One nice thing.

There’s a transcript of a hangout PZ did with Rebecca and Jen and Brownian and Louis. (I’m not sure I know Louis.)

Louis is apparently in the UK, and he said a thing I liked.

So I see the vitriol, I see the vehemence of it. And I can understand Brownian’s point, of the, fuck you assholes [Unintelligible] misogynist skeptics. I can see it, because, you know, it’s so apparent to me as an outsider from that angle.

But when I’ve been to Skeptics in the Pub in the UK, or when I’ve been to skeptic events in the UK, or when I’ve dealt with, I don’t know, the Simon Singhs or these sorts of people over here, it’s all so obvious that. . . you know. . . Anita Anand, Simon’s partner, or any of these wonderful people whose names I can now not remember. Tessa Kendall for example. Who are fantastic skeptics and fantastic atheists and fantastic advocates for Enlightenment values and thought.

There was never a question. . .  that these people that didn’t have willies were somehow our equals or betters. It was never an issue. So I’m coming from an incredibly privileged background, where it was never questioned. Or at least in my limited view, it was never questioned.

That’s the feeling I got when I was there. (Although that’s partly because I naturally didn’t experience everything. I now know of one guy who was there from the fuck you assholes [Unintelligible] misogynist skeptics contingent.)

And to see some of the abhorrent stuff that’s been chucked out across the intertubes recently, and not so recently, is shocking to me. But that just makes me want to redouble my efforts.

That, you know. . . the Enlightenment values for which skeptics and atheists claim to stand are the Enlightenment values from which feminists have built feminism. It’s – they’re not a separate issue. So I don’t really feel like ceding ground to the misogynists. I don’t really feel like ceding ground to the homophobes and the racists, and the privileged white dudes who think that, you know, being skeptical of Nessie is somehow good, good enough. It just isn’t! You know, I think it all comes from the same wellspring. It all comes from that same Enlightenment value.

Yes yes yes and yes.

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

Seen the picture of Mount Sharp?

Postcards from Mars, eh.

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

Hooray, great strides for women in India.

An Indian company has launched what it claims is the country’s first vagina tightening cream, saying it will make women feel “like a virgin” again. The company says it is about empowering women…

Empowering women? By making them feel “like a virgin”? Because virgin women are so powerful? What, like the Delphic oracle? Tight virginal vagina=telephone line to the gods?

This video is designed to market a vaginal “rejuvenation and tightening” product, which was launched this month in India.

The makers of 18 Again, the Mumbai-based pharmaceutical company Ultratech, say it is the first of its kind in India (similar creams are already available in other parts of the world such as the USA), and fills a gap in the market.

Ultratech’s owner, Rishi Bhatia, says the cream, which is selling for around $44 (£28), contains natural ingredients including gold dust, aloe vera, almond and pomegranate, and has been clinically tested.

“It’s a unique and revolutionary product which also works towards building inner confidence in a woman and boosting her self esteem,” says Mr Bhatia, adding that the goal of the product is to “empower women”.

Oh right! I get it now. Because of course any woman who has a disgusting sloppy baggy loose vagina has obviously lost any inner confidence she once had. It’s well known that there is a nerve that links the vagina to the inner confidence and that as the vagina sheds its discipline and becomes like a giant deflated balloon, all the air goes out of the inner confidence too. It’s tragic. How wonderful that there’s now a magical way to use gold dust to tighten up the horrible floppy thing.

Mr Bhatia says the product is not claiming to restore a woman’s virginity, but to restore the emotions of being a virgin.

“We are only saying, ‘feel like a virgin’ – it’s a metaphor. It tries to bring back that feeling when a person is 18.”

Or 16, or 14…or 9, as is not uncommon in India.

“This kind of cream is utter nonsense, and could give some women an inferiority complex,” argues Annie Raja from the National Federation of Indian Women, which fights for women’s rights in the country.

Ms Raja says that rather than empower women, the cream will do the opposite, by reaffirming a patriarchal view that is held by many here – the notion that men want all women to be virgins until their wedding night.

Well you know how it is – all those men tromping through there, they blow the thing out, so it gets to be like trying to fuck a blanket, and a very dirty used stained blanket at that.

Has anybody thought of inventing disposable vaginas? What about that for a solution? A new clean tight virginal one every morning, and high self-esteem all around. Win-win!

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

Taslima invited me to write a post on why I’m a feminist, so now I get to have the honor of a post on Taslima’s blog. Woot!

