Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Equality is an all-or-nothing concept

    Dave Silverman has a piece explaining about the World Trade Center “cross” at the Washington Post on faith blog. You probably already know it was just one of many steel crossbeams in the rubble, arbitrarily chosen as a Sign From God. (Gee thanks. Kind of as if I torched a school after locking all the doors and then left a little note on pink flowery paper afterwards saying “cheer up!”)

    The decorated crossbeam was seized by Father Brian Jordan, a Roman Catholic Franciscan priest, and a religious relic was invented. During the next 10 years, the 17-foot cross was moved, repaired, mounted and copied. Religious services were held in front of it at St. Paul’s Chapel. Worshippers further modified it, carving “JESUS” on the top and etching prayers on the side. The cross was labeled unique, a sign from the Christian god, not merely a crossbeam plucked from the rubble of a terrorist attack.

    You can’t get much more religious than that, one would think.

    The cross was installed in the World Trade Center (WTC) Memorial in a religious ceremony in 2011 led by Father Jordan. He then consecrated the public land on which the memorial is built, and the cross was lowered in. That same year, American Atheists sued for the removal of the cross as a religious symbol or for the WTC board to approve an atheist memorial alongside to remember the nonbelievers who died on 9/11.

    On March 29, 2013, Judge Deborah Batts ruled that the cross is a secular “artifact,” not an unconstitutional religious symbol.

    Secular. Religious services were held in front of it at a chapel. “JESUS” is carved on top. Prayers are etched on the side. Yet it’s secular. Insult us, why don’t you?!

    (By the way March 29 was a Friday, and the first full day of the AA 2013 convention. Dave made an unscheduled appearance between talks to announce the decision. He was pissed. I know this because he said so [and because you could tell].)

    Shortly after installing the cross, the WTC board okayed the inclusion of a small Star of David in the memorial as well. This object is not an artifact from the WTC site at all, but was approved for inclusion because some Jews protested being represented by a Christian symbol.

    If the board members are going to install a Christian memorial, they should not say it’s not Christian. Rather, they should admit it’s religious, just as clearly as the Star of David is. In compliance with federal law, they should include equal representation for the atheists who died in the religious attacks on 9/11.

    American Atheists has offered, on multiple occasions, to pay for an atheist memorial, to allow the WTC board to approve a design, and even to simply dedicate an existing exhibit to the nonreligious victims but the board turned American Atheists down on every request. Our group has been called un-American and insensitive for making the requests. Apparently, American Atheists is somehow unpatriotic for demanding equal treatment in a memorial dedicated to those we lost in a religiously-inspired terrorist attack.

    That seems grossly unfair to me.

    Equality is an all-or-nothing concept. We all have equal rights, and America’s atheists are not being treated equally at the WTC Memorial. If the WTC board members insist on bringing in religious symbols, they must include symbols for everyone who wishes to be included. They can keep the cross,  but atheists will not be ignored just because some people at the WTC Memorial are prejudiced against nonbelievers. Atheists will have an equal place, or it all must go. That’s fair, that’s legal, that’s religious neutrality—that’s the American way.

    I’ve seen a lot of people objecting to the cross suit, but I think many of them must not know about this part. AA didn’t say get it out, AA said we would like a memorial too, which we will pay for – and got turned down. That’s not right.

  • If you’re going to lay the blame for that somewhere

    Miri has a great post on street harassment. One interesting bit:

    Some men who want to compliment random women on the street are genuinely good guys who just don’t understand why their comments might be unwelcome. Some men who want to compliment random women on the street are creepy predators. Most are somewhere in between, and guess what? I don’t know you, I don’t know your life, and I have no idea if you’re going to leave it at “Hey, you look good in that dress!” or follow it up with “But you’d look better without it! Har har! C’mon, where’re you going? I know you heard me! Fucking cunt, nobody wants your fat ass anyway, bitch.”

    When you compliment a random woman who doesn’t know you, no matter how nice you are about it, there’s a good chance she’s going to freak out internally because for all she knows, you could be that latter type. And I get that it’s really unfair that women would just assume that about you. I get that it sucks that sometimes, expressing totally reasonable opinions like “hey you’re hot” will make women terrified of you or furious at you. That’s not fair.

    But if you’re going to lay the blame for that somewhere, for fuck’s sake, don’t blame the woman. Blame all the guys who have called her a bitch and a cunt for ignoring their advances. Blame all the guys who may have harassed, abused, or assaulted her in the past. Blame all the people who may never do such a thing themselves, but who were quick to blame her and tell her to just get over it.

    Ya. That applies to more than just street harassment – it applies to quite a few things. It applies to me, for instance. (Doesn’t everything??! No. Not everything does. Contrary to myth, I don’t think that everything does. But this does.) If I don’t smile sweetly when you jeer at me on Twitter, blame all the people who have called me a bitch and a cunt for whatever the hell it was I don’t even remember. If I’m irritable about online harassment and stalking, blame all the people who have been online harassing and stalking me for anything from a few days to almost two years.

    But it also applies to other things, including the thing Miri is talking about. It’s all connected. Trigger-happy hostility to women is the underlying issue.

     

  • Feminazis stole my ice cream!

    Scott Benson’s (no relation) But I’m a Nice Guy

    A quick editorial cartoon about the intersection of self-pity, entitlement, rape, territoriality, misogyny and fear of women. You see it all over the place online in the form of Men’s Rights Activists (of whom there are a few reasonable non-misogynists), Men Going Their Own Way, Pick Up Artists, and dudes touting the “Red Pill”, because The Matrix is a good movie. Look any of these up if you have the stomach for it. These are extreme examples, but watered-down forms of these ideas are everywhere.

    In lurking their blogs and youtube channels for a while, I’ve noticed that beyond the standard patriarchal chauvinism there is this deep fear of women – what they will do to me, how they will reject me, how they will use me, how they are changing society in a way that does not favor me, how they are making men into something I don’t like, how they are making themselves into something I don’t like, that they won’t give me what I want, and that they won’t give me what I think is rightfully mine. This goes beyond fear of feminism- this is fear of women at its purest. And that, to quote a puppet, leads to anger and hate. It’s sad.

    I am a feminist. I think there’s enough ice cream to go around, but it does mean those of us with 3 scoops might have to give one or two up. Also, The Matrix is a fun movie but probably not anything you should be basing a philosophy on.

    So that’s why Glendon Mellow tagged both of us yesterday! Bensons. Go Bensons.

