So you may have heard of Jen “Blag Hag” McCreight’s “new wave” of atheism, Atheism+. It has a great logo (which I personally think is awesome) and a catchy title which I give an A+; pun fantastically intended. If you haven’t, I direct you to her blog.
Yes, there’s been Atheism 2.0. Atheism 3.0. New Atheism. None really took off. So what’s different about A+?
In case you didn’t know, Freethought Blogs has become a feminist-happy space. This was evident before and pronounced after Thunderf00t’s expulsion for not being feminist enough. The remaining authors on the Freethought blogosphere are either neutral or pro-feminist. Atheism+, or Atheism Plus, is (in my opinion) feminist secular humanism. “We want things right, our way.” The question is then rightly raised: if Atheism+ and secular humanism both operate under non-religious egalitarianism, why are they distancing themselves from each other?
- A+ is more than humanism. It is atheism, humanism and skepticism combined.
- Humanists are not all progressive; sometimes they disagree with feminists.
- The atheism label has power, compared to humanism.
- The humanist community puts effort in to create “church-like” communities.
To me, none of these reasons are particularly good reasons for a revolution. None of them warrant excitement for some radical change. Libby Anne gives a great breakdown here. But no, instead, Atheism+ is an extension of feminism; the next logical step in the expansion of their movement. A way to breathe new life into their social justice ideology. And it does so by riding on the success of the atheism movement- that is what is revolutionary. That is what’s exciting to Jen. She’s got more power on her side to push her ideals onto the world.
She edits in:
But really, people can use whatever label they want. Humanist, atheist, atheist+, whatever. I just want change.
Which reads like this: “I really want people to join my movement, but I can’t justify my fancy new label.” Richard Carrier goes one further (later in this post.)
Jen also responds to the criticism “But you’re hurting the atheist movement by causing a schism!” with this complete non-sequitur: “Is the Secular Student Alliance causing a schism because it focuses on students? Would there be such vitriol in response to someone starting an Atheist Knitting Club?”
No, it’s causing a schism because you’re deciding who, by your own ‘towering moral superiority’, needs to go away. More on this down below….
Feminism exploits and perpetuates the covert misandry that runs through society. You know, that misandry that makes you think when you see a woman hitting a man “Oh, he probably did something to deserve it”. The misandry that tells boys to “man up and get over it”. It’s also got the attitude “F–k you, I’ll take what (I think is) mine,” which should give you a pretty good idea of how it affects society.
I’ve always felt a bit off when I was told by a girl that guys getting kicked in the balls was funny. But never really thought too much about it.
Misandry: The Acceptable Prejudice says it best:
Misandry is an ideology whose assimilation has been so successful that most don’t even recognise it as an ideology. This is why sexism is regarded as a one-way street and any men who complain otherwise are mocked for being stupid or wet or both. Worse, it’s become the law, at least in regard to political correctness: our cultural guardians are completely blind to misandry, which literally doesn’t exist: there is only righteous ‘anger’ or a necessary and healthy ‘corrective’ to the crimes of men and patriarchy over the millennia etc. etc.
You have cases like Brian Banks who was sentenced to 6 years in jail for a rape that never occurred. I will state upfront that this was a case of racism and sexism. The “victim” admitted, 9 years after the prosecution, that she made up the whole thing but did not want to give back the $1.5 million that she won from the case. The extent of the feminist reaction is “that sucks.” At best. If it doesn’t fall squarely into their narrow worldview that women are the victims™, then it is the exception to the rule and deserves little discussion. Hell, it was probably a good thing since it shows potential rapists what can happen to them! It’s for the greater good! – as this young man picks up the pieces of his life. This is why I can’t take feminism seriously, as an egalitarian world view, and neither does Elly Tams, an ex-feminist (read her experiences here which far surpass mine) or TJ (The Amazing Atheist), here and a lot of other people (mostly MRAs, I suppose.)
“Say misandry and you’re out!” is the attitude of most feminists. Their doctrine forbids the existence of legitimate misandry. And they get away with it, because we let them.
By the way, this sexism being regarded as a one-way street isn’t exaggeration. From Finally Feminism 101,
Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.
