He bruised his knuckles when he punched her

Jan 25th, 2013 11:38 am | By

It was all Mary Beard’s fault, as it turns out. No really; it was. The guy who ran that website says so. If he doesn’t know, who does?!

The co-owner and moderator of the website that published abusive comments about Mary Beard has accused the Cambridge academic of using the row to deflect from her own comments about immigration on Question Time.

He said that friends and colleagues of Beard, professor of classics at Cambridge University, had been “trolling” his site, Don’t Start Me Off!, which he closed down this week, by bombarding it with Latin poetry.

Oh my god that is so mean! Latin poetry, when all they wanted to do was hang around peacefully posting comments about Mary Beard’s genitalia and similar reasonable stuff.

The co-owner and moderator, Richard White, a Kent-based local businessman,…told MediaGuardian: “If she is genuinely hurt I am sorry because we never try to hurt people’s feelings. My suspicion is that she used our site to deflect the debate because she was so roundly thrashed after her appearance on Question Time last week.”

If. Genuinely. We never. My suspicion is. Used. To deflect. So roundly thrashed.

What a lying piece of shit. What a lie, to say “we never try to hurt people’s feelings.” I use the word “lie” sparingly, partly because other people throw it around so very carelessly, but that just is a ludicrous lie. It’s like hitting someone with a baseball bat and then claiming you never try to hurt anyone.

“We do not go out to be offensive and it is true that a lot of the postings that were made you would see said by other people like the comic Frankie Boyle.”

So.the fuck.what.

It doesn’t matter that you can see nasty shit said by other people – that is, it does matter, because it’s a very bad thing, but it doesn’t matter in the sense you meant: it doesn’t make it ok for you to say nasty shit too. If little Jimmy’s mommy let him jump off the roof would you jump off the roof too? The fact that other people are shits doesn’t give you dispensation to be a shit.

He did more explaining of why he’s not the troll, she’s the troll.

“Trolls are people who go and abuse people directly in places like Facebook and Twitter and if anything she is the troll because she encouraged her friends and colleagues to flood the site with Latin poetry, which they did. I allowed a lot of the poetry to go up because I didn’t have time to translate it.

“She came to us by Googling us and in a sense looking for negative comments. We never went to her.”

Yeah, dude – you hosted a lot of ugly crap about her and your horrific punishment was Latin poetry.

And the thing about Google? If she can find it on Google, that means other people can find it on Google. She has a reputation. She would probably like it not to include stuff scribbled by strangers about what a cunt she is because she said something.

White said that “as a classics scholar” Beard ought not to seek to curb freedom of speech. “She is a historian and she should know how much blood has been spilt over the years seeking to preserve freedom of speech, which you do not give away lightly,” he said.

Right. The glorious cause. Freedom to photoshop women’s faces onto female genitalia. That’s what the martyrs died for.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Observances

Jan 25th, 2013 10:10 am | By

Where is this Big Book of God’s Rules where God spells out all these new rules that some people know all about but I’ve never heard of? Like the rule that a girl who works at Burger King has to wear a long skirt instead of trousers? I seriously have no idea where that rule is but apparently it’s such an important and real and binding rule that Burger King has to hire her because of it and it has to let her wear a long skirt instead of trousers on the job. Also if it slips up and fires her instead it has to give her 25 thousand dollars.

Burger King has agreed to pay $25,000 to a Pentecostal teenage girl who was fired because she wished to a wear a long skirt instead of pants.

In August, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on behalf of Ashanti McShan, who had been hired to work at a Burger King restaurant in Texas. “At the time of her interview for the job, Ms. McShan asked to wear a skirt instead of uniform pants as a religious accommodation,” the EEOC lawsuit stated. “Defendant assured her that she could wear a skirt to work. However, when she arrived at work for orientation, the store management informed Ms. McShan that she could not wear a skirt and that she had to leave the store … The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal employment opportunities because of her religious beliefs and observances as a Christian Pentecostal.”

What beliefs? What observances? In what sense “religious”? Is it an official “religious belief” that women have to wear skirts and not trousers? Are you sure? Are you sure it’s not just a stupid prejudice in favor of the way women used to dress before they got so god damn uppity, disguised as a pretend religious belief? Because I’m not. I remember battles over skirts v jeans when I was a child. I remember always always always wanting to be allowed to stay in jeans at all times because skirts are so damn inhibiting. I didn’t use that word, of course, but I hated wearing skirts and that was why. Skirts are an invention to make girls and women unable to move freely. The whole point is that if you make a wrong move everybody will be able to peer at your crotch! Gotcha! I see Spain, I see France, I see Sally’s underpants. It’s the underage version of talk about kicking women in the cunt.

