Religion
Related: About this forumIt Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too
I spoke out about sexual harassment among atheists and scientists. Then came the rape threats.
Rebecca Watson. Photo by Larry Auerbach.
By Rebecca Watson|Posted Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012, at 10:18 AM ET
Im a skeptic. Not the kind that believes the 9/11 attacks were the product of a grand Jewish conspiracywe hate those guys. Stop stealing the word skeptic, we tell them, but they dont listen to us because they assume were just part of the grand Jewish conspiracy too.
No, Im the kind of skeptic who enjoys exposés of psychics and homeopaths and other charlatans who fool the public either through self-delusion or for fun and profit. Its not just meIm part of a growing community (some would even call it a movement) consisting of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who value science and critical thinking. Were represented by organizations such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which was established in 1976 and has included fellows like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, and Bill Nye.
I learned about the skeptics back in college, when I worked in a magic store and performed gigs on the side. I was a huge fan of James The Amazing Randi, a magician who offers a million dollars to anyone who can prove they have paranormal abilities. (Theres a huge overlap between magicians and skeptics, both of whom are interested in the ways we fool ourselves.)
When I first started finding a large audience on my skepticism website, on my podcast, and on YouTube, I wasnt terribly bothered by the occasional rape threat, sexist slur, or insult about my looks. There was something downright amusing about a creationist calling me a cunt while praying that Id find the love of Jesus. The threats were coming from outside of my community. Outside of my safe space.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_came_the_rape_threats.html
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Ignoring and denying this issue is becoming an increasingly serious problem.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Some of your examples of "total denial" of this issue by people on this board.
And spare us your concern trolling, while you're at it..
okasha
(11,573 posts)First response: It didn't happen.
Second response: It happens all the time. Get over it.
Third response: Something like it may have happened, once, but the silly woman's exaggerating. There was no intent to offend her.
Fourth response: Uh, yes it does happen, but my friends and I don't do it. We're good to our women.
Fifth response: Oh, shit. We may have to give up some of our patriarchal privilege if we don't want the women to abandon us.
Sixth response: Oh, double shit. Where'd all the girls go?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)They exist. Their atheism does not make them sexist.
And the atheist community is working toward making gatherings more safe and accommodating to all that want to be there. Personally, I doubt that it will ever be solved since there will always be sexist pigs that are atheists. But I think things RIGHT NOW are better than the RCC and will continue to get better though never perfect.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)since this started ... she's right.
P Z Myers on Pharyngula has been pretty outspoken in her support, whereas I no longer subscribe to Thunderf00t's You Tube account precisely because of his attitude and actions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do we have a union? Official id cards? Where's the instruction manual?
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.csicop.org/
There are others you may prefer.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's the beauty of being a free thinker.
It must suck to be a card carrying member of a religion that requires complete adherence.
rug
(82,333 posts)Quite the reverse in fact.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I am not represented by any organization and have no belief system.
Try again.
rug
(82,333 posts)"It must suck to be a card carrying member of a religion that requires complete adherence."
You may have no belief syatem but you have some weird beliefs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)One that's shared by lapsed catholics everywhere.
rug
(82,333 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Glad we cleared that up.
rug
(82,333 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You just called it an opinion.
rug
(82,333 posts)You called your own beliefs opinions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Take that !
rug
(82,333 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Nevertheless, the point stands.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Got it.
rug
(82,333 posts)I find the data supporting your opinions to be highly unreliable.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)My god the denial is staggering.
Many catholics leave the church because they just can't toe the line.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, I personally think it's admirable.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm talking about the stunning ignorance of this statement:
Clearly your "opinions" have have gone through some weird filtering. I find it hard to believe a person who claims to think freely could have formed a opinion so skewed as to be a caricature.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You appear to be confused, perhaps a priest could clear it up for you.
Tell him that you're pro-marriage equality and want to change the dogma, I'm sure he'll be very understanding.
Hey, what can they do, burn you at the stake?
rug
(82,333 posts)And you're lapsing into ad hominems again. Please try some free thinking rather than personal attacks and tired stereotypes about priests. You may find it refreshing. Unless of, course, your intent is to disrupt a thread with a flamewar about an extraneous topic, complete with lame personal insults.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And it couldn't be more obvious.
