Notes and Comment Blog

Our short and pithy observations on the passing scene as it relates to the mission of Butterflies and Wheels. Woolly-headed or razor-sharp comments in the media, anti-rationalist rhetoric in books or magazines or overheard on the bus, it’s all grist to our mill. And sometimes we will hold forth on the basis of no inspiration at all beyond what happens to occur to us.


Logic and rhetoric

Jul 29th, 2014 10:49 am | By

My cosigner (it’s kind of like the Declaration of Independence – we are Signers) Richard Dawkins has been tweeting about the logic of saying X is not as bad as Y. The logic is that saying X is not as bad as Y is not the same thing as saying X is good. Quite right; it’s not. A mouthful of curdled milk is not as bad as a mouthful of shit, but that doesn’t mean a mouthful of curdled milk is good.

X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.

Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.

Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.

There was some back and forth, then more stand-alone tweets.

Whether X or Y is worse is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of LOGIC that to express that opinion doesn’t mean you approve of either.

“Stealing £1 is bad. Stealing an old lady’s life savings is worse.” How DARE you rank them? Stealing is stealing. You’re vile, appalling.

That’s all true. He’s right. But there’s more to it than that. I offered three replies myself.

Ophelia Benson @OpheliaBenson · 33m

@RichardDawkins But Richard there is rhetoric as well as logic. The 2 have differnt rules. Sometimes “Y is worse!” means “shut up about X.”

@RichardDawkins It of course doesn’t mean that as a matter of *logic*. But used rhetorically, it does.

@RichardDawkins To put it another way, there’s the matter of implication, which can work differently from the way logic works.

I have more room here, enough room so that I don’t have to spell “different” as “differnt” in order to finish my sentences.

It’s true that “X is less bad” ≠ “X is good” or “I approve of X.” I think Richard had in mind the passage about the molestation he experienced at school compared with other, less tolerable forms. I don’t think he had in mind “Dear Muslima” – which of course is a mere comment on a blog, not a passage in a best-selling much-translated much-discussed book. But “Dear Muslima” does a good job of illustrating what I mean about rhetoric and implication. The whole point of “Dear Muslima” was very plainly to say that women face horrendous forms of abuse and denial of rights in places where Islamic laws and/or customs have authority, and therefore women who face much milder forms of abuse in secular democracies should…talk less about it, or talk about it more temperately, or something along those lines. It’s hard to spell out the implication exactly, because it is an implication, but it’s something along those lines. That much is not ambiguous. You’d have to be a very primitive bit of AI to miss that.

So, in fact, even though Richard is right about the logic, he seems to be forgetting about rhetoric, and we know he understands that kind of rhetoric because in “Dear Muslima” he used it himself.

So it’s not that he’s wrong about the logic, it’s just that that’s not all there is to it.

Note to commenters: please keep in mind The Statement, and word your comments accordingly. Seriously. Reasoned argument only. I know people get heated about this; I know I get heated almost every time I hit the keyboard, no matter what the subject; Not On This Thread.

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



Not getting it

Jul 28th, 2014 4:00 pm | By

Not getting it.

There are of course people not getting it. Lots of them.

There’s Phil Giordana for instance, on Dan Fincke’s public FB post on the statement.

No, sadly. it will be another excuse for the mob to do as they please and cast away any semblance of rationality or honesty. Don’t accommodate the online SJWs.

Don’t accommodate the people who give a shit about social justice issues? But there’s no need to “accommodate” us. I carefully excluded any such need from the statement. So I wondered what the hell he meant.

Don’t accommodate the online SJWs? So people should keep on with death threats, rape threats, attacks on people’s appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut; photoshopping people into demeaning images, vulgar epithets?

Why?

He explained. It’s because he’s banned from commenting on my blog.

Ophelia Benson: I never threatened anyone online, never attacked peoples’ appearance, apologized to you for using what you consider “gendered slur”, yet I’m still banned from your blog. You fuckwit! (that one’s fine, OB said so).

Yeah that’s not getting it. Just totally not getting it. He’s thinking that because I don’t let him comment on my blog, he’s entitled to punish me with death threats, rape threats, attacks on people’s appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut; photoshopping people into demeaning images, vulgar epithets. The whole point of the statement is that he’s not. He doesn’t get it.