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

Ron Lindsay has some observations on atheism plus. Good stuff.

One question he asks in conclusion -

CFI has long been active in supporting LGBT equality, in supporting reproductive rights, in supporting equality for women, in opposing suppression of women and minorities, not just in the US but in other countries, in supporting public schools, in advocating for patient’s rights, including the right to assistance in dying, in fighting restrictions on the teaching of evolution, in opposing religious interference with health care policy, in promoting the use of science in shaping public policy, in safeguarding our rights to free speech, and in protecting the rights of the nonreligious. We focus on these issues because: 1. they are the issues where religious dogma and/or pseudoscience continue to have significant influence and, therefore, they’re the issues most closely related to our mission as a secular/skeptical organization; and 2. we have limited resources of money and staff time; we can’t do everything.

So do the advocates of A+ believe some or all of these issues are not worth spending time on? If so, why? What other issues will A+ be focused on? What are the connections between these other issues and atheism? Where will A+ find the resources to focus on these other issues?

Speaking for myself, no. I don’t think of atheism+ as diverging from CFI. On the contrary, I think of CFI as pretty much the same kind of thing.

I’ll just add a comment I made there. (As soon as I did, one “Dan” turned up to call me things, by way of illustrating the total non-existence of misogyny, or something. So I won’t be commenting there any more. That’s how this goes.)

So far, and speaking just for myself, I’ve been taking Atheist+ as an adjective more than a movement, which means among other things that I don’t have to worry about wasting resources or splitting into factions.

I think of it as a shorthand for saying “gnu atheist [i.e. explicit, vocal, assertive etc atheist] with extra added egalitarianism.”

It’s extra added, right now, because of this wave of cheery unabashed sexism. I feel a need for the + as a quick way to make the point that the atheism movement (and there is such a thing) shouldn’t include rude hostility to women. (Or any other groups, but that’s the thing: sexism seems to be exempt from the taboos on racism and the like.)

I did a follow-up comment to say I think of CFI as being on the same side of that issue.

Update: Rogi Riverstone provided an illustration on her Atheism+ Facebook page.

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

Here’s a thing. A very small thing, but a thing.

I just saw it for about the 87th time and realized what’s so annoying about it.

It’s != or |= for ≠

Here’s what so annoying about it.

What the hell is the point? Just say “doesn’t equal.” If you don’t have the actual ≠ handy then just type the words, for godsake.

I know another one like that. DFW for Dallas Ft Worth. If you’re writing or typing, by all means say DFW, but if you’re talking – well do what you want, but DFW is more syllables than Dallas Ft Worth.

I know this because Martin Amis pointed out another one in The Information – someone talking referred to the MW for microwave. Count them.

Here’s another: the BBC always says WWF, never World Wildlife Fund. Both longer and more cryptic. Stupid.

Always be careful of the W.

Also – I don’t want to point fingers, but four twenty ten is a silly way to say ninety.

This has been Sunday Advice, brought to you by the Milk Marketing Board.

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

One of the current hot memes in the “let’s hate on FTB and feminazis” campaign is to announce that we’re “infantilizing” women and that it’s disgusting, outrageous, appalling. What’s up with that?

How are we infantilizing women? I don’t see it. By thinking conferences should have anti-harassment policies?

Surely not. Having a policy doesn’t “infantilize” any more than laws do. Having a policy lets people know where they are, instead of forcing them to try to figure it out on their own. It lets people know they have some rights (and some obligations). It lets people know what’s expected of them. If anyone is being infantilized surely it’s people who have to be told not to make unwanted sexual moves.

In a way, anti-harassment policies de-infantilize women, in the sense that women who want sexual moves will probably have to do some initiating. What’s wrong with that?

Or is it by objecting to being called cunts and bitches all the time?

Come on. Is it “infantilizing” for people to object to racist epithets? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that suggested. If it’s not, why would it be so for women to object to sexist epithets?

Or maybe it’s neither of those, but then I have no idea what it is.

Anyone?

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

Atheism is easy for me in a way it’s not easy for people in (for instance) small towns in the South or Midwest – people like Jerry DeWitt of DeRidder, Louisiana, for instance.