  • Breaking the Taboo of Atheism in Black Communities

    The black discourse is characteristically presented in polarized – black versus white or in a binary – black and white manner. The white factor is often construed to be the only frame – or better the principal dynamic – that defines, drives or makes the black text or the black talk meaningful. Personally I find this approach to be narrow, unimaginative and unscientific. It leaves so much unexplained about the black world and experience. This approach conflates so many issues including the diversity, dialectics and dynamism, the contrasts and contradictions, peculiarities, particularities and commonalities in black life, history and experience. Hence I find fascinating the possibilities of the emerging dynamic of atheism or the black versus god debate. But these possibilities cannot be adequately expressed and harnessed till the taboo of atheism in black communities is broken.

    Let’s face it: if there are people who should be religious and theistic today, it is not black people; if there are people who should flaunting their christian or islamic religiousity, piety and godliness, it is not people in black communities. But the irony is that black people are reputed to be the most religious people on earth, and Africa has severally been polled to be the most theistic region in the world. The experience of black people in history – even today – makes the existence of a loving and caring god of the religions untenable. Many people still maintain that religion and god were responsible for the abolition of slavery, and for ensuring the success of the civil rights movement in the US. They often use this claim to support during public debates the fledging notions of theism or religion. But my question is this where was the christian god during the transatlantic slave trade, where is the christian god now? Where was the muslim god during the trans-saharan slave trade? Where is the muslim god today?

    Does it mean that a benevolent and merciful god looks away or goes to sleep and allows evil and terrible crimes to be committed and at a point – after some years, decades or centuries – he wakes up, comes to his senses and decides to stop them? What kind of god is that? I mean how does one reconcile the idea of a personal god who hears prayers or the idea that religion provides people in black communities with a sense of meaning, and the existing and persisting state of poverty, misery, hunger, despair, crimes, conflicts in black countries and communities? What kind of meaning or hope does religion provide black people? What kind of god do black people worship? What kind of Allah do black muslims revere? What kind of Jesus do black christians pray to?

    Is Jesus on the side of christians in Northern Nigeria? Is Allah on the side of Boko Haram, al Shabab and their jihadist campaigns? If not, why not? We need to ask these questions to gain insights into many problems that plague the world.

    Even from the history and experience of people in the Middle East, the god idea makes little or no sense. Many Palestinians and Isrealis are god-yahweh-christiangod-allah believers. And they have been fighting for decades in a particular small portion of the world chosen by god to produce the greatest prophets of the world religions, and none of the prophets has shown up and tried coming down to resolve the conflict. God itself has not shown up. The same thing is applicable to the conflict in Northern Ireland. In which side was Jesus in that conflict?

    If today many people across the world are reluctant and fearful of speaking out against the excesses of christian churches and islamic groups, against the abuses going on in the name of religion, black people should not be, because it is people from black communities who are suffering most from these excesses.

    If we observe carefully, the global war against terrorism has been misconstrued to be a battle between islam and the west. It is not. This is a clear case of miscategorization that is being used to polarize the world and garner support and mobilize resources on both sides. The jihadist movement is global, and is wreaking havoc – and has been wreaking havoc – in many countries outside the ‘West’ including islamic countries, since the time of prophet Muhammad.

    If anyone says that the fight against terrorism is a case of islam versus the west, then where does Africa come in? What about the violent islamist campaign in non-western black communities or in non-western parts of the world? How does one explain the violent campaign of jihadists in Somalia, Sudan, Mali, Nigeria etc? Is that also a case of Islam versus the west? So when global discourses are misarticulated in ways that imply that people in Africa or in the black communities do not matter, we should tell them that we do. That is why we need this freethinking space to bring missing perspectives to issues.

    Breaking the taboo of atheism in black communities has become necessary because the evidence for god’s existence is simply not there. Many Jews are still expecting the messiah, and the guy has not showed up yet. And Jesus, whom christians believe to be or to have been the messiah, apparently disappeared into the clouds, and his actual fate remains unknown. Even though many christian believers are expecting him to come back soon, nobody is sure that he got to his destination. And the messenger prophet Muhammad, who (we are told) suddenly rocketed into the sky, in the same part of the world where Jesus thrusted and disappeared into the clouds. And there is no confirmation yet that he got to his destination, since he left on a flaming horse riding against the current of gravity. (No one knows if he actually arrived safely or whether when he eventually got there he decided to assume the position of prophet emeritus).

    So at a time when abuses related to witchcraft, religion and other paranormal beliefs are ravaging the black communities, and people are so terrified speaking out against these atrocious acts because of fear of being attacked, or of being killed or called an atheist, an infidel or a blasphemer, or being accused of racism or islamophobia; at a time many young people in black communities are embracing extremist suicidal religious ideologies and religious charlatans, faith healers, witchdoctors, marabus, sangomas, and other purveyors of theistic and paranormal claims are having a field day exploiting poor ignorant folks, spreading fear and resignation, inciting violence and hatred of any thing and anybody western – at this time breaking the taboo of atheism has become a social imperative, a moral and intellectual duty with promises of peace in our troubled world, and of liberation and emancipation of people in black communities from the shackles of ignorance, dogmas, superstitions, intellectual hostage, mental slavery, irrational fears and blind faith.

     

  • Virus rights

    First, do no harm. That’s a good rule for all of us, not just doctors.

    It would be a good rule for anti-vaxxers to pay far more attention to. Consider Marita Howell, who runs a daycare facility in Maroubra, in New South Wales.

    Maroubra is one of the nine local areas in NSW identified by the National Health Performance Authority as being “at risk” of outbreaks because of vaccination rates of below 85 per cent.

    And you know what else? Howell has a son, age 14, who had chemo for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The chemo destroyed his immune system. He was too sick for school, so he was recuperating at the daycare facility. And oh whoops, two unvaccinated children fuelled an outbreak of chicken pox at that facility.

    Westmead Children’s Hospital paediatric oncologist Luciano Dalla-Pozza compares non-vaccination to drink-driving in terms of the danger it presents to cancer patients, whose immune systems are devastated by chemotherapy.

    “We’ve had deaths (of cancer patients) from measles and chicken pox because it gets in the lungs and causes severe pneumonia,” Dr Dalla-Pozza said. “If you come into contact with kids on chemo, you put someone else’s life at risk.”

    Ms Howell was terrified when the chicken pox outbreak swept her centre. “If you don’t immunise your child, for people like Jonathon that can be life-threatening. The thing that kills kids is not the cancer, but the infections they pick up,” she said.

    By law, she can’t exclude the unvaccinated children.

    What.a.mess.

  • Page o’ nonstop monitoring and harassment

    May 4

    First thing in the morning. Again, why Twitter blocking doesn’t work – because any old asshole can reply to someone you’ve blocked and then her sniping at you turns up in your feed. Lucky you.

    amb

    AmbrosiaX tweets

    One more thing, @OpheliaBenson , try doing some actual critical thinking instead of just applauding any article that makes men look bad.

    Pfunk-the original @ Gluonsrule tweets

    @AmbrosiaX@OpheliaBenson yeah, maybe that will happen.