So I want to see this mysterious Big Book of God’s Rules where God says women and girls can’t wear trousers. Then I want it tested for authenticity.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Women’s hour

Jan 24th, 2013 4:59 pm | By

Maureen Brian alerted me to Mary Beard’s appearance (there should be a hearing-word version of “appearance” for radio and podcasts – can’t be audience, that’s taken, and I can’t think of what else it could be) on Women’s Hour to talk about verbal abuse online.

She reports that the guys who run the repellent website that zoomed in on her actually took it down. Gee. I wish that happened more often. “Oh – this is vicious and horrible?” Pause for thought. “Why I guess you’re right, it is. That’s the end of that then. Thank you for letting us know.”

She and the presenter Jenni Murray talk about whether misogynist verbal abuse discourages women from speaking up (and writing) in public. “D’you think it does?” “Ooooooooh I don’t know, what d’you think?” “Oooooooh hard to say really.” No that’s not how it went. Mary Beard said of course it does.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



A good little girl doesn’t

Jan 24th, 2013 1:21 pm | By

Laura Bates objects to casual sexism among politicians in the UK.

Murdo Fraser, Member of the Scottish Parliament for Mid-Scotland and Fife, discovered last week that the wife of former Liberal leader Lord Steel had declared herself pro-independence. He tweeted: “Why is Lady Steel (apparently) pro-independence? Is he not master in his own house?” Presumably Fraser was joking, but Twitter users were less than impressed, with one remarking: “That line is like something straight out of the 1950s.”

Fraser’s words closely echo those of Austin Mitchell, Labour MP for Great Grimsby, who a few months ago launched a misogynistic online tirade against former Conservative MP Louise Mensch, tweeting: “Shut up Menschkin. A good wife doesn’t disagree with her master in public and a good little girl doesn’t lie about why she quit politics.” When accused of sexism, the politician acted as if the whole affair were a huge joke, later tweeting: “Has the all clear siren gone? Has the Menschivick bombardment stopped?”

Haha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. So so funny. Remember Tom Harris MP, Labour-Glasgow South? He’s so so funny too.

What a hero! Fearless protester chucks an egg at EdM and runs away. Like a girl. Throws like a girl too. #loser

Remember that tweet? Remember how we all laughed? Mmmyeah.

Bates goes on:

…what does it say about the status quo of British politics, if our elected representatives, who make daily decisions impacting our lives and welfare, are openly prepared to make sexist jokes and direct misogynistic vitriol towards colleagues? There is a public acceptability of sexism; a suggestion that we – “just the women” – should stop getting our knickers in a twist and take a joke. MP Stella Creasy says: “Parliament is no different from the rest of Britain, where unconscious stereotyping about women happens, too – the point is we should challenge cultural prejudices and expectations wherever they are expressed.”

We should, as long as we’re prepared for bellows of outrage and accusations of being a McCarthyite Nazi witch-hunting inquisition that purges and pillories tragic hapless men who were only giving their honest opinion of why there were no women around the table where they were mouthing off. We are all prepared for those, right? Of course we are.

Jacqui Hunt, London director of the international human rights organisation Equality Now, says: “As elected public representatives, it is essential that MPs communicate with respect and dignity at all times. It is their responsibility to help eliminate rather than reflect harmful gender stereotypes. They need to set the example to ensure that women and girls do not experience prejudice or abuse, but rather reach their full potential as human beings.” It is perhaps no surprise that the UK manages to come only joint 60th in the world for political gender equality, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Is it too much to ask that our elected representatives support women rather than tear them down? Particularly when their female colleagues are still dealing with sexist abuse, tweets about their breasts during Prime Minister’s Questions, and tabloid articles on “Cameron’s Cuties” and the “Best of Breastminster“. It would be nice if women coping with rape and sexual assault didn’t have to see their elected political representative going to such lengths to publicly declare, “Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,” as Galloway did. It would be nice to think that in a society where more than two women per week, on average, are killed by current or former partners, two politicians in the space of six months didn’t find it funny to make public jokes about husbands being the “master” of their wives. Of course, neither would have intended such a correlation, but the point is that general attitudes and ideas about women are important. Shouldn’t politicians be leading the fight against prejudice, rather than indulging in it?

Oh but I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think general attitudes and ideas about women are important. They can’t be. Saying they are is “radical” “gender” feminism, not nice normal non-radical equity feminism. I know this because people keep saying it.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



“She whined”

Jan 24th, 2013 11:39 am | By

I hope you enjoyed your break from the misogyny wars yesterday – I held off on commenting on the Ms piece in order to make it a real break – because the wars aren’t over yet.

I’m staggered by something I just read by Rod Liddle at the Spectator. I’ve been staggered by things Rod Liddle said before – way back in January 2010, for instance, and reposted here in October 2011.

