Author: Ophelia Benson

  • It will be dialogue, but not dialogue

    Yesterday it was the Vatican’s turn to explain the Deep Rifts between the priests and the sisters. Terry Gross talked to the bishop of Toledo (Ohio, not Spain), Leonard Blair, who is the one who assessed the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and found them very very wanting.

    Along with Archbishop Peter Sartain and Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, he will be working with the nuns of the LCRW to make sure the group is aligned with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

    “Working with” – ha. It won’t be working with, it will be telling. He says so himself. That’s the whole point. It’s not negotiable, it’s not discussable, it’s not open, it’s not a process – it’s just telling. Blair tries to pretend that it is a “discussion” but then he also very firmly says that it’s not a discussion, it’s orders. In other words he tries to square the circle, or just have it both ways and hope no one notices.

    If by dialogue, they mean that the doctrines of the church are negotiable, and that the bishops represent one position and the LCWR represents another position and somehow we find a middle ground about basic church teaching on faith and morals, then no, I don’t think that’s the dialogue the Holy See would envision. But if it’s a dialogue about how to have the LCWR really educate and help the sisters appreciate and accept church teaching and to implement it in their discussions, and try to heal some of the questions or concerns they have about these issues, that would be the dialogue.

    Classic, isn’t it? If it’s a dialogue about priests telling women what to do, then that would be the dialogue. If by dialogue they mean that they get to be treated as equals with equal capabilities to think and equal access to the sources of the church’s “teachings” (whatever the hell those sources might be), then hell no, of course that’s not the dialogue the Holy See would allow for one second.

    I think that the fundamental faith of the Catholic Church is that there are objective truths and there are teachings of the faith that really do come from revelation and that are interpreted authentically through the teaching office of the church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that are expected to be believed with the obedience of faith.

    And those are things that are not negotiable. You can have dialogue about understanding these things, but it is faith seeking understanding. It’s not new understandings that then change the faith. And I think that’s what really gets to the heart of all that we find in this assessment, that they are promoting, unilaterally, new understandings, a new kind of theology that is not in accordance with the faith of the church.

    Yes, that’s the heart of it all right. It’s a clusterfuck at the heart of the whole thing. What is that revelation? What is its source? Is it the bible? No, because you don’t find all this nonsense that the church is forcing on the nuns spelled out in the bible. So what is it then? It’s interpretation “authentically through the teaching office of the church” – but what is the source of that authenticity? What makes their “teaching office” better than any other teaching office?

    Nothing. Not a damn thing. It’s just their say so, that’s all. It’s a house of cards, but the bishop defends it and imposes it as if it were not. It’s a classic example of authoritarianism that gets away with it because it’s dressed up in piety.

  • Therefore, the objectification of women is now fine

    More from Enlightened Sexism.

    Because women are now “equal” and the battle is over and won, we are now free to embrace things we used to see as sexist, including hypergirliness. In fact, this is supposed to be a relief. Thank God girls and women can turn their backs on stick-in-the-mud, curdled feminism and now act dumb in string bikinis to attract guys….According to enlightened sexism, women today have a choice between feminism and antifeminism, and they just naturally and happily choose the latter because, well, antifeminism has become cool, even hip. Rejecting feminism and buying into enlightened sexism allows young women in particular to be “one of the guys.” [p 12]

    So enlightened sexism also includes in-your-face sexism, in which the attitudes about women that infuriated feminists in the 1960s and ’70s are pushed to new, even more degrading levels, except that it’s all done with a wink…

    As the British feminist scholar Angela McRobbie has brilliantly argued, it is essential that feminism be repudiated as something young women should shun as old-fashioned, withered, humorless, repulsive. To do this, the media must explicitly acknowledge feminism, point to it, and “take it into account” in order to argue that it is no longer needed, a “spent force.” … Therefore, the objectification of women is now fine; why, it’s actually a joke on the guys. It’s silly to be sexist; therefore, it’s funny to be sexist…Indeed, as the feminist scholar Rosalind Gill puts it, “The extremeness of the sexism is evidence that there’s no sexism!” If there is no more sexism, then there is no longer a need for sexual politics, and sexual politics can be mocked and attacked. [p 13]

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand welcome to our world!

     

     

  • Dale McGowan speaks out

    Amy has the second in the series. Read the whole thing.

    Excerpt.

    For the past year I’ve been shaking my head in sick disbelief at the abuse many women in the freethought movement are getting, but I’ve stayed silent. I’m not talking about the discussion of gender and privilege itself, which (to my surprise) still needs to happen in some depth, but at the insane, hateful attacks, including literal threats of rape and murder, that are raining down on the Skepchicks and others taking part in that important discussion.

    Silently shaking my head does nothing. The women under this kind of attack can’t hear my head rattling, so they can only assume I don’t care, when I actually care deeply. I think it’s the difficulty of putting this massive, deranged genie back in the bottle that keeps so many of us quiet. But that’s a poor excuse that only keeps the victims feeling isolated and besieged.

    Fortunately I don’t have to deal with the whole genie to do something useful. I don’t have to go back to the elevator and work my way forward, defending and countering and challenging and apologizing and repairing my way down to the present. I can start right here and now by saying out loud that violence and threats of violence – physical, verbal, emotional – are completely out of bounds, no matter what the topic, no matter what your opinion. They don’t speak for me, not one tiny bit, and they don’t belong anywhere near the rational community we imagine ourselves to be. Once we establish that, we can begin to pull the lessons of the late 20th century forward – none of this is new ground, after all – and have this important discussion.