And this gem of a statement:
Either someone changed the definition of sexism, or I call bullshit. This pernicious justification is from where the adage “It’s only sexist when men do it” comes. Also, just a quick note on women “being dominated and exploited by men for hundreds and hundreds of years” – this is herstory: history, by feminists.
Modern feminism is an ideology. You must accept the dogma: the Patriarchy™ (and possibly all the other *-archies), rape culture, etc., lest your membership be revoked. Never mind that most of the definitions are touchy-feely and provide no logical link between their theories and the statistics. Just a dodgy explanation for them. Or, they fudge statistics or outright lie, in the case where they did a survey with a novel definition of rape to make a highly exaggerated rape statistic; you may have heard the horrifying statistic that one in four women are raped before they leave college.
It’s telling that of these 1 in 4, nearly half of them went on to have sex with their ‘assailants’ again. Only 27% of them actually labelled themselves as rape victims. Of the remainder, 49% said it was miscommunication, 14% said it was a crime but not rape, and 11% said they “don’t feel victimized”. If we only consider the women who they themselves consider to be rape victims, the figure drops to a more believable 1/14. Of course, one rape is one rape too many, but it’s important to tell it like it is. More information on that here.
Unfortunately, it didn’t stop the “One In Four” figure from becoming the ubiquitous figure to spearhead the women’s rape victimisation campaign. Examples here, here and here. I’ve become very skeptical of such “one in X” campaigns; they’re good for getting support, donations, and spreading the word. But skewing statistics which inevitably lead people to misunderstand the true nature of what’s going on does have a cost.
This information is not meant to imply that rape does not occur or should not be addressed, but only to show how self-serving feminists guaranteed that a travesty of justice for men be eclipsed by an illusive rape culture. Accurate representation of the issue at hand, crucial to determining a prudent response, is unlikely if the matter remains in feminist clutches. Equitable policies that strike the balance between deterring assailants and protecting fundamental rights can only be realized in the absence of feminism’s malign influence.
A-plussers and feminists pride themselves on excommunicating the “assholes”. I dislike mean people as much as the next person, but the way they brand and ostracise people is in diametric opposition to open-mindedness. They are less “against misogyny” than they are “against misogynists.” That’s the difference. To them, a misogynist is just an asshole who deserves nothing more than ostracism and ridicule, and can obviously never change.
The same bully tactics used by feminists have, unsurprisingly, surfaced in the same people pushing A+ forward.
Since, apparently it’s OK to be disrespectful to people and insult them, if you’re right. Bullying is fine, if you’re coming from a moral high ground. Call me a hypocrite on this one, but I learnt it from the feminism movement. (I was pro-feminist for a while.) It’s not alright, because very few people think they’re wrong. If they knew they were wrong they would no longer hold that belief (if they cared about their beliefs.) Ergo, it is not ideal to bully people into believing what we believe, (in my case-) even if the evidence is overwhelming. We all misspeak from time to time- but let’s not encourage it!
“Do you hate women? Don’t you see all these injustices towards women? Why AREN’T you a feminist?” are the favoured pressure tactics. “You’re just privileged, that’s why you can’t accept it.” Play on the guilt.
Another favourite tactic of feminists is to compare one degree of injustice to another. “Men are afraid of being rejected by women, women are afraid for their lives of being raped!” There are different kinds of injustices on all different levels. When war death statistics are brought up it’s like “so what.” Furthermore, feminists are increasingly saying rape is worse than any other crime, including murder. I guess by that logic if given a choice of rape or murder, you should definitely choose murder. Except logic is a manly dominated way of thinking, Dawkins (who is on the feminist hit list) explains:
I’m also sick of seeing responses along the lines of “Read feminism 101.” Common objections are not necessarily invalid ones- and it’s shown by the confused readers asking for further clarification in the comments sections of these 101 pages. Also, doesn’t it sound alarmingly like “Read the Bible?” Because it’s not grounded in reality enough to provide a quick answer with links to further references? Or maybe you just need to go away and come back once you “get it”. Either way, you have to digest some of the doctrine first. Just like original sin, you know? You just don’t get it. Go read Genesis, sheesh. I might do another post on similarities between religion and feminism. Hit me up if you’re interested. (Hit me up anyway if you’re particularly interested in something I write about and want me to talk more about it.)