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



Reasoning with people who want to spike the heads of their adversaries

Jul 28th, 2014 11:14 am | By

Nadette De Visser at the Daily Beast reports on a recent demonstration in The Hague (Den Haag):

“Death to the Jews” chanted the crowd waving the black flags of the Islamic State, or ISIS as it used to be known. They were looking for new supporters for their cause, the creation of a worldwide caliphate answering to the man who now calls himself Ibrahim: a zealot too radical even for Al Qaeda who has stormed through Syria and Iraq carrying out mass executions, crucifying rivals, beheading enemies. But these marchers were not in Syria or Iraq; they were in The Hague in The Netherlands. And their message was one tailored to the disaffected young descendants of Muslim immigrants in Europe.

“We are Moroccans,” went out the cry over a portable loudspeaker. “The French killed the Moroccans but they didn’t kill them all; the grandchildren of the few men left protest against the West, America and the Jews.”

Many of the demonstrators covered their faces with Palestinian scarves or balaclavas. “Anyone who doesn’t jump is a Jew,” someone shouted as the whole group started jumping in a scene that might have been ludicrous if it weren’t for the hateful message. “Death to the Jews!” the crowd shouted in Arabic.

No. No “Death to the” – ever. No matter what comes after the “the” – whether it be Jews, Arabs, Gazans, Palestinians, Zionists, Sunnis, kaffirs, Haredi, atheists, whores, gays – whatever. No calls for mass murder, no demands for genocide, no shouts for extermination, no paeans to ethnic cleansing – none of that. No incitement to murder.

And of all places in the world that you would expect to be hypersensitive to that? The Hague?? Which knows a thing or two about genocide and what sets it off?

All rallies in Dutch municipalities require permission from the local city council, the police and the public prosecutor’s office. The ISIS demo had been granted permission on the grounds that it was in support of the detained Dutch recruiter for jihad, Oussama Abu Yazeed. But the fact that the mayor’s office in The Hague either was unaware the rally was ISIS-linked or deemed it legitimate regardless has raised serious questions about the city council’s judgment.

Dutch Labor Party (PVDA) member Ahmed Marcouch, a former policeman who sits on the parliament’s security and justice committee, was one of the many who criticized the local government: “Unacceptable!” he tweeted. “Threatening journalists and shouting racist statements is punishable by law.”

Marcouch, who has Moroccan roots himself, wants the Muslim community in The Netherlands to be more vigilant in opposition to ISIS and similar groups. The footage shot at the protest clearly shows a number of very young boys: “What are these kids doing there in the first place?” he asks. “ISIS is pure barbarism, it is bloodthirsty,” Marchouch told The Daily Beast in an interview. “We can’t allow them to win our children away from us.”

Well said. He sounds like a Dutch Maajid Nawaz or Tehmina Kazi. Good on him; may many more like him speak up.

The Hague’s Mayor Jozias van Aartsen recently claimed on Dutch radio that no red lines were crossed by the protests, but such declarations are facing mounting incredulity when pictures circulate on the Web like one posted by an Iraqi-Dutch citizen in the IS-ruled Syrian city of Raqqa. It showed him surrounded by the severed heads of seven men spiked on an iron fence. The photograph looks as if some parts of it may have been faked, but the sentiment is genuine enough. Beheadings, for ISIS, have become a kind of sport.

Many of the young people who end up surviving this horrific war for the caliphate will haunt Europe when they come back home, and security services all over the continent and, indeed, in the United States, are concerned. On Friday the Dutch public prosecutor’s office finally announced that an investigation into ISIS in The Netherlands is underway.

One thing is certain, ignoring ISIS will not make it disappear and reasoning with people who want to spike the heads of their adversaries on fences should not be an option.

There’s always this fatal magical-thinking optimism, that if we just ignore it it will fade away. No, the “it” doesn’t always fade away. Often it gets stronger and stronger and then it attacks.

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



If Chuck Norris

Jul 28th, 2014 10:19 am | By

Well, that makes a nice summary of everything I fear and hate.