DeWitt is something of a reality check for many atheists, whose principles rarely cost them more than the price of “The God Delusion” in paperback. DeWitt refuses to leave DeRidder, a place where religion, politics and family pride are indivisible. Six months after he was “outed” as an atheist he lost his job and his wife — both, he says, as a direct consequence. Only a handful of his 100-plus relatives from DeRidder still speak to him. When I visited him, in late June, his house was in foreclosure, and he was contemplating moving into his 2007 Chrysler PT Cruiser. This is the kind of environment where godlessness remains a real struggle and raises questions that could ramify across the rest of the country. Is the “new atheism” part of a much broader secularizing trend, like the one that started emptying out the churches in European towns and villages a century ago? Or is it just a ticket out of town?

That’s very poignant - he’s lost nearly everything but he refuses to leave.

When I first met Jerry DeWitt, I half expected a provincial contrarian hungry for attention. Instead, he was mild and apologetic, a short, baby-faced man with a gentle smile and a neatly trimmed dark beard. He was earnest and warm, and I soon discovered that many of his fellow townspeople cannot help liking him, no matter how much they dislike his atheism. He appears to have reached his conclusions about God with reluctance, and with remorse for the pain he has caused his friends and family. He seems to bear no grudge toward them. “At every atheist event I go to, there’s always someone who’s been hurt by religion, who wants me to tell him all preachers are charlatans,” DeWitt told me, soon after we met. “I always have to disappoint them. The ones I know are mostly very good people.”

But he’s a pariah in DeRidder – and a resource for other pariahs.

But DeWitt also hurled himself into his new role as a faith healer in reverse. He became the first “graduate” of the Clergy Project, discarding his anonymity and giving the clandestine preachers’ group its first dash of publicity. It was formed in early 2011 with a few dozen members, mostly recruited through Dan Barker, a former pastor who is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and through Linda LaScola, who in 2010 co-conducted a study of nonbelieving pastors with Daniel Dennett, the atheist philosopher. The project now has more than 300 members, with about 80 applicants awaiting clearance (the group is very careful about admissions, to secure the members’ privacy).

DeWitt also became the executive director of Recovering From Religion, formed in 2009 by Darrel Ray, a Kansas-based atheist proselytizer. The group grew quickly under DeWitt’s leadership and now includes at least 100 local chapters scattered across the country, each one typically with 10 to 12 participants. Like other public figures in the movement, DeWitt also serves as a one-man clearinghouse for religious doubters via Facebook and e-mail. During the four days I spent with him in DeRidder, he was almost constantly checking his cellphone and tapping out messages.

Teresa MacBain is on the same trip.

One former pastor named Teresa MacBain told me that when she began doubting her faith last year, she ran through her list of friends and acquaintances and realized that every single one of them was religious. With no one to confide in, she began recording her thoughts into her iPhone when she was alone in the car. “It was a huge encouragement when I finally found other people to talk to online,” she told me. Like DeWitt, MacBain joined the Clergy Project. Then, earlier this year, she resigned from her pastor’s position in Tallahassee and went public as an atheist. She was promptly defriended (in the literal and Facebook sense) by almost everyone she knew. But like DeWitt, she has begun receiving frequent messages from doubting pastors and churchgoers, seeking her help in making the leap away from God. “It’s all new friends now,” she said.

It must be a little like living through a plague, or a huge natural disaster. All new friends now.

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

Goodbye Neil Armstrong, and thanks for everything.

Did you know he was a Muslim? The Zionist media won’t be telling you that, of course, but it’s the truth.

What happened is, he heard the call to prayer while he was strolling around on the moon, and that was so awesome that he was all “O Allah” and he totally converted.

Ok no it’s not the truth, it’s an urban legend.

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

And speaking of videos…I didn’t watch all of that one on The Point the other day, and yesterday a Facebook friend, Mavaddat, pointed out a later segment when they talked about Y no women. Michael Shermer explained.

It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing.

Screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pmvv_-Lew

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

There has been another hangout. This one was hosted by Alex Gabriel, and had Debbie Goddard, Jason Thibeault, and Stephanie Zvan along with me. It was to discuss atheism+ and humanism and “divisiveness” and the fact that it’s not a coup or a usurpation.

To me, in fact, it’s mostly a label for a stance or point of view, a useful shorthand. I don’t think that’s terribly divisive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-3JkhuOQ7A

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

Another party heard from – Pat Condell explains about atheism+ on Twitter.

Atheism+ Whiney selective feminism that ignores Islamic misogyny. I almost hope God exists so he can piss in their eye.

Really! Is that a fact?!

No, it is not.

Whiny selective standup comedian.

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