Don’t miss the new ad for Surly-Ramics! It’s
way
down
there
on the left.
It’s a piece of art itself, and a very B&W-friendly one.
Click on it to get to Surly-Ramics land, and use the magic word to get a discount.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Chris Moos has a good article at the Huffington Post about gender segregation at UK universities.
Mind you, I disagree with him on one thing.
While there should be agreement on the fact that it is the right of students to voluntarily self-segregate, it is also clear there is no right of any campus group to force students to segregate, either by creating social pressure on students by advertising the events as “strictly segregated”, signposting “male” and “female” entrances and seating areas, or by verbally and physically enforcing segregation on the audience, as it occurred at UCL in March, as reported by the Guardian. Worryingly, this widely publicised case where students were refused entry through the “female entrance”, and subsequently intimidated and manhandled when they refused to comply is omitted from the discussion.
I disagree with the first clause. You can’t really have a “right” to self-segregate without segregating others, so there really is no such right. Segregation is from certain others, so it’s not a “self” thing.
He expands on the idea later.
Whether or not students want to segregate, in a liberal and democratic society the right to practising one’s faith stops where one starts imposing it on others. Contrary to what some assert, there is no right of the religiously observant to impose their sensibilities on others. For those who agree to segregate voluntarily, there is no need for advertisement, signposting, social pressure, intimidation or violence. Of course, if the segregation in these 40 cases had indeed been voluntary and agreed-upon by all attendees, the organisers would not have needed to promote or enforce it in the first place.
How could you do that though? How could you get all attendees to agree to segregate, and how could you do it without the risk of pressuring them? Imagine trying that with race. “Do you all agree to separate into white seats and black seats?” It’s not on. “Do you all agree to separate into believer seats and infidel seats?” Also not on. If those aren’t on, it’s not clear why the gender version should or could be on.
No I don’t think so; I don’t think the idea can or should be salvaged. People can sit where they choose to, within reason – but that naturally means that other people can’t tell them where to sit. People can get up and move if they don’t like someone who sits near them, but that’s all they can do. Self-segregation is an oxymoron, unless it just means staying home.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
All right, a nice story for a change.
Two former Birmingham students have defied death threats to make legal history by becoming the first Muslim lesbian couple to get married in a civil ceremony in the UK.
Rehana Kausar, 34, and Sobia Kamar, 29, from Pakistan, tied the knot at a registration office in front of their solicitors and two Pakistani friends earlier this month.
Great. Two people who want to be together are together. A happy thing. I like happy things.
According to Pakistani law, same-sex sexual acts are illegal and go against Islamic teachings.
Those who flout the law are often targeted and in the most extreme cases homosexuals have been murdered.
The country does not have civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination or harassment on the basis of a person’s sexuality and same-sex marriages and civil unions in Pakistan have no legal recognition.
But the potential threat to their lives didn’t stop Ms Kausar and Ms Kamar from going ahead with their marriage at Leeds Registry Office.
Wearing a traditional white bridal dress, the couple told the Registrar that they had known each other for around three years after moving to Birmingham from Pakistan on student visas.
I’m sure in actuality they wore two dresses, one each. The two of them crowding into one dress – now that would be wicked.
Ms Kausar, a master’s degree holder in economics from Punjab University, and her new partner both came to the UK to study business and health care management.
Ms Kausar, originally from Lahore, said: “This country allows us rights and it’s a very personal decision that we have taken. It’s no one’s business as to what we do with our personal lives.
“The problem with Pakistan is that everyone believes he is in charge of other people lives and can best decide about the morals of others but that’s not the right approach and we are in this state because of our clergy, who have hijacked our society which was once a tolerant society and respected individuals freedoms.”
And that is so dreadfully sad. It’s so easy for a country to fall off a cliff, and it can happen so quickly.
I hope they get to stay and will be very happy. I hope Birmingham becomes a mecca (so to speak) for liberal Muslims.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
The ANU student newspaper has a response.