If I were elected president I would Tattoo an American flag with the words, “In God we trust,” on the forehead of every atheist.” – Chuck Norris

It’s got it all – sadism, compulsory nationalism, compulsory theism, total ignorance of US history, even recent history, and bigotry toward atheists. Ok not quite all, there’s no gay-bashing or feminist-bashing, but it’s almost all.

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



Not Diogenes

Jul 28th, 2014 9:12 am | By

Mark Senior continues to be eager to let everyone know that he’s not going to pay any attention to any statements on the merits of disagreeing without being abusive about it. Hell no! Nobody tells Mark Senior not to act like an asshole!! Mark Senior will act like an asshole as much as he wants to, thank you very much!!!

markDescription: a tweet sent by Mark Senior to Richard Dawkins and to me with a photoshop of PZ with a clown’s read nose and, underneath, a putative quotation from Diogenes of Sinope saying “that which cannot withstand criticism or mockery is false.” The attribution is a lie, of course – if you Google the phrase the only results are the slime pit and Justin Vacula. Diogenes they are not.

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



Hey Christina Hoff Sommers

Jul 27th, 2014 3:17 pm | By

Christina Hoff Sommers seems to be getting more unpleasant – or maybe just more active on Twitter, or maybe just retweeted by more people I happen to see. At any rate I find her increasingly unpleasant. I saw one tweet of hers this morning that was so obnoxious I replied to it.

Christina H. Sommers ‏@CHSommers 4h
Hey feminists, will you stop making recklessly false claims like/ “Women own only 1% of world’s property.”http://m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-own-1-of-world-property-a-feminist-myth-that-wont-die/273840/ …

Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson
.@CHSommers Hey Christina Hoff Sommers, will you stop bashing “feminists”?

Someone replied to me and Sommers favorited her reply. Of course she did. I replied back. Sommers won’t be favoriting that. (Nor will Paul Elam, who chimed in.)

Vandy Beth Glenn ‏@RedVelvetCakes 3h
@OpheliaBenson @CHSommers Ophelia, what did she say about “feminists” that is untrue?

Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson
@RedVelvetCakes @CHSommers That they all, generically, make the claim she cites. Replace “feminists” with “Jews” & see how it sounds.

Sommers was once a philosopher. That’s kind of sad.

Updated to add:

Sommers replied. Dishonestly.

Christina H. Sommers ‏@CHSommers
@OpheliaBenson Wow! So criticizing your brand of evidence-free feminism is analogous to anti-semitism. Muddled thinking, Ophelia.

So, naturally, I replied.

Ophelia Benson ‏@OpheliaBenson 3m
@CHSommers No. That’s not what you did. You didn’t criticize a particular brand of feminism. You said “Hey feminists” – just that.

Don’t call me muddled because you overstated your case. That’s not respectable.

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



What have you got against flamingoes anyway?

Jul 27th, 2014 10:35 am | By

Latsot (Look at the state of that) lists some of the tropes, in a comment at oolon’s place. Quoted with permission.

It would be too depressing to describe all the ‘arguments’ against rape culture I’ve seen, but it might be fun to list some of the tropes. For an especially masochistic definition of ‘fun’. Some of these you’ve already mentioned.

1. Women all the time be faking accusations
2. Being falsely accused of rape is worse than being raped
3. Someone you admire once accused someone of rape so accusing people of rape is always bad (never quite understood this one)
4. You SJW types say you should always believe the victim no matter what (rather than you should always believe the victim PROVISIONALLY unless there’s a good reason not to, which is what we actually tend to say)

5. The slymepit has lots of examples of FTBullies behaviing badly, therefore…. and I get a bit lost here… people who rape or threaten rape or enable rape are…ok…?
6. FTBullies are evil. Therefore anyone evil is an FTBully. Therefore FTBullies are evil. Why are they evil? Mostly because they are not fans of rape culture apologists.
7. He was joking when he threatened to rape someone or said he was glad they were raped.
8. It wasn’t a real threat because it was on the Internet.
9. He kindasorta said he was sorry when the entire internet condemned him so he’s presto-changeo forgiven by the internet jesus.
10. He hasn’t said anything unbelievably shit in the last fortnight, so he’s totally not a horrible bigot.
11. Look over there, a FLAMINGO.
12. What have you got against flamingoes anyway? I’m not changing the subject, YOU ARE. I don’t even know of ONE flamingo who’s a rapist.
13. Being liberal is somehow and inexplicably a bad thing
14. Caring about people is somehow and inexplicably a bad thing
15 Atheism is only about not believing in gods. Unless we are telling off believers for the same things we refuse to tell non-believers off for.