And here I was fuming (or should I say bitching?) about sexist epithets and men who type thousands of words insisting that ‘stupid bitch’ is not sexist. Kind of puts it all in perspective. Except actually I think it’s (broadly speaking) all part of the same thing. I think both items are part of a broader culture in a lot of places that demeans women in a sexist way. I think the bizarro phenomenon of men who ought to know better verbally spewing on women whenever they feel like it is pretty much by definition part of a broader culture that demeans women in a sexist way. That’s why it shocks me that men give themselves permission to do that – it reveals that contempt for women is commonplace in areas where I would have thought it had gone out of fashion decades ago.

But no – apparently it’s still seen as hip and edgy and funny to treat women like dirt. Apparently sexism is being defined downwards so that it isn’t really sexism unless, I don’t know, it comes with a signed affidavit stating This Is Sexism. Rod Liddle apparently is of that school, unless he really didn’t post this on a Millwall fans’ website:

Stupid bitch. A year eight sociology lecture from someone who knows fck all. You could equally say that we were similar to any group which disliked a certain aspect of society, felt estranged from it but were sure we were right. The logical extension of her argument is that the status quo is always right, which is absurd, because if that were true nothing would change. Someone kick her in the cnt.

That’s Rod Liddle. This too is Rod Liddle, three years on, telling Mary Beard “It’s not misogyny, Professor Beard, it’s you.”

She went on Question Time, he explains. She said things there that he considers stupid and wrong.

Beyond the confines of the programme, Beard’s remarks were greeted with frank hilarity and in some cases anger. She was very quickly made ‘Twat of the Week’ on a non-aligned website and the insults started flowing. Most of them were accurate refutations of her vacuous argument, or expressions of annoyance at her middle-class, metropolitan insouciance. But it is true that some ridiculed her appearance as well.

Outrageous, tweeted Beard! (Yes, the Prof tweets, and that tells you something.) ‘The misogyny here is truly gob-smacking,’ she whined: all those comments were ‘truly vile’. She triumphantly listed the most graphic comments on her blog and concluded that the abuse would ‘be quite enough to put many women off appearing in public’. If only that were true in Mary’s case, but I strongly suspect it isn’t.

We’re supposed to think he’s “joking” there – he doesn’t really wish the abuse would put her off appearing in public. Oh really?

But there’s one other thing in the case of Mary Beard. How many professors of classics have you seen on BBC Question Time, other than Beardie? None. How many other professors of classics have been invited to take part in Jamie’s Dream School, or been invited to present a series on BBC2? None other. Just Beard. Why is this? Is it because she is so absolutely brilliant at the classics that they think she ought to be on a cooking show? Nope: it’s because of the way she looks. They think she looks like a loony. And the TV companies, the producers, love that. If they can’t get a hunk or a fox, they like an eccentric. It generates a reaction, not always entirely pleasant. And if Mary doesn’t grasp that her appearance is precisely why she — along with Grayson Perry — gets to be on TV, then she had best not look at what the genuine loonies have to say on Twitter.

Nice guy.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



On the relationship between philosophy, science and morality

Jan 23rd, 2013 5:44 pm | By

Massimo goes a few rounds with the ol’ science can whup philosophy story.

Oh my, I thought I was done for a while chastising skeptics like Sam Harris on the relationship between philosophy, science and morality, and I just found out that my friend Michael Shermer has incurred a similar (though not quite as egregious as Harris’) bit of questionable thinking. As I explained in my review of Harris’ book for Skeptic, one learns
precisely nothing about morality by reading The Moral Landscape. Indeed, one’s time on that topic is much better spent by leafing through Michael Sandel’s On Justice, for example.

I too reviewed Harris’s book, and I too thought it was way too dismissive of philosophy and way too short on argument as a result. I thought that as a non-philosopher, of course, while Massimo thinks it as a philosopher (and a biologist too!), but I’ve read a little moral philosophy here and there, and I found it a lot more enlightening than I found The Moral Landscape.

Shermer proceeds immediately by blaming the is/ought problem as the main culprit for scientists’ misguided concession to philosophers (even though I bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of scientists has never heard of the is/ought problem). Indeed, Michael claims that the problem is a fallacy (I take it he is using the term colloquially, since I don’t see that entry listed in the vast catalogue of fallacies that professional philosophers and logicians have accumulated.)

Why is the is/ought problem a fallacy, according to Shermer? Because “morals and values must be based on the way things are in order to establish the best conditions for human flourishing.” Let’s unpack (as philosophers are fond of saying) that loaded phrase. First off, there is a prescriptive claim (“must”) that is not actually argued for. Sounds like Michael is engaging in some a priori philosophizing of his own. Why exactly must we base morals and values on the way things are (as opposed to, say, they way we would like them to be)?