    Finally, we HAVE to begin calling people on their anonymity. If it’s protecting someone from harm or exposure, fine. If it only gives them the freedom to harm others, we have to go after it as a huge part of the problem. As long as our community lives and connects primarily online, the problems of the medium are going to continue getting in the way of sane, civil, productive discourse.

  • So now it’s okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes

    At the recommendation of more than one commenter here, I’m reading Susan J Douglas’s Enlightened Sexism. It explains a lot, and matches a lot.

    The core idea is summed up on page 7:

    …the media’s fantasies of power are also the product of another force that has gained considerable momentum since the early and mid-1990s: enlightened sexism. Enlightened sexism is a response, deliberate or not, to the perceieved threat of a new gender regime. It insists that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism – indeed, full equality has allegedly been achieved – so now it’s okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women.

    Long exhalation. Ohhhhhhh, so that’s what it is.

    That would explain what I’m always fretfully wondering – why, when we learned that sexism was bad decades ago, are apparently reasonable people talking this shit? Why isn’t sexism taboo the way racism is taboo? Why do people who would never call someone a nigger in anger call women bitches, whores, cunts without hesitation?

    If Douglas is right it’s because they think oh hai, feminism is over because women have all the things, so no problem calling them every degrading name that comes to mind, iz edgy and funny and cool to do that.

    Strange thing to think, isn’t it, even if the premise were true, which of course it isn’t close to being. Now you have full equality, so we the rest of us can freely insult you, because that’s what equality is. Eh?

    Ashley has a useful summary.

  • Josephine Jones on an appalling ‘alkaline’ diet plug in the Mail

    The claims are unsubstantiated, and they make no sense. Nice work, Mail on Sunday.

  • Steven Novella warns of sports-related pseudoscience

    Don’t believe the hype, don’t believe in magic, be skeptical of claims for scientific support, and don’t waste money on expensive versions of products.

  • That’s not thunder, that’s a rattle

    Wow. I’ve been ignoring Thunderf00t, because it’s all so obvious, and dumb, but brazen lying is one item too many. I saw a lot of hits via a post he did yesterday sneering and maligning Surly Amy, and I was curious enough to break the “ignore” policy. He calls her a girl. Is this the new hip post-feminism ironic sexism, or just plain sexism?

    I don’t know, but anyway, the boy simply tells a big lie at the end of the post, where he links to Rebecca’s post on being burqa-wearing Nazis.

    Great Amy, so on one hand you are reduced to tears because someone uses the name of the site you blog for, and on the other you have no problem with that same blog suggesting that someones reasoned argument is invalid because you (skepchick) claim they think you are nazis.  Wow a great double whammy there of professionally playing the victim and wholesale well poisoning.  That’s right, professional victim Rebecca ‘rape threat’ Watson leading the Skepchicks effort to ‘set an example of kind, productive, proactive behavior in hopes that more people will follow my lead than the those who want to mock and belittle.’ by suggesting that those who disagree with her think they are Totalitarian Nazi.  Damn not seen anyone so zealously eager to embrace victim-hood since dawahfilms.

    Rebecca includes screenshots of Paula Kirby comparing us – Skepchicks, Pharyngula and B&W – to Nazis and the Stasi in the post. It’s right there. In the post. It’s not a mere “claim” – not even if you bold it.

    That boy does not tell the truth.

  • Alexander Cockburn 1941-2012

    James Fallows (as he points out himself, a blandly centrist journalist of a type that Cockburn despised) on Cockburn:

    As Michael Tomasky points out in this appreciation, Alex Cockburn essentially pioneered the modern persona for which Christopher Hitchens became much better known: the fancily Oxford-educated leftie Brit litterateur/journalist who would say all the outrageous things his bland Yank counterparts lacked the wit, courage, erudition, or épater-spirit to utter on their own. As both Tomasky and James Wolcott make clear, Cockburn was far more committed and purposeful in his outrageousness. His own brutal obituary about Hitchens both explains and exemplifies the differences. Short version: Cockburn said that Hitchens always knew just how far he could go; Cockburn knew, and kept on going. His “Press Clips” column in the Village Voice genuinely revolutionized the way people talked and thought about the mainstream press.

    Michael Tomasky:

    It’s worth recalling that he was the first. Modern America’s first exposure to that literary, highly lapidary, polysyllabically festooned, and sometimes grotesquely overstated and unfair brand of polemicism that we now know so well. He blazed the trail that Hitchens and others followed. He was also America’s first modern press critic. A.J. Liebling, I would argue, did something a little different. The idea of weekly items critiquing the ideological presumptions of this particular Times article or that particular Washington Post column was invented by Alex.

    It feels very end-of-an-era-like.

     

     

  • Alexander Cockburn 1941-2012

    Cockburn pioneered the persona for which Hitchens became better known: the Oxford leftie litterateur/journalist who said what his bland Yank counterparts lacked the wit to utter on their own.

