had genuinely something interesting to say. Likewise we need to find more people like that and encourage them to be heard.
Hemant is the only ex-hindu of note.
IIRC, Hemant is an ex-Jainist.
Really? Well ex-jain then!!!
I’m not opposed to this. It’s just that there are more or less successful ways to point out that this might be an issue which needs addressing, and our dear departed friend chose a less successful route, at least for this forum.