    “One more thing” is it – so there’s a whole series then. “AmbrosiaX” is obsessed with me, and I don’t even know who the fuck she is apart from being someone who spends hours every day sniping at me and other Hated Ones. Yet she accuses me of doing nothing but “applauding any article that makes men look bad.” Is that really what I do nothing but? No.

    May 3, again

    amb

    In reverse order, hence chronological order

    Ambrosia X tweets (and tweets and tweets)

    @Eunecromancer@aratina@tkmlac@ool0n I’ll tell you what happened with the acid story. As I said, Ophelia blogged about an acid attack and

    tried to relate it to her “activism” as though she could be a target for such a horrific attack…

    A tweeter who followed many of us (but no one seemed to know him well) said something about OB having

    a facial. I think he was trying to make a juvenile jab at her appearance. It definitely was not a

    threat. We all said it was inappropriate and he deleted his account, probably out of embarrassment.

    I’ll take the lies in order too. No I did not say anything about “my ‘activism’” – I never say anything about my activism, because I’m not an activist, and I don’t claim or pretend to be. What I said was

    Interesting. One minute it’s just hacked Facebook accounts, the next it’s acid attacks. Maybe I should start wearing protection.

    That’s all. I said it at the end of a post that quoted from a news item about the Bolshoi artistic director who got acid thrown in his face.

    The tweeter did not say “something about OB having a facial.” He said

    Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good.

    Followed by a long-winded version of “you’re incredibly ugly.” Yes, of course part of the idea was to say that a vial of acid in my face would make me less ugly and thus do me some good, but that was only part of the idea. “Ambrosia” announces that it was definitely not a threat. That’s easy for her to say. It’s less easy to say “definitely” when the threat (or “joke” with threat-like overtones) is aimed at you as opposed to someone else. I would feel distinctly uncomfortable – in fact I would feel like a complete shit – looking at a ”Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good” said to someone else and dogmatically announcing it was definitely not a threat. But not “Ambrosia.” “Ambrosia” apparently feels perfectly fine about going on and on and on and on and on about how no threats aimed at me are actually threats and I deserve all the shit thrown at me for musing on the possibility that an extended campaign to throw shit at me could eventually turn violent.

    May 3

    The shameless lying never fails to surprise me.

    A comment on a demented, paranoia-riddled post by David Osorio at Skeptic Ink:

    hog

    Theo Ffensivatheist

    There are some people in the comment section of Butterflies & wheels that are trying to convince (I’m not sure who) that Justin represents a REAL threat & some are seriously talking about bottles of acid being thrown in Womens faces as a real possibility (all without ANY kind of evidence of course). Is there anyone here willing to truthfully say they think they’re trying to be honest & genuine here. Personally i see it as the worst kind of hyperbole &/or downright dishonesty & another example of what we’ve come to expect from many at FtB. The ONLY person who’s even possibly facing any kind of threat is Justin, who’s going to be surrounded by several hundred people, the vast majority of which will disagree on many issues & idea/l/s he holds dear. We can only hope that the most impressionable of those in opposition to his presence don’t try to play the hero. I wish him all the best but can honestly say, “Rather him than me”. I know he’s doing this for all of us. (Even if some don’t realize or appreciate it).

     Daosorios

    Why am I not surprised!

    Shameless lie. Nobody has said one word about Vacula throwing acid in anyone’s face.

    May 1

    I was told Vacula is chirping aggressively at me again. Sure enough. I suppose this is by way of demonstrating to a fascinated world that he’s not harassing me in the least and never has been.

    ass

    Justin Vacula tweets

    So, how much longer until Ophelia Benson drops out of #WIScfi speciously claiming she is threatened? She did it once before… #ftbullies

    A bystander comments.

    ass2

    Jessie Lewis tweets

    @justinvacula Your hatred for others is all that’s keeping you in the public eye, isn’t it?

    Justin Vacula tweets

    @Jessie_XL I don’t hate. Anyway, feel free to check out my activism and appearances – some of which made global, national, state, local news

    Jessie Lewis tweets

    @justinvacula You are deliberately offensive to others and then seem angry when they refuse to engage with you.

    @justinvacula You have a massive ego as well and bask in the attention you are getting from your petty vendetta.

    Vacula tweets

    @Jessie_XL I find intellectual dishonesty quite repugnant – when people talk a big game and refuse to defend their ideas with detractors

    Deliberately offensive? How? …and I thought offense was the problem of the person claiming offense, not the person giving it?

    That’s what he thought?! Well that would explain a lot!

    Sure, and rudeness is the problem of the person claiming rudeness, not the person giving it; same with cruelty, aggression, lying – it’s all the problem of the person “claiming” rudeness et al., not the person giving it. All is subjective! Nothing is real! And everything is “the problem of” the person being acted on, not the agent. How very convenient – until of course you are the person being acted on.

    April 29 part 3

    Because of the sheer weirdness.

    jerm3

    April 29 part deux

    Dang, it’s hard to keep up at the moment, even with the tiny fraction of the total that I choose to document. My audacity in telling Vacula to leave me alone after he tweeted about hoping I would chat with him at WiS2 has triggered a new avalanche.

    Like…

    carl

    And like

    justy

    And like

    Farrenkopf

    April 29

    blackf

    Russell Blackford tweets

    Whether or not you agree with Justin Vacula’s opinions (and I disagree with many of them), this witch hunt against him has to stop.

    This “witch hunt”? What witch hunt? I told him not to approach me. That’s not a witch hunt. He’s been relentlessly monitoring and harassing me for almost a year, and I do not want to interact with him in real life. Telling him that is not a “witch hunt.”

    Vacula is complaining that I also said that if he didn’t leave me alone I would file a complaint. Well? I’ve told him to leave me alone before and he has never done so, therefore I wanted him to know that I would in fact make an official complaint if he refused to leave me alone at the conference. It’s that simple. He doesn’t leave people alone simply because they ask him or tell him to. More is needed.

    And this has nothing to do with Vacula’s “opinions” or “disagreement” – it has to do with actions.

    may2

    Sara E Mayhew tweets

    Report real online stalking/harassment to ISPs. Using the terms irresponsibly like @pzmyers@opheliabenson hurts real victims. #ftbullies

    may3

    PZ Myers tweets

    Exactly. What’s so hard about that? RT @InMyUnbelief: @saramayhew So…don’t approach them. @MsMondegreen@OpheliaBenson

    Eristae tweets

    @saramayhew@pzmyers@OpheliaBenson
    Seriously, why the F is the response to this not, “Oh, you don’t want to talk to me? Okay, I won’t.”

    Mayhew tweets

    @Eristae@pzmyers@OpheliaBenson they just want to setup a chance to kick someone out. Regardless of whether it’s harassment or not.