So what about this gosh-darn Men’s Rights Movement? Those sexist pigs. Just listen:
So, what else does the men’s rights movement offer to women? How about esteem as a human being, from both men and women, as well as real self-esteem? Not because they happen to have a vagina, or a pair of fatty glands on their upper torso, or because some schmuck pretends to respect them so he can try to get between their thighs, or because they are regarded as a historical victim, or because their peers are afraid to dissent, but because they are fully adult, intelligent and independent human beings.
How about the thing so long promised by that ideology which is so prevalent, but never delivered, except in the socially engineered forced outcomes of affirmative action and female favoring advantage in law, employment, education and elsewhere?
Equality, the real thing. That’s what the men’s rights movement offers to women. Setting aside the flattery, the one-sided, selective examination of reality from those pious frauds flying the flag of feminism, the men’s rights movement is the only place in our culture where real equality is actually the goal.
(Bold mine, more here.)
Maybe that’s why some people are MRAs.
I’m not saying men are the “true victims” here. (Someone would definitely love to paint me that way.) I’m definitely not saying that the women’s issues that feminists address don’t exist. They do, but we should be more responsible in how we address them. We want real equality. The grown-up adult version. As Mark Simpson says, what we shouldn’t do is “set up a whole new school of whingeing victimology” but rather do away with this sexist dualism that currently exists in our culture. We need to rid ourselves of the “moral indignation, by turns spiteful and sanctimonious, that feminism has succeeded in constructing in academe and the media over the last twenty years.”
Feminism hurts women as well. In more ways than one. First and foremost, by denying the agency of women, (‘bad’ women are just slaves of the Patriarchy) they are contributing to oppression of women; Feminisnt explains:
Feminism is egalitarian in the same sense that Islam is a religion of peace. And while I want world peace, I certainly am not converting to Islam to achieve it.
And what am I doing about sexism? I’ll tell you what I’m not doing, pushing gender ideologues down people’s throats forcibly. In society and in academia. Also, not being a sexist. That always helps.
Only time will tell if Atheism+ makes a positive getaway. I guess that’s up to the movements’ proponents.
This post has been a little while in the making. If you enjoyed it, please show your support (I’m not asking for money! :))
Comment – voice your opinion. I’d love to hear it- whether you agree, disagree, whatever. Just be respectful is all I ask.
Share – this to friends and family who should read it.
Subscribe – for more writings.
Further reading: I’ll add links here to other things that cover this issue as I come across them.
- The new Atheism Plus religion begins by Is God a Squirrel?
- Atheism+ My Day on Freethought Blogs and Atheism+ My Opposition by noelplum99
- A Plus Theism: Am I Angry? by integralmath
- Atheism+ isn’t a feminist movement? by PwnySlaystation01
What rubbish. Good to see someone so carefully dismantling strawwomen.
Tom says it all really. Pretty disgusting that you would suggest readers listen to the amazing atheists’ views on feminism after his made comments like:
“Rape isn’t fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called “Rape Survivors.” Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn’t want to be fucked and you’re amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what’s the big deal? … The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn’t want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive bitch! Also, don’t you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?”
All I said is TJ doesn’t take feminism seriously. He has his reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arz4Sfl5j20 is why I can’t take your strawman claim seriously, unless you wish to expand on which parts you mean precisely are unrepresentative – you’re more than welcome to.
Nice write up. I’ll be keeping an eye on your website.
I should have been clearer- this blog is rubbish.
Do you have any specific criticisms?
I can’t speak personally for the issues that Tom and Mel have voiced but I would be happy to address a few concerns I noticed.
You begin by challenging the legitimacy of atheism+, following from Anne’s account, that the issues it addresses are not solely the consequence of religion. A certainly false claim but one I don’t feel people are explicitly claiming. The quote referenced about religion generating and sustaining–isims said ‘most’ and this, in truth, might be an exaggeration. It would seem noncontroversial to claim though religion has played a significant role. Building from here you explain that, lacking a complete causal link, the reality of the movement is that it is riding on the success of atheism. This is to a large degree true though that doesn’t necessitate any negativity towards the movement. Such tactics are perpetrated without altercation everyday when football clubs rally against homophobia, truckies for women’s rights, and business owners against homelessness. They stand to demonstrate that these groups, which have often covertly supported various degrading –isms, recognise the importance of change. Atheism+ was inappropriately initiated as a third wave of atheism but that is not what it is or what it now claims to be. It is a group which wants tor recognise that the community they are a part of has covertly supported degrading –isms and suggest that tolerance only strengthens inequality.