As many of you will be aware, the “Advice from Religion” infographic on the back page of Woroni, Edition 5 2013, caused a flurry of activity. However, what you might not know is that over the course of a week, the Woroni board was twice summoned to the Chancelry, individually threatened with disciplinary action along with the authors of the piece, and informed that Woroni’s funding allocation could be compromised.
Threatened with disciplinary action…for what? It would help if we knew more about the cartoon, but so far I don’t.
As editors of a student publication, we have grown accustomed to receiving heated feedback from students and staff. However, in this instance the extent of interference with Woroni by the Chancelry was unprecedented.
The day following publication, the entire Woroni board was asked to attend a meeting with members of the ANU Chancelry, including Richard Baker, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience). The Chancelry wished to discuss the Woroni board’s response to a formal complaint submitted by the International Students Department.
In a later statement to Woroni, the Chancelry maintained that the article breached the “University rules” and the Australian Press Council Principles. Furthermore, the Chancelry commented that the “the University has a large international footprint and is mindful of maintaining its reputation of providing a welcoming environment for a diverse student and academic population.”
Meaning…what? That cartoons about Islam are especially insulting to foreign students? But if so, is that true? More so than cartoons about Catholicism for instance? And if it is true, is it really grounds for discipline and deletion? It sounds dubious.
The Chancelry’s position is that the piece posed a threat to the ANU’s reputation and security. “[I]n a world of social media, [there is] potential for material such as the article in question to gain attention and traction in the broader world and potentially harm the interests of the University and the university community.”
“This was most clearly demonstrated by the Jyllands- Posten cartoon controversy … and violent protests in Sydney on September 15 last year,” the Chancelry told Woroni.
In light of these concerns, the Chancelry asked for an apology and an official public retraction of the piece.
Ah. Now we know where we are. The mention of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons clarifies. We’re in the realm of violence and intimidation.
The J-P cartoons were not substantively insulting (except possibly to a long-dead “prophet”). The “controversy” about them was worked up by Islamist clerics. We’re in the realm of preventive caution in the face of violence. That’s a very bad reason to punish students who did nothing wrong.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Another week, another cartoon about Islam yanked from a student newspaper.
A cartoon satirising Islam has been pulled from the internet by editors of the Australian National University student newspaper, amid concerns of offence and potential for violent backlash.
The Woroni student newspaper originally published the cartoon on April 18 as part of its “Advice from Religion” infographic, the fifth in a series previously featuring Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism and Judaism.
ANU vice-chancellor Ian Young said editors retracted the cartoon two days after it was posted online following a formal complaint to university management.
So…cartoons about Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism and Judaism, okay. Cartoon about Islam, not okay.
Speaking on ABC Radio on Monday, Mr Young said there was also concern about the potential for a violent backlash because of the graphic, which appeared on the backpage of the paper.
“There have been a number of cases internationally of satirical cartoons about the Koran which can have some very unfortunate side effects,” he said.
So…violence and intimidation work.
Again.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Desmond Clarke, an emeritus professor of philosophy at University College Cork, explains why religious moral certainty is out of place in discussions of abortion law. In particular, he says that
those who are absolutely certain about their ethical views – which are evidently not shared by many others – should reflect on the source and certainty of their convictions.
Those who do so reflect and do so independently of religion tend to bump up against some version of the harm principle. First do no harm. That’s the core of the little list I drew up the other day – don’t do genocide, don’t push children into traffic, that kind of thing. There are complications, but my point was that you can make the claims short enough and obvious enough that it’s difficult to be skeptical about them – at least I think it is. Except for people with broken empathy, which is why I made an exception for psychopaths.
Archbishop Eamon Martin spoke recently about Catholics “putting faith into practice” and not leaving “our faith ‘outside the room’” when they discuss legislation. No one can argue with faith. The history of religions shows that sects have held the most irrational and misogynistic beliefs, and have attributed them to a god.
And attributing them to a god means getting to go around the normal inhibitions on violence and cruelty, and doing so with a clear conscience.