How's that glass house holding up?
rug
(82,333 posts)It's blue.
Now as to this topic, since you bring it up, this article dramatically shows the blatant hypocrisy of those who identify as skeptics, atheists, and, oh my, free thinkers, while simultaneously engaging in despicable behavior.
Shall we talk about that?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your church wrote the book on it.
Literally.
rug
(82,333 posts)It is characteristic of hypocrites to discuss the fault of others rather than their own.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The catholic church, otoh, requires its followers to be stereotypical misogynists.
Like I said, they wrote the book on it.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to voice his unequivocal support for gay marriage...then you'll really see what being bound by stereotypical thinking and religious indoctrination looks like.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why am I not surprised...
rug
(82,333 posts)Keep blowing your dog whistle to your playground.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do you support marriage equality or not?
rug
(82,333 posts)Now I'll ask you the same question I asked scottie, tell me - succinctly - what that has to do with this thread, other than stirring shit. Or are you simply continuing your play now that you have a playmate?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's a valid question.
rug
(82,333 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your comments regarding belief systems and religious stereotypes make it impossible to ignore the big fat anti-gay rights religious elephant in the room.
rug
(82,333 posts)disruptive diversion. Reviewing this thread, you began that path with your very first post.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But you knew that when you started this thread.
rug
(82,333 posts)Complain to Rebecca.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Keep it up, I'm not going anywhere and you're not fooling anyone.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you prefer it be ignored?
Frankly, it made no difference to me when you were not here to when you are here. Although I haven't seen these tired old tactics of yours for awhile. Have a seat. We'll have a lovely time.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Those smug creamy complexioned bastards have it coming.
rug
(82,333 posts)No need to wonder why I consider your opinions . . . . questionable.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We freckled people have been an institution since before the non-freckled horde landed on our shores.
Don't even get me started about people with outies.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)but have never provided a direct answer.
But have at it: Do you think that gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally marry? Yes or no? And is the Catholic Church or any other group that opposes the legalization of gay marriage deeply wrong to do so? Yes or no?
My answers are Yes and Yes. Here's betting you won't answer as succinctly.
Yes., although your melodramatic "deeply wrong" verbiage is nonsense. If something is wrong, I don't take soundings.
Now that we've disposed of your goading insinuations, tell me - succinctly = what that has to do with this thread, other than stirring shit.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of being bound by stereotypical thinking, so you've answered your own question. But it's good to know you're in full opposition to immutable RCC teachings. Though pretty sad that you think that cutting in front of someone in line or cheating on a test is just as wrong as fighting tooth and nail to deprive millions of people of their fundamental rights, or covering up and abetting the rape of children, as the RCC has done. Sad, but not surprising.
rug
(82,333 posts)You evasively brought up same sex marriage to another poster. Go on, scottie, admit it. It's not hard to do.
Now as to the rest of the bullshit, had you een paying attention insteand of whispering innuendo, you would know that it has been said many times that a religion, including the RCC, is incompetent to determine civil laws. That is outside its teching, immutable or mutable.
As for the rest of your rhetoric, it's bullshit. But I repeat myself. Just be careful you don't fall off that horse.
BTW, I am bemused that you find yourself attempting to discuss child rape in a thread about sexism among skeptics. Something must sting.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and advocated the view that you never make judgements about degrees of wrongness. The example of child rape was just a particularly resonant way to point out how morally bankrupt that point of view is. And since you were mentioned right up front there was nothing evasive. Admit it. It's not hard to do.
And to say that the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general is outside the teaching of the Catholic Church will be news to Ratzi and his red-hatted minions, as well as to millions of loyal, devoted, indoctrinated, gay-hating Catholics the world over. They've been very well taught indeed.