  • American Atheists stands by all its members, supporters, and allies

    The minute I read Amy’s suggestion that it would help a lot if leaders of the movment spoke out against the threats and hate-mongering against women – the minute I read it, I say, I thought of Dave Silverman. Mr Atheist Pants is Mr Visible. It would be great if Dave stepped up, I thought. But that’s all I did. I’m passive that way.

    But Amy did ask, and Dave did step up.

    Yessssssssssssssssssssssssss.

    As a Humanist, I see these threats as base and detestable. They have no redeeming value and will raise no awareness, solve no problems, and hurt those who should be friends. As a long term activist, I see hatred and threats of violence directed at our sisters-in-arms to be reprehensible, serving no purpose other than to hurt and intimidate valuable allies. As a white man, I know that so much of this hate comes from people who look like me — but they’re nothing like me where it counts. As the leader of a national atheist organization, I have implemented harassment policies to minimize such irrational, hateful, and counterproductive behavior wherever my authority allows. We have a war to win, and we won’t win until we can look forward, without watching our own backs. American Atheists stands by all its members, supporters, and allies, and we will not tolerate hate directed at any of us. Period.

    ~David Silverman

    Suck on that, haters.

    Amy says there will be more to come. Fasten your seatbelts, haters.

     

  • Thousands of British girls are the victims of wounding with intent

    Nick Cohen notes that it’s progress when violence against women and girls is treated as such.

    Odd though it may seem to older readers, the Crown Prosecution Service now regards itself as a liberal organ of the state. This week it is making a great play of its success in deterring violence against women. Its lawyers brought 91,000 domestic violence prosecutions last year and secured 67,000 convictions. As I have mentioned in this space before, many criminologists believe that the willingness, not just of prosecutors and the police but of wider society, to take violence against women and children seriously explains the welcome fall in homicide rate.

    Well it would, wouldn’t it. If fewer women are killed then the homicide rate will fall, unless killers decide to kill more men to make up the numbers, which seems unlikely. Plus taking violence against women and children seriously has the added advantage of taking violence against women and children seriously. It’s quite a good idea to take violence against all kinds of people seriously, just in case no kinds of people actually deserve to be the object of violence.

    But anyway, despite this one bright spot, all is not well.

    But officialdom’s concern for abused women is strictly colour coded.  The CPS will defend women’s rights, but only the rights of white women. Girls with black or brown skins can go hang — or, rather go have their genitalia cut to pieces.

    FGM, in other words. It’s not being seen as another form of violence against girls.

    Britain made female genital mutilation a criminal offence in the 1980s. Later we said it was illegal for parents to take their children abroad for the ‘procedure’. Yet although thousands of British girls are the victims of wounding with intent, the CPS has not instigated one prosecution, let alone secured a conviction.

    …

    To his credit, I suppose, Scotland Yard’s specialist in child abuse cases Commander Simon Foy found the courage to speak in public. Unfortunately, his words were a disgrace. ‘I am not necessarily sure that the availability of a stronger sense of prosecution will change’ the incidence of FGM ‘for the better,’ he said.  Is there any other law that Commander Foy and his superiors think it pointless to enforce? Do senior officers say that prosecuting burglars or rapists or murderers makes no difference? Or is it only in the case of the mutilation of girls from other cultures that the cops abandon their belief in the deterrent power of punishment?

    Imitating the French by having medical staff check girls, would infringe the girls’ rights, Foy continued, as he used the language of human rights to justify his failure to uphold the rights of women and girls. In this instance, and in this instance only, the police not only believe that putting alleged criminals on trial is pointless, they add that investigating an alleged crime is a criminal act.

    So much for taking violence against women and girls seriously.

  • Nick Cohen on FGM and the racism of the respectable

    Beyond continuing a barbaric tradition – and one should never underestimate the appeal of doing what has always been done – FGM ensures that women remain the property of men.

  • I vs. hymen

    Scientific definition of Hymen: The thin membrane located inside the woman’s vagina, a few centimeters in depth, tearing after penetration either by sex or otherwise.

    Is the Hymen a natural evolutionary requirement (according to Darwin) and not a moral requirement? Some animals also have hymens, such as the platypus, elephants, whales, llamas, sea cows, moles, chimpanzees, rats and lemurs.

    Social definition of the hymen: a measure of honour on the basis of the girl’s chastity and virginity – no sex before marriage in Arab, Indian and some African countries!

    Scientific definition of me as a woman: A live human being who has all the characteristics of other living things, such as breathing, needing nutrition, growing, reproducing, and who is characterized by thinking and production and development through thought and action.

    Social definition of a woman: A human-being the oriental society puts under the category of ‘Woman’ – and I’m proud to be female but according to their concepts it means I am the weaker sex who is always ranked second after the Man under The Order of God, the tribe and the support and approval of laws is based on this.

    I am a producer who has duties towards self, family and community more than Rights. Because I’m the plowed one, and odd if I reject sex with my husband, and ordered in the house of obedience, and dominated, and share a husband with two, three, or four others in accordance with the Quran. And I am to be withheld, transformed into a mummy by covering my neck in a hijab, hit and abandoned and punished and imprisoned or stoned to death, governed and controlled by the male parent (the Lord of the Family, no matter how old or young he is), cannot go out and get married, I am issued with a passport or identity card, cannot travel except with his consent; who is married even before reaching puberty. I cannot always win my freedom because the authorization for divorce is given by my husband only; am a governess, an obedient servant who has the largest share of hell and the torments of God to come later!