    Mayhew doesn’t know that, and it’s not true.

    mayhew4

    Mayhew tweets

    @MsMondegreen They are drama-mongering metabloggers acting like high schoolers. NO one should approach them. @pzmyers@OpheliaBenson

    There are more like that, but I’m bored with posting them. But I wanted to post a sample because Mayhew has been ordering me to remove her from this page, on the grounds that harassment is a crime.

    April 28 item 3

    Mayhew is back. I was hoping she would never sneer at me again, then I could refrain from ever mentioning her again. It was not to be.

    fuckingmayhew

    Sara E Mayhew

    #wiscfi is already an unwelcoming atmosphere thanks to @pzmyers @opheliabenson’s decrees of who may approach them. immature unprofessional.

    Right. It’s terribly immature and unprofessional to tell a harasser to stay away from you. The mature professional thing to do is just shut up and take it, whatever it is.

    April 28 part deux because I missed it before –

    brave3

    Justin Vacula tweets

    @caias@OpheliaBenson@karla_porter Too bad Ophelia won’t come on #BraveHero but we appreciate early promo. Maybe she will chat at #wiscfi ?

    Ok this is specifically for Vacula: do not approach me at WiS2. Stay away from me.

    As you know, ignoring such instructions is grounds for removal. If you don’t stay away from me I will make an official complaint.

    April 28

    Some guy I don’t know from Adam.

    arandom

    Caias Ward @caias

    @karla_porter @OpheliaBenson @justinvacula some people like the bravery of being out of range.

    Ophelia Benson

    Why did you @ me on this?

    Caias Ward

    was hoping you would respond to karla_porter since you have been talking about her.

    Wut? What’s that first one about? To find that out I had to make some effort, because both Porter and Vacula have blocked me. [And before we go on let’s get one thing straight – they’re the ones who talk about me, not the other way around. They started talking about me with that podcast in which they lied about the emails I got warning me about the dangers of going to TAM. Vacula refused to correct the lies when I told him they were lies, and instead demanded that I go on his podcast. No. That’s not how that works.] So I made that effort, and found what it was about.

    bravebrave2

    Justin Vacula tweets

    @opheliabenson – Your blog post mentioning @karla_porter gave me a good giggle. Tune in to #BraveHero Radio tonight and consider calling!

    Karla Porter tweets

    @justinvacula Seriously, please call in @opheliabenson.

    Justin Vacula tweets

    @karla_porter@opheliabenson We’d love to have her on the show. Too bad she’s unwilling to have discussion – but she is welcome regardless

    That’s so typical of those two. They did it with that podcast about me last summer and they’ve been doing it ever since. It’s such a transparently childish, schoolyardish, bullying game – endlessly taunting someone while at the same time extending aggressive bullying “invitations” to interact (and to give free publicity to their enterprises).

    No, I’m not going to have “a dialogue” with hostile sneery people who make a career of taunting me and others. No, I’m not going to “have discussion” with them. No, I’m not going to tune in to one of their podcasts. No, I’m not going to call their podcast. No, I’m not going to be on “the show.”

    brave2

    “Outwest” tweets

    @justinvacula@karla_porter@OpheliaBenson afraid to have her hypocrisy  revealed?

    Karla Porter tweets

    @jeh704@justinvacula – This is what I practice: I wouldn’t talk about anyone I wouldn’t be willing to talk with. – But to each their own.

    Caias Ward tweets

    @karla_porter@OpheliaBenson@justinvacula some people like the bravery of being out of range.

    So that’s where that came from.

    As I said, I don’t know Caias Ward from Adam, and I have no idea why he saw fit to tweet at me. Note his reply to my asking him that question –

    was hoping you would respond to karla_porter since you have been talking about her.

    Well that’s bullshit. He didn’t tweet at me to say “please respond to Karla Porter”; he tweeted at me to say “some people like the bravery of being out of range.”

    So that’s one fraction of the bullshit from yesterday and this morning.

    April 26

    howto

    Skepdigger @SkepDirt

    If Ophelia Benson wants to stop being called out when she says stupid things, she should stop saying stupid things.

    AmbrosiaX

    I think I tweeted that to her once

    Of course everything I say is stupid, so it’s necessary to “call me out” for saying stupid things whenever I say anything at all in public. Of course “Skepdigger/SkepDirt” knows this, because “Skepdigger/SkepDirt” is infallible when it comes to separating stupid things from not stupid things. Thus it is perfectly reasonable and right that “Skepdigger/SkepDirt” and “AmbrosiaX” and their many colleagues “call me out” every hour of every day. (People in Australia and India and South Korea have to “call me out” later in the day because of the time difference, so the fact that I’m asleep and so not saying anything stupid right that second is beside the point.)

    April 24

    I haven’t updated this in awhile. But this one is just so…wtf?

    hog

    felch grogan

    I bet this is what the #skepchick backchannel sounds like http://is.gd/O13ts8 #FTBullies #atheismplus #CuntPunt #MeanGirls

    [with a link to a video of some random young women doing something or other]

    “cunt punt” – hear that #OpheliaBenson? Time to put your gumboots on. I mean you are consistent aren’t you? #FTBullies#atheismplus#frauds

    And another wtf?

    http://storify.com/ElevatorGATE/conversation-with-opheliabenson-and-slignot

    Birthday tea with Claire at Macrina. Almond cupcake w choc ganache for me, cherry lemon coffee cake for her. omg.

    Wut???????????

    April 10

    One of those…”huh?” items. Included because of the “huh?” factor.

    dc

    DC in Detroit

    It also means you, @OpheliaBenson, who I paid to see speak and was shitty to me for no reason.

    The funny thing there is that it sounds like part of an ongoing conversation but isn’t. What is the “it” that also means me? I have no idea. I looked at her feed to try to figure it out but no real luck, except that she’d been feeling irritable a few hours before. Yes but what’s that got to do with me? I don’t know. I asked her – but she didn’t reply. After awhile, when she’d made some more recent tweets, I asked her again, but still no reply. A chickenshit as well as a pest, then. What a brat.

    That business about “who I paid to see speak” – the hell she did. She was at the American Atheists conference, apparently, but she didn’t pay to see me speak; she paid to attend the conference despite the fact that I was one of the speakers. I was one of a great many speakers and I’m clearly not of the type that she wants to see. But the implication is some obnoxious “I pay your salary so do my bidding” schtick, which is bratty entitled bullshit.

    An hour later – how I was “shitty” to her and why.

    dc2

    It’s obvious enough, I’m sure – her implication was that I ain’t got no expertise so why do I write for Free Inquiry? That was my first ever encounter with her. That’s a meme among the people who target me – I ain’t got no expertise. Notice especially how she doesn’t even admit that’s what she was doing, even though she’s anonymous so it can’t do her any damage. Typical of this kind of crap.