Keep flailing, though...bmus hasn't seen just how low you can sink yet...though she may be the only one who hasn't.
rug
(82,333 posts)You're repeating yourself. I don't.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)wasn't repeating yourself. Got it. Of course, you've stopped backing up that little tirade with facts and logical arguments, as is typical when you've run out of them.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'll leave you to your delusion that the RCC has no teachings about gay marriage or homosexuality.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm going caving in the morning, an unexplored cavern with an underground river running underneath, do I need to bring my gear here too?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The more ruggie talks, the deeper it gets.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I packed a lunch too.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)When the Vatican called legal recognition of same-sex marriages "gravely unjust" (as opposed to just normally unjust), was that also melodramatic nonsense?
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of making it. And despite your claim to the contrary, you seem afraid to call it melodramatic nonsense..why would that be?
rug
(82,333 posts)And regardless of how well someone appears to do something, if that person has no authority to do it, it is a nullity. That is the meaning of competence.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)would also qualify, by your standards. And by your standards, the RCC has no authority or competence to say or teach anything. Making its doing so anyway just one more example of what an arrogant, corrupt and power-hungry organization it is.
Laochtine
(394 posts)would treat women this way. They should be more enlightened than their religious peers just
on principal. Frig, this is the 21st century and grow up.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Would treat women this way. Why do you single out atheists? What is there about non-belief in gods that especially "enlightens" anyone about how to treat others?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You owe me a Coke. I'm partial to the one with Christian Baby flavoring.
Laochtine
(394 posts)atheism has nothing to do with misogyny but, they don't have a book that specifically tells a man to treat women like chattel like the Bible . I would think once you are free of the strict nature of religious bs you could see women as equals. Call me a dreamer.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)because they have a "holy" book that tells them to be assholes, but you won't excuse the assholes in a different group. And then, on top of that, you go out of your way to speak about atheists as whole while not saying anything about the religions as a whole that do far worse. And the impact of what the religious do in regard to sexism is a WHOLE hell of a lot worse for women than what atheists do. Atheist sexists are not uniquely in the position of power to affect legislation like the religious sexists are.
Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #16)
Post removed
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Single out atheists? I'd agree with you, except for the part where you said "It's disgusting that atheists would treat women this way.
And yes, you are a dreamer. Since when have men needed a book to tell them to treat women like chattel? It's been popular for a very long time, irrespective of religion.
Laochtine
(394 posts)if a book lets them go crazy, w/out the guilt. I will continue to dream of a world w/out religion
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)as an admission that you DID single out atheists.
Laochtine
(394 posts)I do think atheists should be be above reproach, I know that will not happen but I want it to.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Get over it. That has zero, zip, nada to do with the question of whether there are any gods, or any good reason to believe in them. The truth of a proposition is not made more or less likely by the attitude, demeanor or behavior of the person advancing it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Now, if you want to compare the systemic treatment of women by atheists as compared to a religious organization like the RCC, then let's go.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Must be a fire sale on glass houses today.
Laochtine
(394 posts)I left an incomplete thought out there. There is no comparison, but I want to do better.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Indeed, they are the ones that realize how human they are, because they realize there is no halo.
However, there are some, like the Ayn Rand types, that USE athieism as an excuse to be jerks; though I suspect this group would gladly and willingly make short work of such types.
Laochtine
(394 posts)I pretty much don't agree, but I can be a jerk sometimes, lol
onager
(9,356 posts)Even though I know some people in here would love for this to be a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue of "Evil Atheist/Skep Misogynists!1!," it just ain't so.
It's always good to hear all sides of an argument, right? Unless you're trying to frame a very specific, narrow and one-sided narrative. But no one in here would do that, of course...
**********************************************************************************************
From a woman posting at JREF: First, from my very feminist viewpoint, Watson's feminist view is the one that is harmful to women.
Second, she's distorted Dawkins' comments and essentially claimed victimhood that is made from straw.
Third, she seriously exaggerated her own victimization in order to rationalize her absurd response to people who did not fall all over themselves agreeing with her about the guy who made a pass in the elevator. This includes exaggerating the problems at TAM and other events, exaggerating the lack of administration response to her complaints, and exaggerating the proportion of women who had personal experiences that supported Watson's exaggerations.
In short, the vast majority of men at TAM and other atheist/skeptical function seem to be perfectly well behaved. Watson's belief she's a victim is exaggerated beyond absurdity. People post jerky things in response to blogs. Famous people have creepy fans. It's not some issue within the skeptic communities, it's an issue with any large collection of people.