Second, “the way things are” has, of course, changed dramatically across centuries and cultures (science tells us this!). Which point in the space-time continuum are we going to pick as our reference to ground our scientific study of morality? We better not just assume that the our own current time and place represent the best of all possible worlds.

Third, “human flourishing” is a surprisingly slippery (and philosophically loaded!) concept, not at all easy to handle by straightforward quantitative analyses. (If you want an idea of the sort of complications I have in mind, take a look here and here.) And of course it should go without mention that the goal of increasing human flourishing is itself the result of a value choice that cannot possibly be grounded in empirical evidence. Nothing wrong with that, unless you insist on a scientistic take on the study of morality.

I think that’s a good sample for seeing why philosophy is useful for thinking about morality, and why just talking about the way things are isn’t adequate.

One more sample:

Shermer then goes on to add a market economy to the mix of his favorite ideologies, claiming that “it decreases violence and increases peace significantly” (hardly surprising, coming from a well known libertarian). Once more, without even going to question the empirical assertion, shouldn’t we at least admit that “market economy” is a highly heterogeneous category (think US vs China), and that some market economies decrease fairness, do not provide universal access to health care and education, lower workers’ wages, and overall negatively affect human flourishing? How should we rank our values in order to make sense of the data? How do the data by themselves establish a guide to which values we should hold? And why should we follow whatever the current science says, as opposed to having discussions about where we would like science and technology (and economics) themselves to go?

How should we rank our values - that’s a question that Harris gave astonishingly short shrift in his book.

Read the whole thing; it’s long and rewarding.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Not persons after all?

Jan 23rd, 2013 3:54 pm | By

Oh how interesting. Catholic hospitals don’t always say that a fetus is a person. For instance, how about when an on-call obstetrician doesn’t answer the page when a pregnant woman is in the ER having a heart attack and she ends up dying? And then her husband files a wrongful death suit?

No, not then.

The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

You know, the Ethical and Religious Directives that say St Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix did a wicked wicked thing by terminating a pregnancy to save the woman’s life. Those Ethical and Religious Directives.

…when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

Innnnnnteresting.

To be fair, maybe Catholic Health isn’t being hypocritical; maybe Catholic Health, like the administration of St Joseph’s Hospital, refuses to obey the bishops on this issue.

Who knows. There shouldn’t be any ambiguity on the subject either way. The Ethical and Religious Directives should be a dead letter.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The barmaid agrees

Jan 23rd, 2013 10:59 am | By

A great new Jesus and Mo. First, a word from their sponsor -

You may notice the return of the “Help J&M pay their hosting fees” button in the r/h column. This is because our current host – the magnificent
nearlyfreespeech.net – have changed their billing system to make it fairer for
sites which don’t use up many resources. Unfortunately, J&M is not one of those
sites, and  our monthly bill has increased substantially – so if you have a few
bucks spare to throw into our hosting account, that would be much appreciated.

And now, see them finally get through to the barmaid.

jandm

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Life, liberty and the 24 ounce Coke

Jan 23rd, 2013 10:51 am | By

A trade group called the American Beverage Association is in court trying to prevent a New York City law limiting the size of sugar drinks from going into effect on March 12. Well they would, wouldn’t they. But they have some odd allies.

Opponents also are raising questions of racial fairness alongside other complaints as the novel restriction faces a court test.

The NAACP’s New York state branch and the Hispanic Federation have joined beverage makers and sellers in trying to stop the rule from taking effect March 12. Critics are attacking what they call an inconsistent and undemocratic regulation, while city officials and health experts defend it as a pioneering and proper move to fight obesity.

The issue is complex for the minority advocates, especially given that obesity rates are higher than average among blacks and Hispanics, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The groups say in court papers they’re concerned about the discrepancy, but the soda rule will unduly harm minority businesses and “freedom of choice in low-income communities.”

I wonder what “unduly” means there. I also wonder what on earth the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation are thinking. They want sugar drinks to be extra-special cheap so that blacks and Hispanics can have higher than average rates of Type 2 diabetes? Do they also wish lead-based paint were still legal and readily available? Do they long for the old days when toddlers could munch on paint chips full of lead?

The NAACP and the Hispanic Federation, a network of 100 northeastern groups, say minority-owned delis and corner stores will end up at a disadvantage compared to grocery chains.

“This sweeping regulation will no doubt burden and disproportionally impact minority-owned businesses at a time when these businesses can least afford it,” they said in court papers. They say the city should focus instead on increasing physical education in schools.

So it’s about the businesses but not about the people who shop there. Maybe not the best choice.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Loop loop loop loop

Jan 22nd, 2013 10:48 am | By

Lots of fantastic people are coming to Women in Secularism. One woman is coming from Melbourne, another from Norway.