    (more…)

  • Skepticism and Freethought in Lagos

    I would like to salute fellow humanists and skeptics, and other curious and inquisitive friends for honouring our invitation to the meeting of April 28, 2013 and for considering being there the best way to spend their time and observe their Sunday. Their presence was a clear indication that the idea of a skeptical Lagos of doubters, critical thinking and questioning individuals and groups was one whose time had come.

    A day before the event, I was out in Sabo area distributing some flyers and inviting the people I met on the streets to attend this event. Interestingly some of the people whom I gave the flyers without looking or reading the content simply said “God Bless you”. Yes, God bless me indeed for promoting an event for skeptics and humanists!

    And on my way back to the hotel, I met some young ladies and men mostly in their 20s also distributing some flyers but this time around, inviting me and some other passers-by to ‘worship and fellowship’ with them at the ‘Manna’s Court’ branch of the Redeemed Christian Church of God in Montgomery Road Sabo Yaba. The first flyer has a photo of a man with two kids and a bold inscription that reads- Jesus Loves You. Quite appealing, isn’t it?

    It goes on to give 3 incoherent and unpersuasive reasons why Jesus loves ‘you’ (I guess it was not referring to me), all starting with ‘because….’. 1. Because you have a past of sin and failure and Jesus wiped the slate of your past and ‘give{sic} you a new beginning’. But the flyer does not state Jesus’ purpose for giving you a new beginning. 2. Because you need a friend and Jesus is this friend because he knows the worst about ‘you’ and still believes in the best (whatever that means).

    3. Because he (Jesus) holds the future. But the author of the flyer does not state the reason why Jesus is holding on to the future of his friends. The author, like other purported readers, transmitters and transcribers of the mind of god or Jesus, finds it hard to give us a coherent, consistent and intelligible articulation of the basis of christian love. Like other religious texts believers hardly subject them to critical evaluation. They accept such messages as infallible divine wisdom.

    A second flyer contains the timetable for the church’s program which includes a Faith Clinic session on Thursdays. I guess at this faith clinic session ‘Dr Jesus’ visits and presides over the healing of every disease including HIV/AIDS.

    But I found more hilarious the third flyer which has a short testimony on ‘About the Bible’. It states –

    “I was told that I had to go to the seminary to understand the Bible. I was told not to open it. But one day I read it and it was like sunshine to my heart. I discovered that the Bible is{sic} really God speaking to me, and I could understand it. It said, “ For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that who ever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life(John 3:16). It also said, “He who does not believe the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”(John 3:36).

    It further states, “Does it take {a} seminary graduate to understand these wonderful words? It’s so simple! God means what He says, and says what He means. I am resting on what God says”.

    Going by the message, you do not need to be a skeptic to understand how mistaken the author and his/her God are. And mistake is something not often associated with sacred writing.

    From the above-mentioned reasons and others, this notion persists – and many people still insist – that there are no skeptics, atheists or freethinkers in Africa; that the African continent is a region of blind dogmatic believers and fetish voodoo worshippers; that Africans express skepticism only by imitating the western mentality; that skepticism is alien to African thought and culture. But friends, is skepticism a western outlook? Is the skeptical outlook alien to us? The answer is an unequivocal NO! The skeptical viewpoint is an impulse that beats in the minds of every human being. In fact anytime one casts doubt at any claim, teaching or belief; anytime one questions or demands reason or proof for any claim made by someone, the person expresses skepticism.

    Skepticism speaks directly to those ideals which make us human – curiosity, critical thinking, questioning, doubting, objection, interrogation, examination, review and revision, investigation and inquiry.

    Actually, you don’t need to be a skeptic in order to be skeptical. But it takes skeptics for skepticism to be visible, vibrant and effective. Even the most faithful and believing folks entertain doubts. The difference between the skepticism of skeptics and the skepticism of believers – religious believers – is that skeptics at least aim to apply or express critical thinking and doubts in all areas of human endeavor, while religious believers suppress their doubts, keep their doubts to themselves, or apply their critical thinking in some areas of human endeavor, particularly those claims or doctrines they reject or disbelieve or those beliefs that are opposed to their religion or those that conflict with the dogmas they profess or accept.

    But many religious folks suppress and cannot express openly their doubts not really because they think these doubts are pointless and senseless but because of the social costs and consequences of doing so. (The doubting Thomases are always vilified and demonised.)

    This is particularly the case when doubts are openly expressed about dominant religious teachings or popular superstitions and traditions. Such a fellow could be attacked or ostracized by family members. The person is persecuted or could be killed at least in some parts of the country. So we find ourselves in a situation where it is risky and dangerous to doubt or question issues openly and publicly.

    In fact we find ourselves in a situation where it is risky and dangerous to think. So ours is a society where many people are afraid to hold independent views and opinions. Ours has become a believing – a blind believing – not a thinking society. And most of the problems that plague us today are due to our inability to think freely and critically about issues, our inability to encourage critical evaluation of claims. Our country Nigeria needs a freethinking and skeptical climate to generate the ideas we need to tackle the problems we face. Unfortunately, most people in our society prefer, have resigned themselves to, or are contented with received ‘wisdoms’ which are sometimes not appropriate or suitable to the specific and contemporary challenges we face today.

    So most skeptics and humanists are in the closet. Skeptical views are expressed in hushed tones. And this shouldn’t be the case. We need to let the world know that we have skeptics in Lagos, that not all the people in Lagos believe or accept the miracle claims of T. B Joshua, Enoch Adeboye, David Oyedepo and other fake healers. Not all the people in Lagos accept and consume the paranormal and penticostal wares of prophets and magicians, witch doctors and soothsayers that dot the nook and cranny of this city. Not everyone endorses religious exploitation and faith based abuses being perpetrated across the state.

    A skeptical Lagos holds a lot of promise for the people in Lagos, in Nigeria and Africa.

    So let’s work and campaign to make it happen.

    Arise, all skeptics in Lagos.

  • Hackney Citizen on Leo Igwe’s talk “The ‘taboo’ of atheism in black communities”

    Meeting this funny and generous man, you could nearly forget the incredibly serious nature of his work.

  • Don’t say you do if you don’t

    Josh is wondering why the Obama admin is doing this.

    I don’t know, but I think it’s the usual Democratic Party always-feint-to-the-right thing. Why the Democratic Party has such a thing, I also don’t know, but it certainly does. It’s why I don’t always vote for the Dem candidate for president (and then get in huge arguments that go on for years). It seems to me that the only way to convince them that there is a cost in alienating their own side too is to make it cost.