Your suggestion that atheism+ is only an extension of feminism is also incorrect, aptly demonstrated by the fact that their first project is A+Scribe; an attempt to have atheist material (YouTube videos, podcasts, etc.) transcribed for access by the hearing impaired.
“But really, people can use whatever label they want. Humanist, atheist, atheist+, whatever. I just want change” to which you respond “Which reads like this: I really want people to join my movement, but I can’t justify my fancy new label.” Not really. She actually wrote several articles justifying exactly why Atheism+ is useful, powerful and how for many people it may have an edge over humanism. It would seem more appropriate to understand Jen as saying that she believes these issues are bigger then Atheism+ and that the successful accomplishments of equality is more important then doing so under the flag of Atheism+.
“No, it’s causing a schism because you’re deciding who, by your own ‘towering moral superiority’, needs to go away.” You then link to an exert of Greta’s which reads, “You can’t be inclusive of everyone. If you include misogynists, you exclude women.” You might mean several things by implying that this is ‘towering moral superiority’. On one hand you might be addressing the concern she alludes to that tolerance of immorality, is itself immoral. I wouldn’t really believe that this would necessitate the rhetorical flourish of towering superiority. She is in pretty good company with such a claim, Martin Luther King, Christopher Hitchens, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to name a few. Or you might be referring to the implication that women shouldn’t be excluded. This seems an even less controversial claim and is hardly an original idea of hers. Alternatively you might be confusing the empirical claim that ties the two points, that misogyny does indeed ostracise women, as a moral one. It seems unlikely that this is completely wrong but even if it is it speaks only to her state as a rational agent, not a moral one.
“Feminism exploits and perpetuates the covert misandry that runs through society.” This is a common attack made by the MRM against feminism, where the counterpoint position is often railed by feminist against the MRM. Ultimately neither side is really all that right in their claim. Feminism in no way supports the attitudes towards men that suggest that men should “man up and get over it”. To do so would run against everything that feminism is fighting for. Such a phrase is only expressible in the context that there is something intrinsically tough about the male norm which differentiates it from its other, woman. Feminism’s principle objective is to dismantle such stereotypes that frame women unfairly as lesser agents. This example speaks to many of the issues that MRM take with feminism; dishonestly or mistakenly asserting that feminism is supportive of structures that disempower men such as frontline work, custody, etc. The reality is that these structures disempower women (as well as men, and not necessarily as much as men) as they source their power from the perception of women as weak and unable to fight, or naturally suited to domestic life where the man is naturally suited to a productive life. There is no claim that historical and contextual norms of socialization only effect women negatively, and that men only benefit. The claim is only that a disproportionate degree of harm falls on women and that it is commonly (but not always) the conceptual view that women are lesser in some sense that determines the social attitudes regardless of who ultimately suffers at its hand.
“Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.” This is a contentious claim but not one that is as outlandish as it first appears. The claim being made is simply to distinguish between certain types of discriminatory behavior. Such models often greatly benefit the explanatory power of labels and prevent miscommunication. The move is to distinguish between acts of discrimination that are resultant of institutional power and those which prejudicial in nature. As they explain under the quote “When feminists say that women can’t be sexist towards men, they aren’t saying that women being prejudiced against men is a good thing, or something that should be accepted. Prejudice is bad and should not be accepted.” Obviously I can’t encapsulate the entirety of the argument here but I would urge your readers to read through the section themselves. There is no claim that prejudice is a lesser form of discrimination rather that it is explained in a different fashion. Whether the choice to redefine sexism as a particular sub-facet is good is debatable its intention is not malevolent as some might suggest.
Owing to the size of this already I might leave it at that.
I do challenge the legitimacy of A+ based on its ties with feminism but in the opening of this piece I was primarily questioning the motives of launching A+, which seem dubious to me. I linked to Libby Anne’s piece for the Humanism/A+ breakdown, which a lot of people have concerns with (as evidenced by Jen’s response to the “misconceptions about Atheism+”.)