Your turn.

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



In a material world of blind indifference

Jul 27th, 2014 10:08 am | By

One rather peculiar response from a reverend:

@CLGrossman @RichardDawkins @OpheliaBenson Well said but why/ How? In a material world of blind indifference who decides what is is “civil”[?]

That’s not peculiar for a reverend*, of course, but it’s peculiar in itself.

Who decides? Human beings decide. We decide because we’re the ones affected. We decide because we want various things. We want to be able to have reasonable conversations. We want to be able to talk without fistfights or insults or taunts. We want at least a minimal baseline of peace and co-operation.

That’s who decides. The people who have a stake decide. That’s true even in a material world of blind indifference. The material world is blindly indifferent to me (and you and us and them and her and him), it’s true, but that doesn’t mean we are all indifferent to each other or to ourselves.

That’s true even if you do believe in a god. In that sense it actually is somewhat peculiar for a reverend to ask the question. Does he really think atheists are blindly indifferent because the material world is? Has he never met a single one?

 

*His profile says he’s Vicar at Christ Church Lye, in the West Midlands.

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



Haw haw

Jul 26th, 2014 2:17 pm | By

Not everyone is board, but we knew that.

notev

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



Joint statement by Ophelia Benson and Richard Dawkins

Jul 26th, 2014 12:02 pm | By

Joint statement by Ophelia Benson and Richard Dawkins

It’s not news that allies can’t always agree on everything. People who rely on reason rather than dogma to think about the world are bound to disagree about some things.

Disagreement is inevitable, but bullying and harassment are not. If we want secularism and atheism to gain respect, we have to be able to disagree with each other without trying to destroy each other.

In other words we have to be able to manage disagreement ethically, like reasonable adults, as opposed to brawling like enraged children who need a nap. It should go without saying, but this means no death threats, rape threats, attacks on people’s appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut; no photoshopping people into demeaning images, no vulgar epithets.

Richard adds: I’m told that some people think I tacitly endorse such things even if I don’t indulge in them. Needless to say, I’m horrified by that suggestion. Any person who tries to intimidate members of our community with threats or harassment is in no way my ally and is only weakening the atheist movement by silencing its voices and driving away support.

Also posted at RDF.

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



Decks

Jul 26th, 2014 10:37 am | By

Have a friendly set of caricatures, for purposes of comparison. Crispian Jago’s deck of “Skeptic” cards from 2011. (Some of the people in the deck don’t fit the category very well – Dennett, Aaronovitch, Grayling, Hitchens, Peter Singer, Andrew Copson – they’re not primarily skeptics, not professional Skeptics.)

The caricatures are done by Neil Davies.

Here’s Anthony Grayling:

H/t Catherine Xanthë

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



Crucified in the main square

Jul 25th, 2014 3:41 pm | By

ISIS have also been using crucifixion as a punishment. What history wonks they are.

A man has survived being crucified by Isis in Syria, after the jihadists raided his village and nailed him to a cross for eight hours.

The unnamed man from Al-Bab, near the border with Turkey, was crucified as a punishment, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

He managed to survive the ordeal.

But eight others who received the same punishment did not survive. The men, from Deir Hafer in the east of Aleppo province, were subjected to the same treatment and crucified “in the main square of the village, where their bodies will remain for three days”, the Britain-based monitor said.

It’s a very horrible way to die – slow torturous suffocation as the weight of the hanging body compresses the lungs.

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



Good idea

Jul 25th, 2014 3:19 pm | By

From Blue Nation Review:

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



So close

Jul 25th, 2014 12:50 pm | By

Greta has a terrific post on the question of what will you accept in an ally before you decide that’s not an ally after all.

I’ve been thinking about that a lot this week, as you’ve seen, and also as you haven’t seen, because I’ve been doing it out of sight.