Of course, non-religious people have held equally implausible beliefs, but they cannot protect them from examination by appealing to faith.
I’m not sure we know that. I’m not sure it’s true that non-religious people really have held equally implausible beliefs.
But that’s a quibble. It’s the second part that matters. That’s the point we ended Does God Hate Women? with – that that’s how religion makes misogyny much harder to address and get rid of – it sanctifies it and shields it.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Jason added the tool that makes tweets big and readable, so I’m going to try it out. I’ll do a vanity tweet, because I’m so vain.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Justin Vacula — Skeptic Ink Network writer, speaker, atheist and church/state activist, and host of Brave Hero Radio – seeks to attend conference in Dublin.
He’s raised more than enough already.
So this is how it’s to be. I can’t go anywhere now without being followed by a dedicated harasser.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Sarah Ditum startles and shocks by making a distinction between female genitalia and electronic equipment.
2. A laptop is a portable electronic device, a vagina is a body part
Does it whir? Does it make small clicking sounds? Can it be placed in a briefcase and carried around separately to its owner? That is a laptop. Is it a fibromuscular tubular tract located between a woman’s thighs? Vagina. Taking the former from a car would be an act of theft. Penetrating the latter without the woman’s consent would be a physical assault – and that’s true even if the woman has behaved in a way that makes it obvious that she has a vagina and sometimes uses it for fun! No one says to the victim of a beating: “Well, anyone could see you had teeth. You were just asking to have them broken with all the eating you do.”
Wull.
Ok.
But still. Don’t just go walking around wherever you want to. Or leave your laptop on the bus.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Good news: Colin Powell isn’t at all worried about the massive rate of sexual assault in the US military. He says everything’s fine and the system is working well. That will be a huge relief to all the women who were raped in that military, especially the ones who got punished while their rapists got promoted.
Despite the high rate of sexual assault and instances of convictions being overturned by commanders, Powell said the military justice system was working.
“There will always be a case where somebody disagrees with a judgment made by somebody in the appellate procedure,” he explained. “Well, lets examine that, but lets not toss out a system that I think has worked very, very well over the years. I have been in that position as a commander. I have been the appellate authority. I have decided who should get tried and who should not get tried, and I can tell you that in my experience as a commander, we take it very, very seriously.”
That’s greeeeeeeeeat! Isn’t it? Only, he might be a little bit wrong. Maybe his view of how well it’s worked is shaped by his job, his position, his ties, his friends – by all the things that make it a super bad idea to let people at the top of an organization decide how crimes inside the organization will be dealt with. Maybe, just maybe, he has the same kind of problem popes and bishops have dealing with rape in their organization. Maybe Bloomberg TV shouldn’t be asking him softball questions but should instead be asking why the fuck the military thinks it can deal with sexual assault within its ranks better than the Vatican does.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
This week’s xkcd is so very apt…
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
I keep saying.
Where have all the women gone in movies?
Despite the success of recent female-driven movies such as “Bridesmaids” and the “Hunger Games” and “Twilight” series, female representation in popular movies is at its lowest level in five years, according to a study being released Monday by the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
I keep talking about this. You’d think women didn’t exist, looking at most movie trailers. Even the animated ones – all the toys or all the animals – they’re male.
Among the 100 highest-grossing movies at the U.S. box office in 2012, the study reported, 28.4% of speaking characters were female. That’s a drop from 32.8% three years ago, and a number that has stayed relatively stagnant despite increased research attention to the topic and several high-profile box-office successes starring women.
We also need stats on amount of speaking, screen time, billing, importance to the plot, action – a lot of things.
When they are on-screen, 31.6% of women are shown wearing sexually revealing clothing, the highest percentage in the five years the USC researchers have been studying the issue.
For teen girls, the number who are provocatively dressed is even higher: 56.6% of teen girl characters in 2012 movies wore sexy clothes, an increase of 20% since 2009.
Because that’s why they’re there. To be hawt.