Jane Fae has a post at the New Statesman on “Misogyny, intimidation, silencing – the realities of online bullying.” The subhead is

The aggregated effect of floods of negative comments online can be enough to put opinionated women off appearing in public.

And thus we get a feeback loop. Opinionated women get floods of cunting and bitching and why the fuck are you so uglying, so they’re put off appearing in public, so dudebros look around and don’t see many opinionated women mouthing off and they conclude that opinionated mouthing off is more of a guy thing. And they say that, and opinionated women say no that’s not it, that’s a stupid sexist stereotype, think harder – and they get floods of cunting and bitching and why the fuck are you so uglying, so they’re put off appearing in public, so loop loop loop loop.

Last night I was chatting online, offering support to a friend who had just been bullied off Twitter. Nobody famous. Just an ordinary, everyday sort of woman who has taken the nastiness that life has dealt her over the last few years and come through it. Smiling? Mostly. But also vulnerable.

As an active feminist, she deals with anonymous abuse – she gets a fair bit of that, from the EDL and their hangers-on – and though it’s not nice, she copes. What got to her this time, though, was the viciousness of “friends” when called out on their refusal to condemn violence against women and joke polls about “people you’d most like to kill”.

The viciousness of “friends” can be quite staggering.

Beard makes the point well, in a blog responding to her own online treatment. It is clear that she is no stranger to tired old jokes about her appearance – but even she has been shocked about the response she evoked, describing the level of misogyny as “truly gobsmacking”. The focus of much of the abuse is sexual, sadistic even and, she adds: “it would be quite enough to put many women off appearing in public, contributing to political debate”.

In other words, it is silencing, something I get very well from personal experience. I’ve opted out of contributing online for periods ranging from hours to a couple of weeks after being subjected to this sort of online nastiness. Not just me. Many far braver women with serious contributions to make to public discourse on violence and abuse have suffered similar: been silenced simply for having an opinion.

And there’s another turn of the screw which Fae doesn’t mention: they get called “Professional Victims” for publicly objecting to the abuse. They, I mean we, cannot win.

Another person who’s going to Women in Secularism is Marc David Barnhill. Why? Because of

yet another “parody” website and Twitter account mocking the aims and methods (and ripping off copyrighted images) of prominent women secularists.

Plus his eight year old daughter may have had something to do with it.

Was I opposed to attending in the first place? Well, no, actually I very much wanted to, having missed the first one last year. And the roster is once again a stellar one: Lauren Becker, Ophelia Benson, Jamila Bey, Soraya Chemaly, Greta
Christina, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Vyckie Garrison, Debbie Goddard, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Adriana Heguy, Melody Hensley, Teresa MacBain, Amanda Marcotte, Maryam Namazie, Katha Pollitt, Carrie Poppy, Edwina Rogers, Amy Davis Roth,
Desiree Schell, Shelley Segal, Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Zvan. It’s a startling collection of speakers.

So why wasn’t he going?

Well, that’s my business, frankly, and I’m starting to find your rhetorical questions a bit impertinent. But a combination of personal, financial, and health issues had led me to the decision to sit this one out as well. The women have got this, I thought. It’s covered.

Tonight I tucked my eight-year-old daughter in bed and settled down to scan Twitter and see what I’ve been missing.

A lot has happened in the last year, some of it wonderfully inspiring and much of it dismayingly ugly. One of the things about privilege is that an ally can choose to withdraw from the struggle when burnout or shocked sensibilities request it. Not everyone has this option. It’s an option I was too easily prepared to exercise.

So thank you, guy with the sophomoric, nearly clever parody account. Thanks for a gentle reminder just when I needed it. I’ll make it work. I’m going.

I feel a little abashed. I don’t give the guys with the sophomoric senses of humor enough credit. I’m not appreciative enough of all the free publicity. I’m too focused on the aesthetics and not enough on the consequences, however unintended.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain needs your help

Jan 22nd, 2013 9:33 am | By

A New Year’s message from Maryam Namazie.

 

Saudi Arabia – Oppression of Expression – Support Raif Badawi, Turki Al-Hamad and Hamza Kashgari.

 

Dear friend

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain would like to take this opportunity to wish you a very happy New Year!

In the past year, in which we celebrated our 5th anniversary, we continued to challenge religious identity politics and Islamism, defend free expression of Muslims and Ex-Muslims alike, oppose blasphemy and apostasy laws, raise awareness, support thousands of ex-Muslims here and abroad, as well as create a new “home” for the many left without a social network after renouncing Islam via our web-forum, social gatherings and events.

In the coming year, we plan to do much more with your help.