    Since the birth of baby girl among the Muslims is a disgrace to be concealed, because she is not born male, she represents a shortfall, an- inferiority … a potential tool of delinquency.  And to her shame is every attempt to commit a sexual act with a man before marriage. She is a tool for rape, sin and incest, and even theft because men can steal her modesty with a leer.

    In short, sin is diagnosed. They create sexual desire, this desire which is itself sinful for men. And it constitutes a permanent threat to the girl and Islamic ethics. It is a potential tool for crime, for slaughter by the father or brothers to wash their blemished honor. So the honor of Muslim men is washed with the blood of girls.” [i]

    I am a human being who works, supports, assumes, produces, begets children, raises them, is persecuted and has the majority of her rights violated religiously and legally. And if I do something against these codes will be subjected to what is called an honour killing – stoned to death or imprisoned.

    I am the human being sold as flesh and bought in many forms in the name of marriage!

    I am not seen as a human being but as just a few centimeters between her thighs. Turn the world upside down and shake the thrones if blood doesn’t flow on the wedding night (first marriage)! Make sure of my virginity, my honour, my reputation, purity and chastity while I clamp my hand to my cheek waiting for the man tearing my virginity, while I forget my right to live a natural life like other creatures, including man, my right to feelings and to keep myself from pain and disease.

    Thus I will be honored by my family and my tribe,  preserve my religiousness and maintain the values of my community.

    I’m under the man just because he does not have a hymen.

    We can’t on this basis ensure he keeps the honor of his family, his religion and the values of his society.

    Women’s bodies spin like a shadow around men – humiliated, guilty, concerned, threatened, dirty, unclean, the source of a narrowness and sin. These tools are the forbidden that are coveted, hidden and displayed, trapped and coerced. The feminine body is a hidden sex object, reprehensible and defective, like instruments which are essential for sex but which they are ashamed to use. [ii]

    Recently some governments and authorities reinforced the tribal practices which are regressive, suppress freedom and lead to patriarchal violence against women, including permitting the examination of a girl to legally establish her virginity before marriage to assure the man and his family the goods they’ve bought are brand new!

    In real terms, just because a girl is a virgin girl it does not necessarily mean nobody has touched her. Nowadays she can do what she wants because the membrane can be restored with minor surgery, or even a fake hymen used – an industrial membrane made inChinawhich costs less than three dollars!

    This way she can deceive a husband and his family and by cunning assume the mantle of chaste virgin!

    Is this really what you want, to be fooled by few fake drops of blood, to fool yourself for some kind of peace of mind? What is the difference in reality between a fake hymen and one that is torn and unrepaired?

    If the honor and chastity, reputation and preservation of the values and habits of society are determined by the state of a hymen how can we make sure that a man keeps to the codes if he does not have a hymen to prove it? This allows him free reign of his natural behaviour, freedom to enjoy his rights at the expense of women. But while she is the object of male desire she is also the forbidden – and this is the great double-standard.

    This duality is one of the fundamental pillars upon which the collective consciousness rests.

     

    When I’m talking about the Arab consciousness in general I do not mean all Arab intellectuals, journalists, writers, artists and researchers. But these represent only a small minority against the vast majority still suffering under the yoke of this tradition. That is what I mean the collective consciousness.

    Thus the Arab awareness in its present form has one face missing – that of the critic who believes in evolution … If asked about religion and faith can only answer with the faith of the righteous and if asked about science knows only the science that is Divine. Scientific knowledge is abrogated, reason is handed down. And if asked about ethics or justice will only praise their own justice and morality.

    “So why continue with Arab culture? Where is the historical development? Where is the transition from the old, how will new thinking avoid old mistakes? [iii]

    Some of you may be angry because I link these problems with Islam but they are two sides of the same coin. They are ideas which support each other to form a dogma forcing us to live by the culture of people from history despite changing conditions and the need to change ideas. Instead man’s ideas being used in the service of mankind his life is adapted to suit them.

    Such a culture worships individuals, reduces history to a single moment, and the individual at the head of the culture becomes a tyrant whose tyranny cannot be maintained only through violence.

     

    Honor is not between the thighs of women, or between the thighs of men. Honour begins with words and is never ending in all man does to represent his honour – in his work, his purity, his devotion to his country, his dedication to his family.


    [i] Strip Off the Hijab; Shahdort Javan

     

    [ii] ibid

    [iii]  The Arab Mind, the Need for Openness and Tolerance; Asim Idrissi

     

    About the Author

    Evan Darraji lives in Iraq.

  • I vs. hymen – guest post by Evan Darraji

    By Evan Darraji, Iraq

     

    Scientific definition of Hymen: The thin membrane located inside the woman’s vagina, a few centimeters in depth, tearing after penetration either by sex or otherwise.

    Is the Hymen a natural evolutionary requirement (according to Darwin) and not a moral requirement? Some animals also have hymens, such as the platypus, elephants, whales, llamas, sea cows, moles, chimpanzees, rats and lemurs.

    Social definition of the hymen: a measure of honour on the basis of the girl’s chastity and virginity – no sex before marriage in Arab, Indian and some African countries!

    Scientific definition of me as a woman: A live human being who has all the characteristics of other living things, such as breathing, needing nutrition, growing, reproducing, and who is characterized by thinking and production and development through thought and action.