Here’s a crucial bit of Greta’s post along with my response posted there and on Facebook:

In many instances, of course we can agree about some things while disagreeing about others, and agreeing when someone says (X) doesn’t automatically mean you agree when they say ( Y ). But when someone crosses a clear line into vile and unacceptable behavior, the community needs to make it clear that this behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. We need to show that some lines absolutely should not be crossed, and that if people cross them there will be consequences. Supporting someone’s work when they’ve acted abhorrently means there are no consequences.And that’s especially true in the case of rape threats, persistent harassment of women, and other misogynist behavior — because in the atheist community, we don’t, unfortunately, currently have a clear ethical standard that this is unacceptable. We have a culture in which it’s depressingly common for people to engage in this behavior, and for other people to defend, rationalize, trivialize, dismiss, or victim-blame it — without consequences, or without serious consequences.

Leaders in the movement do this, and remain leaders. We need to change that culture. We need to make it unmistakably clear that we do not tolerate this behavior. Promoting people’s work who engage in this behavior is tolerating it. And tolerating this behavior helps perpetuate it.

Yes yes yes yes yes.

The sad thing? (A sad thing.) I was working on it. I was talking to one of those leaders – one of the Leaderest of them – about exactly that, and what a good thing it would be if he did make it unmistakably clear that we do not tolerate this behavior. He said he would consider it; he even asked me to suggest some wording. He even suggested we sign it jointly. He even sent me a revision for my opinion. I said it’s great, let’s do this thing.

Silence.

So close. We were so close.

That. I thought it was going to happen. It would have been a game-changer. It should have happened. It should happen. But – silence has fallen.

So damn close.

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



A Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim

Jul 25th, 2014 11:55 am | By

But there is one good thing: Meriam Ibrahim and her family are safe, out of Sudan.

Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag flew to Rome with her family after more than a month in the US embassy in Khartoum.

There was global condemnation when she was sentenced to hang for apostasy by a Sudanese court.

Mrs Ibrahim’s father is Muslim so according to Sudan’s version of Islamic law she is also Muslim and cannot convert.

She was raised by her Christian mother and says she has never been Muslim.

Welcoming her at the airport, Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said: “Today is a day of celebration.”

Then she went to meet with the pope, which doesn’t sound like fun to me, but maybe if I’d been in her situation it would seem like the best fun in the world.

Lapo Pistelli, Italy’s vice-minister for foreign affairs, accompanied her on the flight from Khartoum and posted a photo of himself with Mrs Ibrahim and her children on his Facebook account as they were about to land in Rome.

“Mission accomplished,” he wrote.

A senior Sudanese official told Reuters news agency that the government in Khartoum had approved her departure in advance.

Mrs Ibrahim’s lawyer Mohamed Mostafa Nour told BBC Focus on Africa that she travelled on a Sudanese passport she received at the last minute.

“She is unhappy to leave Sudan. She loves Sudan very much. It’s the country she was born and grew up in,” he said.

That’s sad. It appears that Sudan did not love her back, though.

A last twist of the knife:

Last week, her father’s family filed a lawsuit trying to have her marriage annulled, on the basis that a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim.

And you’re not allowed to leave Islam, and you’re in Islam if your father is a Muslim, even if you never even met the guy. But there is no compulsion in religion. Uh huh.

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



“We’re sure ISIS will follow through”

Jul 25th, 2014 11:08 am | By

As many people have pointed out here, and far more have pointed out elsewhere, the report that ISIS had ordered all girls/women aged 11 to 46 to undergo female genital mutilation may be a hoax. (Some have said it simply is a hoax, but that’s not clear yet.)

But at least it’s not purely a Western media hoax. Al Arabiya is taking it seriously. Yesterday it reported the same story I got from the BBC:

Staff Writer, Al Arabiya News
Thursday, 24 July 2014
The al-Qaeda-Inspired Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has ordered all girls and women between the ages of 11 and 46 in and around Iraq’s northern city of Mosul to undergo female genital mutilation, the United Nations said on Thursday.

“It is a fatwa (or religious edict) of ISIS, we learnt this this morning,” said Jacqueline Badcock, the number two U.N. official in Iraq.

“This is something very new for Iraq, particularly in this area, and is of grave concern and does need to be addressed,” she said, according to Reuters.

“This is not the will of Iraqi people, or the women of Iraq in these vulnerable areas covered by the terrorists,” she added.