JREF Forum, "Rebecca Watson's article in Slate:"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=246423
**********************************************************************************************
Rational Skepticism thread, "Atheism+ Hits the MSM," comment #3217 starts discussion of latest Watson article:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/atheism-hits-the-msm-t33705-3200.html
***********************************************************************************************
And finally the continuation of Abbie Smith's old thread at ScienceBlogs:
The Slyme Pit - Periodic Table of Swearing (216 pages and still going strong):
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&sid=9d981b6d2e50fed3ce406dcd772ae5fd
***********************************************************************************************
FREE BONUS: Rational Skepticism thread, "Atheism and Feminism (or, Watson v. Dawkins)," 355-page thread, no comments since 12 Sept 2012 but still open for replies:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/atheism-and-feminism-or-watson-v-dawkins-t23650.html
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nicely done.
rug
(82,333 posts)Schrödingers Rapist
If you are a regular reader of the more feminist-oriented of the Freethought Blogs, Skepchick, or other feminist blogs, odds are good that you have heard of Schrödingers Rapist. Even if you actively avoid such blogs, you've likely encountered reactions to Schrödingers Rapist on other blogs. I have read the infamous Schrödingers Rapist post a few times, and I'd like to share my reactions. I suspect that they may be a bit different from what you've read elsewhere.
Background
To provide a bit of context for my comments, I want to point out that the Schrödingers Rapist post is highly derivative (i.e., unoriginal). I read a few very similar articles back in the 1990s when I was learning about feminist and multicultural theories in graduate school. Some dealt with women and rape in virtually the same way; others dealt with the subtle forms of racism experienced by members of many ethnic minority groups.
What these articles had in common was that they were tools designed to inform readers about privilege. When I note that Schrödingers Rapist is derivative, I do so not to criticize it but to place it in this broader context. Being derivative in this case is a good thing, as the post belongs to this tradition. This is why it sounded so familiar when I first read it.
The Value of Schrödingers Rapist
Articles like this are not designed to bash men or to assert that all men are rapists. Rather, they are intended to provoke thought and stimulate discussion of privilege. In the U.S., male privilege and White privilege are similar to Christian privilege in that those of us who belong to these categories (i.e., White men) do not naturally go around thinking of ourselves as privileged. Schrödingers Rapist is one of many pieces of writing aimed at raising awareness of privilege, much like many of us have attempted to do with Christian privilege.
http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/10/schrodingers-rapist.html
Don't forget to read the supporting comments about "feminazi writing".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Clearly there is conflict and disagreement here.
All I can tell you is that I have been smack dab in the middle of similar controversies and there is a strong tendency to sweep it under the rug.
I support these organizations and would like to see the leadership directly address it sooner than later.
Why would that be a problem?
tama
(9,137 posts)There is lot of overlap between the current skeptic/atheist movements and scientism, belief systems derived from academic "hard" sciences. So it is not surprising to see feminist critique and controversies in that field of human behavior and social networks, as the skeptic/atheist movements are largely part of the patriarchal hierarchies of academic science that feminist critique targets. Quick google for that critique gave couple links:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/509-10/femini.html
http://www.thegreenfuse.org/ecofem.htm
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...then the average Religionist? Rebecca was NOT saying that skeptics were more sexist than religious people. She was just saying that there are sexist assholes in our ranks and that they need to get a clue.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In fact, I think the average atheist may be less likely to be sexist.
But that's not the issue. The issue is that groups that are based on being affirming and promoting further acceptance of atheists are having some problems with it and that those that are complaining are meeting up with some outrageous hostility.
It's a problem that needs to be recognized, addressed and fixed in order for these organizations to reach some of their stated goals.
Same is true of almost all male dominated organizations, including religious ones.
rug
(82,333 posts)Nevertheless it remainds a problem that should be neither ignored nor mocked. Particularly when skepticism is often described as a coolly rational and enlightened stance, especially in contrast to the "superstitions", "delusions" and "weakness" of believers. While there is much in atheism that should tend toward progressive political and social positions, it is by no means inexorable and is as subject to criticism and accolades as any other ideology.