This is a barrier. I’m not being an extremist ideologue in saying that.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Wow. Talk about not even “I don’t care who started it, both of you go to your rooms!” or “both sides are equally wrong, and I know this without knowing any of the particulars,” but just plain “you were harassed, don’t ever come back here again.”
Christine Walkinshaw is a comic. She did a gig at a casino. Ten drunk guys at one table shouted “show us your tits!” and then “show us your bush!” She finished her act in spite of them and without engaging them.
When I get backstage, the headliner, Darren Frost is livid. During my set, he ran around the club trying to get manager and staff to tell the table to shut up, but they wouldn’t.
Um. Well maybe they were figuring she started it, by being up there on the stage and all.
Before I left that night, I approached the woman running the club. I’m terrible at confrontation. The worst. I’d rather put up with a little shitty behavior, not just as a comedian, but as a human being, than start a conflict. I’m the queen of saying things like, “It’s okay,” “I’m alright,” or “Don’t worry about me.” I don’t mean to sound pathetic. I’m actually a very happy person. I’ve been told I smile too much. (How creepy is that!) However, in this moment, I know I have to say something.
“Hey. The next time a bunch of guys are shouting ‘Show us your tits! Show us your bush!’ you might want to tell them to shut up.”
Then I burst out crying. Oh for fucks. I can’t believe I’m confessing on the internet that I cried. I swear I don’t cry all the time. I cried during the movie ‘Big Fish.’ I also cried the first time I saw the music video to Taylor Swift’s ‘Ours.’ Other than that, I’m pretty tear free. The manager was taken aback.
“Oh. I thought you liked it.”
Do I need to tell you guys I didn’t like it? Probably not.
I endured it, but I didn’t like it. Still, I like to keep my relations with comedy clubs drama free. I accept her apology, then the second she left the green room, I opened the mini fridge, and shoved as many of those little, chubby casino size bottles of water in my purse. It was a small act of revenge, and most certainly passive aggressive, but it felt good. Free bottled water for all disgruntled employees of Casino Niagara! Who says I don’t stand up for myself?
That was Thursday; she did the Friday and Saturday. A year later they invited her again. She thought ew, a bit, but accepted anyway.
A week ago I got an email from my agent, saying the casino is axing me from the weekend, due to the night with Darren Frost and the “unruly” crowd.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
A Fresh Air interview with Mel Brooks the other day played the sound from the “Puttin on the Ritz” segment in Young Frankenstein. I thought I’d better share that segment.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Oh honestly. Teresa MacBain was supposed to be on CNN this morning to talk about how atheists deal with tragedy – but CNN went and canceled on her, because they wanted to talk about the London events and religious extremism instead. Phooey.
It would have been good. Here’s what she said about it on Facebook, before they pulled the plug.
I just received a call from CNN. They want me to be on the Sunday Morning show to discuss how atheists deal with tragedy. I’m very glad that I have this opportunity. My goal is to continue the process of normalizing atheism and share how so many of us have stepped up to help those who are suffering.
That would have been great.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Huge demonstration in Paris to say omigodno about same-sex marriage.
French police says that 150,000 protesters are taking part in the march in central Paris, but the organisers say the number is closer to one million.
One demonstrator dressed in black, holding a scythe and wearing a mask of Mr Hollande, stood behind a coffin in which lay a mannequin dressed as Marianne – the emblem of France.
I don’t get it. I never do. It’s other people, being allowed to do something that a lot of people think is a good thing to do. It seems so bizarre to get that worked up about it. It’s not legal permission to marry you, against your will – it’s just legal permission to marry someone of the same sex. Someone. Not you. Someone. Someone else.
Du calme, du calme.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Tarek Fatah says it.
While ordinary Britons and non-Muslims around the world are bewildered by these never-ending acts of terrorism, the response of the leaders of the Islamic community is the tired old cliche — Islam is a religion of peace, and jihad is simply an “inner struggle.”