    Social definition of a woman: A human-being the oriental society puts under the category of ‘Woman’ – and I’m proud to be female but according to their concepts it means I am the weaker sex who is always ranked second after the Man under The Order of God, the tribe and the support and approval of laws is based on this.

    I am a producer who has duties towards self, family and community more than Rights. Because I’m the plowed one, and odd if I reject sex with my husband, and ordered in the house of obedience, and dominated, and share a husband with two, three, or four others in accordance with the Quran. And I am to be withheld, transformed into a mummy by covering my neck in a hijab, hit and abandoned and punished and imprisoned or stoned to death, governed and controlled by the male parent (the Lord of the Family, no matter how old or young he is), cannot go out and get married, I am issued with a passport or identity card, cannot travel except with his consent; who is married even before reaching puberty. I cannot always win my freedom because the authorization for divorce is given by my husband only; am a governess, an obedient servant who has the largest share of hell and the torments of God to come later!

    Since the birth of baby girl among the Muslims is a disgrace to be concealed, because she is not born male, she represents a shortfall, an- inferiority … a potential tool of delinquency.  And to her shame is every attempt to commit a sexual act with a man before marriage. She is a tool for rape, sin and incest, and even theft because men can steal her modesty with a leer.

    In short, sin is diagnosed. They create sexual desire, this desire which is itself sinful for men. And it constitutes a permanent threat to the girl and Islamic ethics. It is a potential tool for crime, for slaughter by the father or brothers to wash their blemished honor. So the honor of Muslim men is washed with the blood of girls.” [i]

    I am a human being who works, supports, assumes, produces, begets children, raises them, is persecuted and has the majority of her rights violated religiously and legally. And if I do something against these codes will be subjected to what is called an honour killing – stoned to death or imprisoned.

    I am the human being sold as flesh and bought in many forms in the name of marriage!

    I am not seen as a human being but as just a few centimeters between her thighs. Turn the world upside down and shake the thrones if blood doesn’t flow on the wedding night (first marriage)! Make sure of my virginity, my honour, my reputation, purity and chastity while I clamp my hand to my cheek waiting for the man tearing my virginity, while I forget my right to live a natural life like other creatures, including man, my right to feelings and to keep myself from pain and disease.

    Thus I will be honored by my family and my tribe,  preserve my religiousness and maintain the values of my community.

    I’m under the man just because he does not have a hymen.

    We can’t on this basis ensure he keeps the honor of his family, his religion and the values of his society.

    Women’s bodies spin like a shadow around men – humiliated, guilty, concerned, threatened, dirty, unclean, the source of a narrowness and sin. These tools are the forbidden that are coveted, hidden and displayed, trapped and coerced. The feminine body is a hidden sex object, reprehensible and defective, like instruments which are essential for sex but which they are ashamed to use. [ii]

    Recently some governments and authorities reinforced the tribal practices which are regressive, suppress freedom and lead to patriarchal violence against women, including permitting the examination of a girl to legally establish her virginity before marriage to assure the man and his family the goods they’ve bought are brand new!

    In real terms, just because a girl is a virgin girl it does not necessarily mean nobody has touched her. Nowadays she can do what she wants because the membrane can be restored with minor surgery, or even a fake hymen used – an industrial membrane made inChinawhich costs less than three dollars!

    This way she can deceive a husband and his family and by cunning assume the mantle of chaste virgin!

    Is this really what you want, to be fooled by few fake drops of blood, to fool yourself for some kind of peace of mind? What is the difference in reality between a fake hymen and one that is torn and unrepaired?

    If the honor and chastity, reputation and preservation of the values and habits of society are determined by the state of a hymen how can we make sure that a man keeps to the codes if he does not have a hymen to prove it? This allows him free reign of his natural behaviour, freedom to enjoy his rights at the expense of women. But while she is the object of male desire she is also the forbidden – and this is the great double-standard.

    This duality is one of the fundamental pillars upon which the collective consciousness rests.

     

    When I’m talking about the Arab consciousness in general I do not mean all Arab intellectuals, journalists, writers, artists and researchers. But these represent only a small minority against the vast majority still suffering under the yoke of this tradition. That is what I mean the collective consciousness.

    Thus the Arab awareness in its present form has one face missing – that of the critic who believes in evolution … If asked about religion and faith can only answer with the faith of the righteous and if asked about science knows only the science that is Divine. Scientific knowledge is abrogated, reason is handed down. And if asked about ethics or justice will only praise their own justice and morality.

    “So why continue with Arab culture? Where is the historical development? Where is the transition from the old, how will new thinking avoid old mistakes? [iii]

    Some of you may be angry because I link these problems with Islam but they are two sides of the same coin. They are ideas which support each other to form a dogma forcing us to live by the culture of people from history despite changing conditions and the need to change ideas. Instead man’s ideas being used in the service of mankind his life is adapted to suit them.

    Such a culture worships individuals, reduces history to a single moment, and the individual at the head of the culture becomes a tyrant whose tyranny cannot be maintained only through violence.

     

    Honor is not between the thighs of women, or between the thighs of men. Honour begins with words and is never ending in all man does to represent his honour – in his work, his purity, his devotion to his country, his dedication to his family.