As a matter of urgency we ask that you start the year by intervening on behalf of a number of urgent cases, including that of Zanyar and Loghman Moradi who face imminent execution in Iran for “enmity against god” and “corruption on earth”; Raif Badawi, Turki Al-Hamad and Hamza Kashgari who face blasphemy and apostasy charges in Saudi Arabia; and Alex Aan who remains in prison in Indonesia for “tarnishing Islam”.

In 2013, we will step up our support of ex-Muslims, free expression and secularism, encourage the establishment of more ex-Muslim groups and meet-ups such as the one recently established in the North, publish a report on the status of apostates internationally, organise a poster campaign, and raise awareness.

In the next few months, we will be speaking across the country and internationally on apostasy, sharia laws and rights, including in Leeds, Birmingham and Washington, DC. In addition to regular events planned by the Northern ex-Muslim group, we will hold the following social events in London: monthly Ex-Muslim women’s coffee mornings and meet-ups for apostate asylum seekers starting on 28 January, poetry night on 22 March led by poet and blogger Selina Ditta, 25 April evening drinks with Sudanese ex-Muslim Nahla Mahmoud, 9 May evening drinks with author Rumy Hassan, 15 June sixth anniversary luncheon with keynote speaker Kenan Malik, July 20 ex-Muslim picnic, and evening drinks with philosopher Arif Ahmed, Iranian Secular Society head Fariborz Pooya and CEMB spokesperson Maryam Namazie, amongst others later in the year. You can find out more about upcoming events here.

We look forward to seeing you in 2013.

If you haven’t already, read member statements or join the CEMB here and join the active CEMB web-forum here.

Also, don’t forget to donate to our important work. Any amount helps and makes a huge difference in our fight against Islamism and in support of apostates and blasphemers worldwide.

Thanks again.

Best wishes

Maryam

Maryam Namazie

Spokesperson Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX, UK

tel: +44 (0) 7719166731

email: exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com

web: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under company number 8059509.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Why the moon landings could not have been faked

Jan 21st, 2013 3:21 pm | By

Because the technology to get to the moon existed in 1969, but the technology to fake a moon landing in a studio did not.

The takeaway -

Why does any of this matter? Well my concern is with the ultimate fate of knowing, of seeing the difference between what you can know and what you wish for…The urge to believe drives people to trade in part of their soul in exchange for the comfort of being a rebel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The unbelief of the woman is not equal

Jan 21st, 2013 11:48 am | By

Via the Ex-Muslims Forum – “perhaps the only time when the misogyny of Islamic Fiqh could ever be described as a relief.”

 

Embedded image permalink

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said, “The female apostate is not killed.”  This is because the unbelief of the woman is not equal to the unbelief of the man – which leads to (physical) devastation.  So, she is not equal in the liability to be killed, as is known.

- Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 AH/ 983 CE). Mukhtalaf al-Riwayah,, vol 3, p. 1299

Makes sense. The woman’s belief is puny and weak compared to the man’s, so her unbelief is the same way, so meh – nobody cares. No need to kill her; keep her to do the dishes.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



If you self-identify

Jan 21st, 2013 11:37 am | By

On Twitter -

This is a public information announcement: If you self-identify as a “freethinker” or a “progressive” it can seem just a tad conceited.

So does that mean it’s conceited to write for The Freethinker? Probably. Oh well.

(The truth is I don’t self-identify as either of those, because it’s true, it does sound conceited. I don’t like self-flattering labels, and I do avoid them. I prefer neutral, factual ones, when I can find them. That’s part of why I found Shermer’s jeers about “self-declared secular feminists” bizarre, when surely both words are factual more than they are self-flattering. But not calling oneself a freethinker doesn’t preserve one from doing things like writing for The Freethinker. What is one supposed to do? Ask them to change the name? But it’s a good name, and it’s been that name since the 19th century.

Anyway patrolling other people’s vanity can seem just a tad conceited, too. “Just saying.”)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Why so fussed

Jan 21st, 2013 11:24 am | By

So they do it to Mary Beard, too. Mary Beard! A classics don! Makes me want to get my friend Euripides to give them a dam’ good scolding.

But why, you might say, am I so fussed by this. One tv programme of no moment, a bit of flak, and some great waves of support on twitter (thank you all…Tony Law even, bizarrely, got Sulla martialed in the fight last night…). Why not just “move on”?

One reason, it has introduced me to a side on internet trolling that I haven’t experienced before, and is worth thinking about. My appearance on Question Time prompted a web post that has in the last few days discussed my pubic hair (do I brush the floor with it), whether I need rogering (that comment was taken down, as was the speculation about the capaciousness of my vagina, and the plan to plant a d*** in my mouth).

It is headed with the picture above (that’s me….or in the words of one contributor:” A vile, spiteful excuse for a woman, who eats too much cabbage and has cheese straws for teeth.”)

There’s worse to come.

Of course there is. That’s barely noticeable.