The fact these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief — the doctrine of armed jihad against the “kuffar” (non-Muslims) — is disingenuously denied by Islamic clerics and leaders.
Yesterday, instead of calling on Muslims to shelve the doctrine of armed jihad, predictably, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a quick press release claiming the “barbaric” attack has “no basis in Islam.”
Not true, MCB. As a Muslim, I can say without fear, the latest terror attack has a basis in Islam and it’s time for us Muslims to dig our heads out of the sand.
He says it. You don’t see that very often.
This was an opportunity for the Muslim leadership to confess they have failed and that the time has come to admit that jihadis cannot be fought without fighting the doctrine of jihad.
It is worth noting that not a single Muslim cleric since 9/11 has mustered the courage to say the doctrine of armed jihad is defunct and inapplicable in the 21st century. They rightfully denounce terrorism, but dare not denounce jihad.
If only they would.
Unless the leaders of British mosques as well as the Islamic organizations in the U.K. denounce the doctrine of jihad as pronounced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, and distance themselves from the ideology of Qutb, al-Banna and Maudoodi, they stand complicit in the havoc that these jihadis are raining down on the rest of us.
They cannot have it both ways: promoting the teachings of Maududi and Qutb among Muslim youth, while concealing the same teachings from the rest of Britain.
If the Muslim leadership did denounce armed jihad, think what a blow it would be against “Islamophobia.”
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Omar Bakri, founder of the banned UK Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, is excited about the “courage” of the guy who hacked Lee Rigby to death on a street in Woolwich.
What surprised me (is) the quiet man, the man who is very shy, decided to carry out an attack against a British soldier in the middle of the day in the middle of a street in the UK. In east London. It’s incredible.
“When I saw that, honestly I was very surprised – standing firm, courageous, brave. Not running away. Rather, he said why he carried (it out) and he wanted the whole world to hear it.”
No. That’s not courageous or brave. Nobody was going to hack him to death. The guy he hacked to death wasn’t given a chance to fight back. That’s not courageous, it’s not brave.
“The prophet (Mohammad) said an infidel and his killer will not meet in Hell. That’s a beautiful saying,” he said. “May God reward (Adebolajo) for his actions.”
That’s a disgusting thing to say. “Kaffir.” And he calls it a beautiful saying. It makes me feel ill.
Bakri said his organization Al Muhajiroun had nothing to do with the attack because members had not seen Adebolajo since 2005. However, Anjem Choudary, who took over the leadership of Al Muhajiroun when Bakri was exiled from Britain, has told Reuters Adebolajo attended the group’s events until about two years ago.
It seems to me people used to call Anjem Choudary a joke. He doesn’t seem to be much of a joke.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Just a small side thing, about reading and disagreeing with an opponent fairly.
A reader pointed out to me a post by Damion Reinhardt at Skeptic Ink about a post of mine. Here’s how he paraphrases my post:
Her argument seems to be something like this:
- Skeptics assent unquestioningly to moral propositions of the form “You must not [commit atrocities against humans]” without stopping to ask for further evidence.
- Checkmate, skeptics!
I may have missed out a step there, but that seems to pretty much cover it. My answer to this is twofold.
Here’s what I actually wrote:
One of the things that proud or “movement” skeptics like to say is “you have to be skeptical of everything.” No sacred cows!
But I don’t think even proud or “movement” skeptics really believe that, apart from a few psychopaths. I can think of lots of things I think no one should be skeptical of, and I’d be surprised to get much disagreement.
- you must not push small children in front of speeding cars
- you must not punch a child in the face
- you must not kill all the Jews
- you must not commit genocide
- you must not kidnap and imprison women
- you must not force a woman to abort a pregnancy by first starving her and then repeatedly punching her in the abdomen as hard as you can
- you must not set fire to people’s houses
- you must not enslave anyone
They don’t match. What I wrote is not what he said I wrote.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
Sorry, I had to make that earlier post private, because I was told it wasn’t a good idea. Sorry for any confusion.
(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)