No one was immediately available for comment from Islamic State which has led an offensive through northern and western Iraq.

So, not confirmed, but not disconfirmed, either.

Today it reports that an Iraqi NGO thinks it will happen.

An Iraqi human rights organization said Friday that the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will likely implement a religious edict (Fatwa) that all females aged 11-46 in and around the northern city of Mosul undergo genital mutilation (FGM).

“We’re sure ISIS will follow through with what they’ve announced,” William Warda, head of media relations at Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, told Al Arabiya News

Women working for ISIS may be used to check whether or not females are genitally mutilated, said Warda, a leading member of the Assyrian Democratic Movement.

At the end, it tells us there has been no official word either way:

Meanwhile, ISIS has not officially confirmed or denied the report.

Are we all fully confident that ISIS won’t do that? Do we think their human sympathies and kindness will prevent them?

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



Your ‘victim card’

Jul 25th, 2014 6:43 am | By

More reasoned argument from Team We Hate Feminism – a friendly tweet from Mark Senior, who comments here as mofa.

mark

Mark Senior @MarkSenior3

Please accept your ‘victim card’ (hope you have your sense of humour switched on)

regards mofa

mark2He’s late; I posted that on Facebook yesterday. I also pointed out that the jeans and shoes are all wrong. I wouldn’t wear shoes like that, and I never roll my jeans, much less wear them up above the ankle like that. Ew.

Above the jeans of course it’s exact.

But as an argument? Well I’m not sure what the argument is, exactly. That I’m wrong about everything because I’m so ugly? I’m not convinced that’s a valid argument. Maybe someone will make a video elucidating the premises.

Update to add:

mark3

Mark Senior @MarkSenior3

@jimnnewman @OpheliaBenson

Just clean fun…no one gets hurt

Jim Newman @jimnnewman

@MarkSenior3 @OpheliaBenson no one gets hurt? I’m detecting hurt feelings, insults, personal attacks, denigration, push to silence.

Mark Senior @MarkSenior3

Alex G liked his (except for the nose), Lousy Canadian will like his…RW’s is good too.

It’s very telling that he picked those out. They are relatively benign. But several of the others are not benign at all; it’s telling that he didn’t claim anyone will like those.

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



Guest post: Saying antifeminist things seems to be the path to YouTube stardom

Jul 24th, 2014 6:26 pm | By

Originally a comment by Tom Foss on Credit where it’s due.

This JG kerfuffle, is, though, inconsequential bullshit as far as I can see.

The atheist and skeptical communities have made their names on calling out and arguing against bad arguments and strawmen. Why would we stop when those bad arguments and strawmen are coming from someone who claims to be part of the community? Why wouldn’t we argue even harder, to demonstrate what we so frequently see lacking in religious communities, namely a willingness to police their own? If atheists being irrational and behaving badly is inconsequential bullshit to other atheists, then why is it suddenly consequential when religionists do the same?

It’s true, Jaclyn Glenn is not the source of all the misogyny and antifeminism (and ableism) in the community, she’s just a source of some of it. And she’s a prime example of how saying antifeminist things seems to be the path to YouTube stardom for atheists and skeptics, just as saying feminist things is the path to abuse and harassment. Seems like Dawkins and American Atheists only started promoting her once she started saying antifeminist things, and they certainly haven’t withdrawn their support because she opposes feminists. That sends a message, intended or not, to women in this community, that feminist concerns are not a priority for atheist movement leaders. Moreover, since I don’t see the RDF or AA promoting Rebecca Watson or Laci Green or other feminist atheist YouTubers, it sends the message that’s been clearly sent since the post-elevatorgate TAM, that feminists are not welcome or wanted in this community.

I just don’t see that the source of all those problems is Richard Dawkins or Dusty or JG. In fact, I suspect that all of them would totally agree with you.

Yes, on a lot of issues, I suspect they would nominally agree. Dawkins has adopted the feminist label in the past, and spent some time in The God Delusion talking about feminist consciousness-raising, and using it as a model for an atheist version of the same. But Dawkins’ idea of feminism seems to be one where western women’s biggest problems were solved when we stopped saying “fireman” and “chairman” and started saying “firefighter” and “chairperson.” Now, as long as there are Muslimas in the world, dealing with forced marriage and genital mutilation and virginity tests, western women have no business complaining about sexism or working to correct privilege in their cultures. It ties into a whole host of other issues Dawkins has with racism and Islamophobia (for lack of a better term).