    [i] Strip Off the Hijab; Shahdort Javan

    [ii] ibid

    [iii]  The Arab Mind, the Need for Openness and Tolerance; Asim Idrissi

     

  • What Amy said

    Amy talks about the haters and the hatred.

    Yesterday included the “Would it be immoral to rape a Skepchick?” item. This morning it was a tweet (from “franc hoggle” of course) urging her to set herself on fire.

    Just an average day for us. And this has been going on ever since Rebecca said, “…hey guys don’t do that.” For me, it has been getting worse over the past few months. I guess I became a direct target after Rebecca decided to stay home from TAM. I was more in the spotlight so the threats became more about me.

    Been there. Am still there. Every day my stats show tens or even hundreds of hits from the hoggle gang, collecting stuff to translate into whatever shit they’re talking about me now. (No don’t tell me; I don’t want to know. I’ve never gone to that little outpost of hell and never will.) Every day I get a bunch from Thunderf00t’s video. Every day I get a bunch from a whole list of ranters.

    I firmly believe we need some more leaders in this movement to make a stand and speak out publicly to enforce the message that behavior that encourages violence against women and minorities, be it rape threats or supposed jokes about rape, death or violence should not be tolerated in a rational, humanistic, secular society. We need leaders to stand with us, not sit quietly by, while we are ridiculed and threatened.

    That would be good, now you mention it. We get lots of bloggers doing that, but leaders in this movement, not so much. They probably are a lot less aware of it, because not bloggers…But it would be nice if they stood with us.

    In answer to a question Amy said more about what TAM was like for her (thus making nonsense of the taunt that she fell apart over a T shirt sneer sneer).

    A lot of the online threats and harassment are anonymous, yes. But at TAM I dealt with a lot of real people who, while they never touched me, they did things like make fake  Surly-Ramics necklaces with words on them that mocked things I said online and there were actual people live blogging from the event saying things like I was part of an ‘axis’ that was trying to destroy the event and people celebrating T-shirts that served to make me feel like an outcast and people singing songs that said we ‘should pull the sticks out of our ass’ etc. So sometimes, yes, I have to deal with actual people IRL. None of those in real life trolls at TAM got within 10ft of me though (that I am aware of) and it’s not often that I encounter those types of people as I do my best not to be around that group.

    More people expressed shock that the people in charge of TAM allowed this to go on.

    One commenter in particular hit the mark.

    The things that really dig at me are the people who have been allies or should be allies that no longer are because their widdow feewings were hurt. People like Emery Emery who when the elevator incident occurred backed Rebecca but has somewhere since switched over to misrepresenting Rebecca and the FTBlogger’s position and then writing them off. Organizations like JREF who don’t feel the need to lay out a clear anti-harassment policy yet feel the need to blame anyone who suggests they should have one as hurting the attendance to their fundraiser (which is what TAM really is). People like Paula Kirby who seems to be operating under the delusion that if she can’t see something that it doesn’t exist and feels the need to shut up those who point out where she might be wrong (and her herd of lick-spittle sycophants that seem to be overly represented by philosophy students for some reason).

    This is the world we live in at the moment.

    Update: I posted before reading all the comments. Pamela Gay commented.

    For me, it’s not a matter of getting used to it, but getting numb to it. It’s like a bad odor your nose stops noticing due to overload of chemical receptors.

  • Why is the world ignoring Burma’s Rohingya?

    Buddhist attacks on the Rohingya Muslims in Burma have picked up over the last few weeks following the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman in May.

  • Skeptically looking down

    Leeds Skeptics in the Pub replaced Steven Moxon’s planned talk titled  “Why aren’t there more woman in the boardroom?” with an open debate on “How should Skeptics Deal with controversy?” Tom Williamson of Skeptic Canary reports.

    After that, the debate moved onto the question of “are there any subjects which just cannot be discussed in skepticism?”. My answer was a strong and unequivocal “no”. Skepticism by its very nature is based on questioning. If someone puts up a barrier saying “you cannot question this” I find that to be an affront to skepticism. Also, I find that some people confuse the idea of questioning something with a desire to challenge and reject it. For example, if you asked the question “does 1 + 1 REALLY equal 2?”, that doesn’t immediately make you a maths denialist. So, if you asked a very controversial question like “are women REALLY equal to men?” that does not mean you are automatically a misogynist. I think we need to bear this in mind when asking tough questions, and skeptics should not feel like there are any questions that cannot be asked.

    There are problems with his proposed very controversial question though.

    One, it’s meaningless. Literally meaningless; it’s colorless green sheep. Skepticism surely has to come into play in the formulation of the questions themselves. It’s no use asking questions that are so shapeless it’s impossible to know what an answer would even be.

    Is the question improved if we make it “Are women in fact inferior to men?”? Not much. It’s a little clearer, but it’s still impossible to know how to answer.

    Given that, it actually seems surprisingly unskeptical to ask such a question. Making questions precise and focused is part of the toolkit of skepticism. A mind with a habit of skepticism notices when questions are too vague to be meaningful.

    Two, the real question isn’t whether people are equal, it’s whether people should be treated as equals. If you ask that question however – “should women REALLY be treated as equals to men?” – then it seems odd to say “that does not mean you are automatically a misogynist.” Dude, it kind of does. If you’re trying to resist treating a set of people as equals, and dressing it up as skepticism, that kind of is a hostile act directed at that set of people. That’s why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up.