    Or maybe in this case it’s not so much a feint to the right as that other fatal urge to be always seen as more Normal and Average and Majority and Wholesome than those wild-eyed crazy leftists and anarchists and feminists. Girls of 13 weren’t taking the morning after pill on Father Knows Best or I Love Lucy so they’d better not be taking them now, either, at least not without a prescription so that they have to tell someone they’ve been fucking.

    Whatever the reason is, it pisses me off, especially when he goes around saying he supports reproductive rights for women. No you don’t, dude. You don’t, so don’t say you do.

  • One thing on Friday, another on Wednesday

    Last month a US district judge ordered the FDA to make the morning-after pill available to females of any age without a prescription. This week the Justice Department announced that it would appeal the ruling.

    The judge’s ruling was in response to a lawsuit launched by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

    The group was seeking to expand access to all brands of the morning-after pill over the counter, such as Plan B One-Step and Next Choice, so that females of all ages would be able to purchase them without a prescription.

    Supporters of the ruling called it a landmark decision, while opponents raised concerns about safeguards being eliminated.

    “Safeguards” against teenage girls being able to say no to being pregnant.

    The New York Times weighs in.

    Appearing before Planned Parenthood’s annual convention last Friday, President Obama pledged his continuing support for women’s reproductive rights. In a speech before the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, Mr. Obama promised to keep science a sphere “not subject to politics” or “skewed by an agenda.”

    On Wednesday, his administration betrayed both reproductive rights and science. The Justice Department announced that it would appeal a federal court ruling that would make morning-after pills available without a prescription for girls and women of all ages.

    In short he said one thing and did another.

    In 2011, the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, overruled the Food and Drug Administration, which had decided, based on scientific evidence, that the pills would be safe and appropriate “for all females of child-bearing potential.” Ms. Sebelius arbitrarily determined that only women 17 and older should have access to the drug.

    Then, last month, citing the political nature of Ms. Sebelius’s intervention and finding no “coherent justification” for it, Judge Edward Korman of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the F.D.A. to make emergency contraceptives available over the counter to all women, with no age restrictions.

    But no. We can’t have teenage girls saying no to pregnancy without someone’s permission – a doctor’s, their parents’, a priest’s – someone’s. The Times sums it up neatly.

    Lack of access to safe contraception will not stop adolescents from having sex. Girls who have sex should not be punished with unintended pregnancies.

  • Girls who have sex should not be punished with unintended pregnancies

    Last week Obama pledged his continuing support for women’s reproductive rights. Five days later his administration betrayed both reproductive rights and science.

  • Justice Department appeals judge’s ruling on morning after pill

    The ruling directed the FDA to make the morning-after birth control pill available to females of all ages without a prescription.

  • Gita Sahgal on Bangladesh and East London

    Gita Sahgal explains the situation in Bangladesh, at Open Democracy. (The page is almost unreadable, unfortunately – it’s got so much junk on it that only an average-length paragraph is visible at a time, which is irksome.)

    The mass populist uprising occupying Shahbag in Dhaka, calling for ‘maximum punishment’  (the death penalty) for war criminals, was sparked by the triumphant V sign made by a convicted man. He saw his life sentence as a victory.  At first, the political parties courted the Shahbag movement, with the government promising to rush through legislation that  reflected its main demands – allowing the prosecution to challenge the sentence to make it harsher, and amending the law to enable  the Jamaat e Islami  to be put on trial as an organisation. The Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamist political party in Bangladesh, responded to the conviction and death sentence of the Deputy leader of the party, Delawar Hussein Sayeedi, with a country-wide campaign of violence, with particularly vicious attacks on religious minorities, including killing Hindus and destroying temples and homes. Christian Bangladeshis also reported attacks, but in some cases people were too afraid to make an official report.

    Abroad, the conviction was referred to as ‘judicial murder’, to capitalise on the revulsion against the death penalty. But Western criticism of the Tribunal process failed to note also that peaceful opposition to religious fundamentalism was met by death threats, assault and murder. All  opposition to them was labelled ‘atheists’, and a label that seemed intended to provoke mass revulsion, promote extra-judicial killings as well as create a climate for  laws criminalising blasphemy.

     Rajib, a young blogger, activist and professed atheist who was targeted online and then murdered,  has become an iconic figure in the movement. The fundamentalists have gone after a number of individual bloggers, beating people up and issuing death threats online or on mobiles. Labelling people as atheists, whether they are or not, puts them at risk of attack, and the bloggers have been targeted as atheists by both Muslim fundamentalists and the government.

    I would like to see Scott Stephens explain how that comports with his claim that there is such a thing as “the humble insistence on the ineffability of the will of God in Islam.” If there is, why is it so utterly lost on such a huge number of the followers of Islam? Why are so many of those followers so thoroughly convinced that they know exactly what the will of god is?

    In their defense, atheists, humanists and secularists  and declared April 25 anInternational Day to Defend Bangladesh’s Bloggers. With some more protests planned on 4th May in deference to the tragedy currently gripping Bangladesh.  The young bloggers need all the support they can get, for another fundamentalist group has arisen out of nowhere with a familiar list of fundamentalist demands.  On April 7 this group, Hefazat e Islam, staged a mammonth “long march” of half a million people to protest against the mixed sex, peaceful, candlelit gatherings in Shahbagh.  They made 13 demands,which contain many of familiar obsessions of fundamentalists. Apart from demanding a defamation law with the highest punishment ( in other words making blasphemy punishable by death) , Hefazat wants to declare Ahmadiyas to be non-Muslim, attacks practices such as candle lighting and putting up sculptures, opposes sexual mixing and “promotion of Islamophobia among the youth,” wants compulsory Islamic education at all levels and an end to “ungodly education, inheritance laws and unIslamic laws generally.”  Christian and other NGOs are attacked for proselytizing  and “an immediate and unconditional release of all detained Islamic scholars” is demanded.

    There again – people (men) who are clearly convinced that they know god’s will and that they are authorized to impose it on anyone who disagrees. Where’s the effing ineffability in that?

    These demands are nothing new to Bangladesh, where Islamists have been trying to get a blasphemy law passed since the early nineties, when they went after the writer Taslima Nasrin.

    Two decades of cluelessness about the ineffability of god’s will.

    And it’s happening in London too.

    The conflict between Bangladeshi secularists and fundamentalists has spread to London’s East End where, on Feb. 8th, at Altab Ali Park, young demonstrators supporting Shahbagh clashed with men from the Jamaat-dominated East London mosque.  For older anti-racists, the scenes were remniscent of decades old battles where the police simply protected the aggressors ‘freedom of speech’ and right to threaten and intimidate.

    Ah yes the “free speech” right to threaten and intimidate. We’re well familiar with that.