In your opening paragraph you say that “certainly” the issues Atheism+ addresses are solely the consequence of religion. If this is indeed what you meant, I would have to disagree there. I would say these issues, and religion, are a consequence of human nature. And while I agree that religion enables, advocates and sustains a LOT of terrible things, the movement is NOT Anti-Religion+, it’s Atheism+. Atheists are not necessarily against religion. You agree with me here, “This is to a large degree true though that doesn’t necessitate any negativity towards the movement.”
What does necessitate negativity, however, is the us-vs-them mentality that is being forged within A+ under the banner of “justice”. It’s hard to ignore the divisiveness that’s a little short of ubiquitous in the A+ movement.
“Such tactics are perpetrated without altercation […]”
I addressed the difference that sets A+ apart from other groups (cf. atheist knitting club) in my piece.
“Atheism+ was inappropriately initiated as a third wave of atheism but that is not what it is or what it now claims to be.”
As I said in my closing, only time will tell what happens to Atheism+. It’s a fledgling movement, and from what I’ve seen, it’s not off to a great start.
“Your suggestion that atheism+ is only an extension of feminism is also incorrect, aptly demonstrated by the fact that their first project is A+Scribe”
…
I’m going to break this down into two parts, since the conclusion does not follow.
“Your suggestion that atheism+ is only an extension of feminism is also incorrect […]”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7dqSPaI4ZA&t=3m35s
“In a nutshell, it’s atheism plus feminism […]”
Atheism Plus (also rendered Atheism+) is a cluster of ideas originating from FreeThoughtBlogs that, following a recent trend of mixing atheism with feminism and other ideas (especially on atheist conferences and in the internet atheist community), includes skepticism, feminism, human rights, anti-racism, critical thinking and LGBT rights.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus
Feminism is at the forefront of the Atheism+ movement, I don’t see how anyone can deny that. I did say ‘extension’, implying that it’s the same ideals of feminism at its core PLUS the focus on intersectionality / social justice / atheism / etc.
“[…] demonstrated by the fact that their first project is A+Scribe”
The existence of A+Scribe simply does not in any way disprove my claim that A+ is an extension of the feminist movement.
“It would seem more appropriate to understand Jen as saying that she believes these issues are bigger then Atheism+ and that the successful accomplishments of equality is more important then doing so under the flag of Atheism+.”
That is the message on the surface, yes. I don’t think anyone contends that. What I was doing was reading between the lines in the context of the post.
“You then link to an exert of Greta’s […]”
It’s actually a excerpt of Jen’s- and by ‘towering moral superiority’ I was using hyperbole to display the fact that what she’s really saying is “we get to decide who the bad people are, because we have the moral high ground.” They may not explicitly say that, or even know they’re doing it, but when you break it down, that’s what it comes to. I’m not saying that we need to respect and tolerate bad people. We routinely avoid people that make us uncomfortable, and go about our own way. When this becomes institutionalised and upheld on a massive scale, encouraged “look how much of a dick Richard Dawkins is!”* that’s when you get groupthink and that’s how cults form.
* As an aside, they’ve now removed “dick” from the A+ forum rules after being called out on hypocrisy- the next rule is “don’t use gendered insults”.
““Feminism exploits and perpetuates the covert misandry that runs through society.” This is a common attack made by the MRM against feminism, where the counterpoint position is often railed by feminist against the MRM.”
I haven’t actually seen with my own eyes any evidence of the latter, but evidence of the former is as clear as day. I think I linked a very tiny selection of what goes on- and that barely scratches the surface.
“Feminism in no way supports the attitudes towards men that suggest that men should “man up and get over it””
Protect the ideology. The problem is that when self-declared feminists use any anti-male line of attack, nobody from the feminist camp says anything about it. Or if they do, they’re often intimidated and their character is called into question. When someone then goes to say that it’s something said by feminists, they fall back and say “oh no, we don’t officially support this attitude” or “they aren’t real feminists”. (cf True Scotsman fallacy.)
“Feminism’s principle objective is to dismantle such stereotypes that frame women unfairly as lesser agents.”