    It’s a particularly bad idea for “skeptics” to make a fetish of “questioning” this when most (or is it all?) of the people doing the questioning will not be the ones found unequal. It makes them look both fatuous and self-serving. They might as well ask “Are people like us REALLY superior to all other kinds of people?”

    What skeptics can do of course is have a discussion about meta-ethics. But that’s a different discussion. Just asking themselves which underlings don’t get to be treated as equals isn’t that discussion.

     

  • Inciting Hatred and Violence in the Name of Witchcraft

    On July 27, a local penticostal church is planning a ‘crusade’ at the Cultural Centre in Calabar in Cross River State. The theme of the event is: Koboko Night: My Father My Father That Witch Must Die.The same church has, in March, organized a similar event in Uyo, Akwa Ibom state.

     [media id=54597 title=”Leo1″ width=”213″ height=”159″ class=”aligncenter size-full wp-image-54597″ ]

    Akwa Ibom is another state where witch belief is strong and witchcraft related abuse is common and widespread. The activities of churches and prayer houses have been linked to the problem of witch hunting in the region, but very little has been done by local authorities to call these religious nuts to order.

    Once again I want to draw the attention of the authorities to the activities of this church and other churches in the region that are fueling witch hunting in the name of spreading the gospel. These religious entrepreneurs have found a market niche in witch beliefs and are busy exploiting it at the expense of the rights and dignity of our children and elderly persons. They fuel witchcraft fears through their books, films and deliverance sessions, and spread the false gospel that people’s problems are caused by witches and wizards in their families and communities.

    I urge that these faith groups be sanctioned without delay.

    The authorities cannot continue to look the other way, ignoring the havoc being caused by these evangelical throwbacks. The governments of Cross River and Akwa Ibom should act swiftly and bring to justice all witch hunting pastors, god men and women in these states. They should prohibit all church programs that incite hatred and violence in the name of witchcraft.

    The states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River cannot afford to go back to the times when the streets were dotted with children abused and abandoned for being witches and wizards. They should monitor the programs of churches and pastors in the region and ensure that they are not propagating the poisonous gospel of witch hunting or inciting hatred and violence in the name of witchcraft.

    For instance the theme of this crusade is literally inciting, and could lead to an upsurge of witch persecution and killings in the region. The title Koboko Night implies torture and abuse of any alleged witch. This could cause some people to go home and start beating up their children or aging parents whom they suspect of witchcraft.

    [media id=54598 title=”Leo2″ width=”213″ height=”159″ class=”aligncenter size-full wp-image-54598″ ]

    And then adding ‘that’ witch must die’makes it more horrifying. It clearly sanctions death and execution of any alleged witch. This clause alone can cause people to murder or commit atrocious acts against family or community members whom they believe are witches. This is particularly worrisome because the Bible which christians accept to be the holy book says in Exodus 22:18 ‘Suffer not a witch to live’. Obviously this biblical verse constitutes the evangelical basis of this crusade.

    This event, if it goes ahead, will certainly be a big blow to the efforts of the government to address this problem and curb the cultural scourge of witch hunting. It will be a clear sign of lack of political will and commitment on the part of the authorities to tackling the problem. The government and people of Cross River should not allow this program to be held. They should arrest and prosecute those behind it. That will serve as a deterrent to other other witch believing churches and pastors. Witchcraft accusation is a crime under the law. Also inciting hatred and violence in the name of witchcraft is a criminal offence. So the law is very clear on this and should be employed by the authorities to bring these evangelical rascals to book.

    Witch hunting must stop. Witch hunting churches and pastors must be stopped.

  • Is rape a good punishment for being so annoying?

    There’s a forum called Rationalia. Already the warning lights start to blink – the forum seems to be a genre that attracts a lot of, hmm how to put it, a lot of mind-blind, entitled nastiness, aka sexism. A forum that calls itself Rationalia – that doesn’t bode well.

    And so it came about. You have to register to read the particular item in question, so I’ll link to PZ’s report on it instead, in case like me you don’t want to register just to see some sexist crap in its native habitat.

    Would it be immoral to rape a Skepchick?

    Post by Pappa » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:46 am

    Not for sexual gratification or power or anything like that, just because they’re so annoying.

    I’m really torn on this one. :dunno:

    There were some angry comments at PZ’s (how astonishing, how wicked, how deepriftsian). “Pappa” replied.

    by Pappa » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:51 am

    OK, sorry but this’ll have to be brief. I start a new job today so I don’t have much time.

    1. PZ, why don’t you ever shut the fuck up and think before you engage your fingers? If you weren’t already a member here I’d call you an idiot, but you are and I don’t want to break the rules.

    2. PZ, where to we purport to be rational? We’re two of Dawkins’ bastard children, hanging out here because it’s more fun and way less anal than most of the other places we could go. Besides, have you read some other irrational crap you’ve posted occasionally? You’re an intelligent and thoughtful guy, almost always worth reading. But sometimes you jump on some random banwagon without much rational thought at all.

    3. PZ’s followers. You’re a bunch of retarded arse-lickers (not all of you, just the retarded ones who aren’t also members here). Seriously, are you not able to understand concepts like irony, hyperbole and irreverent humour?

    So that’s how that went.