    Thousands of leaflets have been distributed from the East London Mosque and across the world labelling prominent bloggers as atheists. Sermons have been read attacking atheists, Hindus and suggestive statements made regarding sexual assault. In Bangladesh, fundamentalists  paraded a banner which said, ‘we demand the death penalty for atheist bloggers because they use obscene language to criticise Allah, Mohammed and the Quran.’  Statements such as these, along with murderous attacks on atheist and free thinking bloggers, need to be considered alongside the leaflets identifying named individuals as atheists and accusing them of insulting religion, to see whether they amount to incitement to  murder. Fundamentalists consider it an obligation for believers to kill apostates; a recent Moroccan fatwa makes this very clear, as does the experience of an atheist from Bangladesh, applying for asylum in Canada.

    It’s a very strong current we’re swimming against.

    Update: h/t Unrepentant Jacobin on Twitter.

  • Yemisi does all the things!

    We have a fantastic new blogger here – meet Yemisi Ilesanmi. I met her on Facebook a couple of months ago, and read up on her a little more via Google and thought wow…I wonder if she would like to join us. I shared my thought with the rest of FTB and they all thought wow too.

    So I am stoked!

    Check out her amazing bio:

    Yemisi Ilesanmi is a Nigerian woman, resident in UK. She holds a Masters of Law (LL.M) degree in Gender, Sexuality and Human Rights. She is a trade unionist, human rights activist, an author, a poet and sometimes moonlights as a plus size model. She is a passionate campaigner for equal rights, social justice and poverty alleviation. Her debut book ‘Freedom To Love For ALL: Homosexuality is Not Un-African’ is available in paperback and kindle editions on Amazon (www.amazon.com/dp/1481864815).  In sometimes, what she thinks as a past life, she was-  – National Women leader/Assistant National Secretary, Nigeria Labour Party. – Vice President, International Trade Union Congress – Chairperson, ITUC Youth Committee   – International Labour Conference (ILC) Committee Member on Applications of Standards – Founder/President, National Association of Nigerian Female Students She is the founder and coordinator of the campaign group Nigerian LGBTIs in Diaspora Against Anti-Same Sex Laws.

    Welcome Yemi!

  • Imad Iddine Habib

    And another ex-Muslim atheist is under threat in another majority-Muslim country. This time the country is Morocco, which has Islam as the state religion, and the ex-Muslim atheist is Imad Iddine Habib, age 22.

    He posted a message on Facebook on Tuesday.

    Hey Everyone,

    I would like to thank everyone who supported me, asked about me by any mean!
    Those whom I didn’t reply didn’t add me as a friend, as I am blocked, I couldn’t reply at them!

    Thank you All, you made me so proud of being part of this big and united family of rational and free thinkers!

    Whatever my fate will be in the next hours, the next days, the next weeks; killed, beaten, jailed, or anything else, I am not sorry for what I have done since I became an activist few years ago, I have shared with many people here thoughts and ideas, and so many awesome memories.

    Both police and people are looking for me, I have nowhere to go, my life is at high risk… However, I am Happy, because I am not the only one fighting for a better world, I hope I will be the last man persecuted because of Dogmatisms, Religions, or Myths.

    Whatever I’ll be, KEEP FIGHTING, I love you all.

    PS: There is no god but Minnie Mouse.

    – Imad Iddine Habib.

    All that and a sense of humor too.

    Photo: Brave Ex Muslim we support all of you I am Imad Iddine Habib, from Morocco, I am a descendent of the pedo-prophet of Islam Muhammed, I became an Atheist since I was 14 years old, my sign says: "In my country people are jailed and harassed for being atheist. This photo may cost my life, or my freedom. But I insist to tell you: I AM PROUD TO BE AN ATHEIST! #FREE_SOKRAT #FREE_MEJRI Imad Iddine Habib- Morocco"

    And a message from a supporter posted 8 hours ago.

    I really want to express my deep sympathy for your courage to be who you are. Altho i am still a muslim i think that the free will and the expression of free will is a must for every human being. I’m a secular Muslim that thinks that a state shouldn’t interfere with any religion and has to be a neutral so it can defense every human being without looking to there religion.

    It is sad that Morocco is still thinking that they can protect everyone with a state-religion.

    Good luck with your fight and just always think that there are also progressive and secular Muslims supporting you and a lot of others atheist.

    Grtz Carim Bouzian
    Liberal Party Flanders – Belgium

    Maryam has a post about him.

    The last email the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain received from 22 year old Imad Iddine Habib, the founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Morocco (the first atheist organisation in a country with Islam as a state religion), spoke of more threats and a final warning from the Moroccan government.

    In the email, he said:

    My Father has been interviewed by secret agents at work, they asked him about my activities, my beliefs, my relations and if some foreigners visit me, and they told him that I have to stop, and that I am considered an enemy of the country by showing bad things about it … and [that] it is the last warning before they react.

    Since then, he has gone into hiding after security officials raided a home to possibly arrest him.

    Maryam to Morocco: hands off!

    The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain unequivocally condemns efforts of the Moroccan government to silence Imad. Rather, the government should be prosecuting those who threaten Imad and apostates with death, including members of Morocco’s High Council of Ulemas who recently issued a fatwa decreeing the death penalty for Moroccans leaving Islam.

    This is our final warning to the Moroccan Government. Hands off Imad, prosecute those who threaten and incite murder, and respect freedom of expression and thought.

    The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain calls on all to condemn the Moroccan government and defend Imad.

    On 15 May join us in defending Imad. He is all of us.

    Count me in.

  • Ineffable? Really?

    Scott Stephens, the editor of ABC’s (the Oz one) “religion & ethics” page (as if the two are automatically linked, and in no way antagonistic), takes a look at Dawkins and Twitter.

    Yes well…as I’ve mentioned several times lately, I think Dawkins and Twitter are a bad mix. The reasons for my thinking that are encapsulated in the (hilarious) sequence a week or so ago which went

    1. provocative tweet
    2. heated responses
    3. tweet saying Twitter is not friendly to nuance

    Provocative tweets can be fun, of course, but there’s provocative and then there’s provocative.

    But then again the same can be said about nuance.

    For instance Stephens on Dawkins’s provocative tweets about Islam.

    The wilful ignorance capable of making such statements is not just dangerously uncritical, to the point that it can nestle comfortably alongside the vilest forms of bigotry and anti-Islamic sentiment; it is also inexcusably ahistorical. It evinces a deliberate effacement of the role played by Islam in the formation of modern science and the intellectual foundations of western civilisation as a whole. Moreover, it ignores the productive dynamism evident throughout the development of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as the complexity, and even beauty, of its formulations concerning gender and the constitution of a good and just society. [emphasis added]

    That last bit, with the added emphasis, makes me want to punch something. He’s not subordinated by the “complexity, and even beauty, of its formulations concerning gender.” He wouldn’t be subordinated by them even if he lived in an Islamist theocracy. It’s easy for him to call those “formulations” complex and even beautiful. Theocratic “formulations” concerning gender are all about policing gender; that’s the whole point of them. The more policing, the more subordination of one gender in relation to the other.