But Dawkins is someone that much of the community recognizes as a leader, so when he attacks feminists and promotes antifeminist rants, his fans take that as license to do the same. Dawkins has a lot more reach and influence than Jaclyn Glenn, but JG wouldn’t have nearly as much reach and influence if not for the Dawkins seal of approval.

Sorry, tangent again. Point being that Dawkins may well say he agrees with equality between sexes, but his idea of what that means does not bear much resemblance to my idea, or the ideas of most feminists. Think, for example, about conservative Christians who say they believe in equality but not gay marriage, since gay people already have the same rights as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite gender. If you just asked those people “how do you feel about equality,” or even, “how do you feel about equality for gay people?” you’d get an affirmative response. And yet, that’s an attitude that needs fighting against, because even though both sides of the gay marriage issue profess belief in and agreement with equality, their ideas of equality are opposed.

Similarly, Jaclyn Glenn would probably say that she agrees with the idea that men and women should be equal, but her idea of equality still allows people to use gendered insults that suggest women’s bodies are gross and inferior. It allows her to call disgusting misogynists like TJ Kincaid friends and feminists like Ophelia opponents. That’s not the gender equality that feminism fights for, it’s the social oppression they fight against.

As for the rifts, they exist. No one is ginning up new unnecessary rifts, we’re just mapping out where they are. And when you align yourself with thoroughly disgusting assholes like The Amazing Atheist, well, we recognize pretty quickly what side of the rift you’re on.

 

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



I refuse to do the job, so you have to hire me

Jul 24th, 2014 11:14 am | By

At Slate Amanda Marcotte considers the expanding definitions of “religious freedom.”

Is “religious freedom” about being free to practice your faith, or just a generic cover story for any and all attempts to try to foist your beliefs on others? In this era of Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, it’s understandable that many on the right have decided it’s the latter and are eager to start testing the limits of how much leverage the expansive new definition of “religious freedom” gives them to meddle with the private contraception choices of others. Next on the docket: Attempting to force family planning centers to hire nurse-midwives who refuse to let patients plan their families, all in the name of “religious freedom.”

That is indeed the question, and it’s the general principle behind the expansive new definition that is so infuriating, as well as the specific details of the case. I detest this idea that “religious freedom” includes freedom to force one’s religious claims on other people. It makes me bristle like a porcupine.

Sara Hellwege is a nurse-midwife in Tampa, Florida, who opposes the use of some of the most effective and female-controlled forms of contraception, such as the birth control pill. Despite that position, Hellwege applied for a job with the Tampa Family Health Centers. When asked by the human resources director about her affiliation with an anti-contraception group called the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired.

Which is exactly what should happen. Rather than hiring people who will refuse to do parts of the job they were hired to do, and then making “accommodations” for those people (at the expense of everyone else affected), the thing to do is ask before hiring if the candidate will do all the parts of the job. If the answer is no, obviously that person should not be hired.

Win or lose, Hellwege’s case provides insight in how the war on contraception is shaping up. Direct assaults through legislation are going to be a much harder sell with contraception than abortion, so instead we’re getting the argument that someone else’s “religious freedom”—your boss, your nurse—entitles them to interfere with your ability to get contraception. Family planning centers are one place that women have long been able to trust will provide them contraception access without unnecessary hassle, and now the Christian right is trying to take even that away.

And then they’ll move on to interning women who refuse to marry.

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



Universal FGM

Jul 24th, 2014 10:15 am | By

Warning – bad stuff.

The BBC reports:

A top UN official in Iraq has said the Sunni Islamist group Isis controlling the city of Mosul is seeking to impose female genital mutilation.

All females aged 11 and 46 in the northern city must undergo the procedure, according to an Isis edict, UN official Jacqueline Badcock said.

That second sentence must be a typo – it has to mean aged from 11 to 46, not 11 and 46.

At any rate, if it’s true, and they mean it – well. That’s quite something.

Yo, George Bush? Feeling proud of your accomplishments this morning?

Update: links to denials in comments.

 

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