The stuff about me is predictable enough, as a further sample will show:

“Undergrowth, like a mound, ladyshave free, a womble, a Cambridge Don, common ain’t she.”

“Hello Mary, we dont fear you and you’re not intelligent. All in all, a complete failure of a sentence/ Top tip: Try looking closer to home for the reason people dislike you, you arrogant twat”

” She’s an idiot who’s a disgrace to Cambridge Uni and Woman-kind. We let her get away with it by calling her a Lezzie which she obviously isn’t as she’s married.”

“Fucking hell, she’s only 57. She looks at least 70.”

“Mary, Mary quite Clunge-hairy, how does your Lady Garden grow?”

“Hairy Beard, Professor of Farts at Cunstsford University, living the dream.”

“An ignorant cunt.”

“Being a cunt transcends gender, Mary.”

Ths is interspersed with quotes from all kinds of things I’ve written, jibes at my kids (one of whomMoEmkZlintervened, independently, to my defence) and husband. The photo on the right (also now taken down) gives you the flavour (there’s an X certificate on clicking on the pop up — but I think it’s important for people to see what the bottom line is).Another one shows a pair of really hairy legs, as if they were mine.

All the same, you may say … why pay it any attention, still less give it publicity?

Several reasons. First, the misogyny here is truly gobsmacking. The whole site is pretty hateful (and what some of the comments say about Andrew Marr since he’s been ill are almost worse than anything).. but the whole “cunt” talk and the kind of stuff represented by the photo on right is more than a few steps into sadism.  It would be quite enough to put many women off appearing in public, contributing to political debate, especially as all of this comes up on google..

Yes it god damn well would, and does, and is. Michael Shermer please note. Get this kind of shit every day for going on two years and it becomes very tempting to stop appearing in public and contributing to political debate – which is the goal.

Oh no, it’s all just a joke, isn’t it? Can’t you take one? Or a hundred, or ten thousand?

But reading through it (and yes you get tipped off about it whether you search or not.. and no you cant resist looking at it), it is absolutely plain as day that this is meant to hurt and wound (“If all else, we got to her” as one commenter says). It shows the classic signs of vile playground bullying — claiming to know about the victim, sneering at things they could not possibly know but claim they do, destabilising by using names in the thread that are those of your friends or even anagrams of your own, suggesting that they are watching you… that’s all part of the bullying repertoire.

Check check check check.

So how to stop it? I am sure that there is some clever way if we put our heads together.Could we flood the site with comments, or Latin poetry…so they went behind a wall (if they want to chat like this on their own, well fine.. or at least better). Or does anyone reading this post know anyone involved in this and can just say ‘no’?

Nobody’s been able to think of a clever way yet.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Yet another shitty morning

Jan 21st, 2013 9:15 am | By

It turns out that Jerry Conlon didn’t threaten me when he said maybe a vial of acid would do me some good. No, it turns out I threatened him. A friend sent me this screen shot from the mildew pit.

 

I don’t know who it was who posted the comment with some biographical information about Jerry Conlon; it was someone who has never commented here before. The comment was a peculiar kind of “doxxing” since Jerry Conlon had used the name Jerry Conlon himself on that threat (or “joke”) and since there was no address or phone number.

Given the first-timeness of the commenter, I suspect the comment was a plant. At any rate, I haven’t threatened anyone. I haven’t even threatened to report him to the police, even though a lot of people have strongly urged me to report him, because Canadian law enforcement sees that kind of thing as a danger to people in general, not just to the recipient. (And he’s Canadian. Ooh I’m doxxing him!! Except that’s on his Facebook page. Visible to all.)

I haven’t threatened anyone. He did threaten me.

I’m very very very very very tired of this shit. My life is shit, thanks to these people. That’s what they want, and they get what they want. I’m a blogger and writer, so the work I do I do online. That means taking “a break” from online isn’t a happy little vacation, it’s being locked out of the work I do. Yes no doubt it’s pathetic contemptible nerdy “work” but I like doing it, and I don’t like being forced out of it by sadistic pseudonymous shits.

But some good does come out of it. Bjarte Foshaug was motivated by the acid threat to send $150 to Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. He says a friend of his Sheila is also going to donate. So Jerry Conlon did some good after all!

But I want my life back. And I can’t have it. That makes me angry.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Optimism?

Jan 20th, 2013 5:36 pm | By

PZ is optimistic about the bigger picture.

I am constantly dunned by email and tweets from the haters and sick scumbags, and I read stuff by my colleagues who get far worse, and at times it is just too depressing and dismal — there really are reactionary fanatics within atheism who refuse to recognize the responsibility to work towards equality. And I just want to give up.