    And then the bullshit about the constitution of a good and just society. That sounds pretty, until you think about existing societies that are officially and overtly Islamic – and then you recoil.

    But in the next paragraph it gets worse.

    But acknowledging the history and profound humanism of the Islamic tradition – the belief that the realisation of goodness, beauty and peace on earth is indissociable from the true worship of God…

    Spoken like a true god-botherer (and Stephens taught theology for years, and was once a parish minister). Humanism = the belief that the realisation of goodness, beauty and peace on earth is indissociable from the true worship of God. No! Absolutely fucking not. It is the opposite. It is the awareness that we are all we have and that we’re all on a level, in place of the anti-human idea that our real job is to worship a hidden magical being that we can’t have any kind of real access to. Making all the good things dependent on belief in the hidden magical being is an insult to all the humans who are realistic enough to notice that a hidden god might as well be a non-existent god as far as we’re concerned.

    He talks more of the same kind of “paradoxical” bullshit toward the end.

    The genius of the Judaism, Christianity and Islam in particular is their insistence on relativising every claim to self-sufficiency, as well as every attempt to establish political legitimacy by the bare exercise of power or by the refusal of any greater moral obligation. Whether it be the relentless critique of idolatry in Judaism, or the humble insistence on the ineffability of the will of God in Islam, or the manifestation of divine transcendence through self-giving love in Christianity, religious belief sharpens the polemical edge of political critique.

    Backwards. The opposite of the truth. Head in the clouds denialism. If Islam is about “the humble insistence on the ineffability of the will of God” then why are all Islamist theocracies such bossy authoritarian shit-holes? If the will of Allah is ineffable why are the Bangladesh atheist bloggers under threat? Why are atheists in jail in Egypt and Indonesia, simply for being atheists? Why is Imad Iddine Habib in hiding in Morocco? Why is Walid Al-Husseini seeking asylum in Paris after spending 10 months in jail in Palestine for being an atheist?

    Not because any of the persecutors think the will of Allah is ineffable.

  • Now that’s what I call sharp hearing

    I was on the lower floor and Cooper was on the main floor, and I spotted a stray kibble on the floor. I never leave a stray kibble on the floor because I don’t like DOG SALIVA liberally spread all over said floor, so I picked it up and – decided not to put it in the kibble bin, because the slight noise of taking off the snap-on plastic lid would be sure to summon Cooper to stand around drooling heavily, thus causing more DOG SALIVA liberally spread all over the floor. Instead I put it in the metal scoop next to the bin – thinking as I did so “will he hear this? no of course not, much too faint, plus just a random sound.”

    Plink. The instant the kibble hit the scoop with a very faint plink, Cooper shot into motion overhead and rocketed down the stairs. One kibble. Hitting a metal scoop with a tiny plink, on another floor of the house, and around the corner from the stairs. One tiny little plink, and half a second later there’s a dog drooling in front of me.

    Skillz.

  • Well it beats waking up with a hangover

    It turns out that real women don’t need feminism, and that there’s a documentary that “undercuts any strength that might be attributed to the feminist worldview.”

    Notable women’s advocate Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum explains it simply.

    “The problem with feminism, I think the principal problem, is the cultivation of an attitude of victimization. Feminism tries to make women believe they are victims of an oppressive, male-dominated, patriarchal society. They wake up in the morning with a chip on their shoulder.”

    Ah how familiar that sounds. I think I saw versions of it several times on Twitter alone just in the past few hours. It’s “Sisterhood of the Oppressed” and “Professional Victims” all over again – or rather, the other way around, since Schlafly has been at this since the ’70s.

    That’s some stupid shit right there. Any movement for social change can be accused of that; so can any movement to resist social change. Movements to organize workers can be accused of that; campaigns to end sex trafficking can be accused of that; anything other than a bovine acceptance of whatever the status quo happens to be can be accused of that. Nevertheless it is permissible to look around you and think things could be better and try to make them better.

    Being political isn’t the same thing as cultivating an attitude of victimization. Noticing ways that things could be improved is not the same thing as having a chip on your shoulder.

    “The Monstrous Regiment of Women” explains that feminists tell women not to submit to a husband, avoid having children, listen to their “inner voice” and chase a career.

    But the DVD’s voices say otherwise. They include Edinburgh University historian Sharon Adams, Jennie Chancey of Ladies Against Feminism, cadet Jane Doe, former abortion provider Carol Everett, homemaker Dana Feliciano, Buried Treasure Books writer Carmon Freidrich, “Domestic Tranquility” author F. Carolyn Graglia, John Knox biographer Rosalind Marshall, “Raising Maidens of Virtue” author Stacey McDonald, Schlafly and homemakers Denise Sproul and Kathleen Smith.

    The women show how feminism’s twisted and irrational teaching has led to disaster for American women, pushing many into a frustrating, isolated existence.

    They are calling today’s women back to a life filled with joy and beauty that can be found only by following God’s Word.

    Notice what a large proportion of the women who “say otherwise” in fact have “chased a career” themselves.

    But hey, they’re cultivating an attitude of victimization with all this complaining about the oppressive, female-dominated, matriarchal feminists. They wake up in the morning with a chip on their shoulder.

  • In a village in Afghanistan

    In a village in Afghanistan what? Not a potluck. Not a Chatauqua lecture. Not a quilting bee. Not heartwarming stories of crotchety but lovable neighbors and mischievous but lovable children and the dogs who love them all. No, the other thing – staring eyes, a woman who dishonored the universe by running away with a man (while the man simply had a good time), a father who asked the local “religious leaders” for advice, a fatwa, a mob, a murder of a woman by her own father in front of that mob.

    The woman, who has two children, was shot dead on Monday 22 April by her father in front of a crowd of about 300 people in the village of Kookchaheel, in the Aabkamari district of Badghis province in north-western Afghanistan.

    The woman, named Halima and believed to be between 18 and 20 years old, was accused of running away with a male cousin while her husband was in Iran. Her cousin returned Halima to her relatives 10 days after running away with her. His whereabouts are unknown.

    “Violence against women continues to be endemic in Afghanistan and those responsible very rarely face justice,” said Horia Mosadiq, Afghanistan researcher at Amnesty International.

    The killing came after three of the village’s religious leaders, allegedly linked to the Taliban, issued a fatwa (religious edict) that Halima should be killed publicly, after her father sought their advice about his daughter’s elopement.

    Good neighbors.

  • Afghanistan: woman shot dead by her father over “honor”

    The killing came after three religious leaders issued a fatwa that Halima should be killed publicly, after her father sought their advice about his daughter’s elopement.