    Stephanie has commentary. 

    Update:

    “Pappa” has commented again.

    One

    I suppose you’ve all heard the expression,”You’ve every right to be offended” before. It’s true, you do. You also have every right to rant about it online if that’s what floats your boat, but really many of you need to get some perspective and stop seeing the world in such black and white ways. If any one of you have ever laughed at a sick joke of any kind, then you’re hypocrites. If you really care about rape, stop posting shouty replies on some blog and go out and do something about it in the real world. Responding to blog posts and getting all worked up in the process is about as effective as praying.

    I don’t know what’s wrong with the supposed “community” that spans a load of atheist/sceptic/rationalist sites, but you don’t half waste an absurd amount of time arguing amongst yourselves and getting really angry and self-righteous in the process. I like PZ and follow his blog from time to time, but even PZ seems to engage his fingers quite a lot without much rational thought… and I’ve seen Dawkins do the same quite a few times too. That’s pretty lame considering most of these people involved proclaim themselves to be rational minded people.

    Before you turn that round to suggest I’m a hypocrite, “Rationalia” has never claimed to be a hub of reason and rationalism, as anyone who’s spent any time there can verify. It’s a hangout for (mostly) atheists/rationalist/sceptics who used to spend their free time in the Off Topic section of RDF, plus a load of fresh blood who just like the relaxed atmosphere.

    Two

    There are a huge amount of assumptions being made about me here. I am not misogynistic, sexist or woman-hating in any way. I support equality in all its forms and have done for my whole adult life. I have posted uncountable times online about my support for equality of sex, race and sexuality. Just a few days before the Skepchick thread I started I posted a “Stop Rape” poster on FB, I am vocally supportive of gay rights and gay marriage both online and off. At no point did I say I think Skepchicks should be raped, or that I wanted that to happen. I posted a ridiculous parody thread asking a “moral” question because I’ve been so sick of the ridiculous irrationally conducted “debate” ever since Elevatorgate I felt it should be ridiculed.

    Something you all need to understand is that while I am 100% supportive of matters of equality, I also absolutely support the right of free speech, even when it is extremely distasteful.

    I didn’t post that thread naively. On Rationalia in the past we’ve had long, heated discussions on the topic of offensive humour, stemming from unpleasant jokes made about disabled children, jokes that appeared right after Michael Jackson died, jokes about Madeline McCann, etc.. Some of which I found very distasteful, others I did not. I happen to have an irreverent sense of humour, and believe it or not but there are lots of other people who also have irreverent senses of humour who are fully capable of understanding the seriousness of the topics involved, people who are morally upstanding and who’s thoughts and actions are good. Honestly, I’m one of those people. I understand that many people are unable to see the funny side of humour that entails rape, death, baby eating, etc., but that doesn’t mean that anyone who does is ethically and morally corrupt. Plus, one thread of sarcastic ridicule is not all of who I am. Anyone who took the time to find out, rather than condemning me blindly on some blog would quickly realise.

    Three

    I am genuinely sorry that some people who have been affected by rape have been caused some further hurt by reading my thread. But I can’t renounce my joke for the simple reason that if rape jokes are verboten then by the same logic, so must dead baby jokes be so. Real people have had to live through the torment of a baby dying and must unfortunately also deal with the hurt of sometimes hearing or seeing dead baby jokes. People who have had children vanish without trace must unfortunately also deal with the hurt of sometimes hearing or seeing Madeline McCann jokes. People whose family have been murdered must unfortunately also deal with the hurt of sometimes hearing or seeing jokes about mass shootings or terrorism.

  • Women are told to sit in back

    Theocrats at it again – in Williamsburg (Brooklyn) this time.

    Ultra-Orthodox Jewish business owners are lashing out at customers at dozens of  stores in Williamsburg, trying to ban sleeveless tops and plunging necklines  from their aisles. It’s only the latest example of the Hasidic community trying  to enforce their strict religious laws for everyone who lives near their New  York enclave.

    “No Shorts, No Barefoot, No Sleeveless, No Low Cut Neckline Allowed in the  Store,” declare the English/Spanish signs that appear in stores throughout the  Hasidic section of the hipster haven. The retailers do not just serve Jews — they include stores for hardware, clothes and electronics.

    …

    “We’re not concerned about the way women dress in Manhattan — but we are  concerned with bringing 42nd Street to this neighborhood,” said Mark Halpern,  who is Orthodox and lives in Williamsburg.

    Some called the policy un-American.

    “It’s further evidence of this era’s move toward Balkanization in the United  States,” said Marci Hamilton, a First Amendment scholar at Cardozo School of  Law. “It’s no longer sufficient that they have shared norms among themselves,  they are increasingly trying to impose their norms on the rest of the  culture.”

    Theocracy, in fact.

    The dress code appears to be the latest effort by the Hasidic community to  separate itself from the greater population.

    There’s an Orthodox ambulance service and a private police force called the  Shomrim.

    On the B110, a privately operated public bus line that runs through Orthodox  Williamsburg and Borough Park, women are told to sit in back, also in accordance with Orthodox customs.

    The neighborhood embarked on a successful 2009 crusade to remove bike lanes  from a 14-block stretch of Bedford Avenue — fearful of the scantily clad gals  who would pedal through.

    Talibanesque – for real this time.