But then…perspective. Step away from the smears and assaults and slime and look at the movement as a whole: look at the leading organizations of the godless. You know what you’ll see? None of them support these loons. They’re all progressive and committed to improving the diversity of the atheist community and broadening our engagement with the greater culture.

Hm. I’d like to agree, but – the leading organizations don’t support them, but they don’t disavow them, either (except in broad general terms that don’t grip on anything). I think most of the organizations don’t know much about them and their project, but I kind of think maybe they should try to find out.

 

Rebecca is more definite about it.

For the most part, these organizations work on their causes while pointedly avoiding what they see as a divisive quagmire. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, no. For years, I defended the JREF’s pointed disinterest in atheist topics because while I do think atheism is the natural outcome of skepticism and that the two are ultimately inextricably linked, I understand that there’s a benefit to an organization focusing resources on a particular goal while also appealing to a larger audience. But it would be silly to then congratulate the JREF on working toward some atheist or secular goal, just as it’s silly to congratulate these organizations that are not focused on fighting for women.

I think that’s pretty much right. The organizations aren’t against us, but they’re not really for us either. They’re doing other things.

So while PZ finds optimism in the work these organizations do, I, for the most part, do not. I see anti-feminists who think those organizations stand for them. (Hell, I’ve seen misogynists cite feminist and Freedom from Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor as an inspiration.) I don’t think these people are stupid (though yes, many are – just look at the people populating my Twitter @ replies) – I think that secular organizations aren’t being loud enough in their support of women. I think often these organizations are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century by a few progressive employees who want to do good at the risk of being seen as radical troublemakers.

And that’s where I find my inspiration: not in the large organizations but in the individuals who are strong enough to stand up for what’s right despite the endless hateful shit thrown their way. People like Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina, and Melody Hensley. People like Surly Amy and all the other Skepchick Network contributors. People like Amanda Marcotte, who in December recounted what it’s like to be a writer who happens to be a feminist…

Yes. We find our inspiration in each other. Not at all a bad place to find it, either.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



They risk being shamed and ostracized for speaking out

Jan 20th, 2013 4:54 pm | By

Another article not to miss is Lauryn Oates’s To tell the world his daughter’s name.

When the father of Jyoti Singh Pandey decided to tell the world his daughter’s name this week, he said he did so to give other women who have been raped courage.

His is a message directed at an untold number of women and girls. Rape is the most under-reported form of violent crime in the world. It consistently has the worst statistical reporting, with many countries keeping no rape statistics at all.

Somalian activist Hawa Aden Mohammed estimates that in her country, experiencing a torrent of sexual violence, 90% of rapes go unreported. She says the reason is that women know that nothing will be done, while they risk being shamed and ostracized for speaking out. Women in camps for the internally displaced are particularly at risk, and camp leaders are reportedly indifferent to the fact that women under their watch are hunted down like animals to satisfy the savagery of merciless, violent men.

People can get used to anything. People can harden their hearts. We all can. If there’s anything we need to resist it’s that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Teasing Reverend Warren

Jan 20th, 2013 4:08 pm | By

I’m being Twitter-mean to Rick Warren. Well not really mean – I’m not calling him ugly or anything. But I’m teasing the crap out of something he said. Wull it was silly.

Rick Warren

Christians founded America. Ever since, Presidents (& most offices) take their oath with their hand on God’s Word #TheBible

My teasings.

And NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE. We always do all the things exactly the way we always have done them.

Travel, medicine, architecture, communication, race relations, lighting – all, all done the same way forever.

So if somebody did something one way a few centuries ago (they didn’t, but never mind) END OF STORY.

How to do everything, according to Rick Warren. The way they did. Back then. #simple

No, blood-sucking zombies founded America, so we have to do WHAT THEY DID.

If bats had founded America, would you tell us to roost upside down during the day and hunt for insects at night?

Amazingly, he hasn’t replied.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



That’s a nice house you have there, witch

Jan 20th, 2013 3:46 pm | By

Speaking of children being seen as “witches,” and witch hunts, and cruelty to putative witches, don’t miss Leo Igwe’s new article, Kukuo: Inside a ‘Witch Camp’ in Ghana.

Here is a sample.

Many of the alleged witches said they would like to return to their original homes but were afraid for their lives. Some did not want to go back at all. They felt safe and at peace in Kukuo.

But that is because they do not have a better alternative. In Kukuo, life is hard. Survival is difficult. Most of the women survive by farming for others, but many of them are getting too old and could not farm any longer. Some of them were sick. One of the women could not walk, and she was living alone. She crawled around to cook and to attend to her daily chores. Some have resorted to begging for survival.

Leo tells the story of Fusa, a widow who had just finished building a house and was about to move into it when she was accused of making a neighbor’s child ill. Gee, what a coincidence. Now she’s in Kukuo, heart broken and traumatized.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)