Sure, that’s one of my objectives too. But see the quote I posted at the end of my piece? That’s one reason why I think feminism (understood to be modern feminism) is not achieving it. I choose to do so without the Patriarchy and other woo theories – I choose to do so with an objective reality, not one that has “sprung up” in the last two decades thanks to the feminist elite in academia.
The rest of the long-winded paragraph: I know. I know what feminism says it stands for.
Your last paragraph on sexism: you raise a valid point. My contention is that using “sexism” in a way that 99% of people don’t understand is wilful deception.
Anything else?
I think you may have misread my post. I actually said the opposite of that which you claim I said- and then I repeated my position several times. You also misquoted me. I do happen to agree that atheism doesn’t necessitate anti-theism but my phrasing “This is to a large degree true though that doesn’t necessitate any negativity towards the movement” was referencing the previous sentence (in fact I never even mentioned anti-theism/religion) on movements riding on previous, not necessarily related, popularity.
“What does necessitate negativity, however, is the us-vs-them mentality”. This is not necessarily true. It does not seem difficult to imagine situations in which movements emerge which are by all definitions ‘divisive’ and generate and us-vs-them attitude which are actually mechanisms of moral justice. Groups that support indigenous rights and do not tolerate people who view Aboriginals as lesser beings are divisive. Most groups interested in the equal treatment of oppressed groups are. Atheism+ being an amalgamation of many social justice groups is of course going to be divisive and deny access to those people who are going to propagate hate speech, threats of violence and sexual assault, etc. You are falsely conflating the rejection of such members with the rejection of people who question methods, approaches and details. This is not the case, on the official forums there are posts discussing the ethics and sexist nature of terms like ‘mansplaining’ and the need for attention to be provided to men’s’ rights too. Greta Christina, a blogger for FreeThoughtBlogs, which you often accuse of ignoring the male plight, has written multiple pieces on the areas of sexist socialization that negatively affect men.
http://www.alternet.org/story/147626/5_stupid%2C_unfair_and_sexist_things_expected_of_men
http://www.alternet.org/story/147779/5_things_society_unfairly_expects_of_men
“I addressed the difference that sets A+ apart from other groups in my piece”. You only address the difference superficially by distinguishing a moral factor in atheism+ that is vacant in your atheist-knitting group. But such an explanation fails to be able to distinguish between atheism+ and other conjoined causes which display moral attitudes such as the ones I mentioned. Moral acts are acts that are differentiated from other actions by a ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ property. By taking a stance on particular moral issues it is of course going to follow that you place judgment on which acts possess such properties. Unless you are suggesting we all employ a strong account of moral relativism which dictates that no one may criticize the work of others due to the internal nature of morality then it stands to reason that people have to be able to differentiate certain acts, and therefore certain persons as acting unethically.
As to your writing on the feminism/atheism+ relation it may again be the case you have misunderstood my criticism. No where do I say that feminism and atheism+ are not related, I simply question your assertion that atheism+ is a direct extension of feminism. Of course feminism features prominently due to the recent events of the last year but it is not the core focus of atheism+. The forums are filled with discussions on animal rights, immigration, ecomoics, male circumcision, racism, Iran, mental health, atheism, etc. Looking quickly at the first page of the 25 topics, less then ¼ of them are on feminism. “[I]mplying that it’s the same ideals of feminism at its core PLUS the focus on intersectionality”. This is in one light true, but it would be just as true to say that it has racial rights at its core PLUS the focus on ………
Atheism+ seems to have an inward focus at the moment and so considering the intolerable events of the last years, particular attention will be provided to including women in the movement but A+Scribe shows that this is not their only focus and that the terms of their actions will not be dictated by ‘radical’ feminists as some may believe.
“What I was doing was reading between the lines”. If this is the case then you need to actually substantiate why you believe this (or more specifically why you believe she believes this). As it stands the evidence runs contrary to your reading as she has written several posts on the various justifications for atheism+, justifications which you cherry pick out and then dismiss without any explanation. As you account stands you dedicate far more time to speculation and rhetorical flourishes rather than actually addressing the legitimacy of the arguments as they alone stand. Even if her justifications were found to be inadequate, this would still not justify your interpretation of her comments. By claiming that what she is actually saying is that she cant justify her ‘fancy new label’ you are actually implying that she was deliberately lying when she provided her initial justifications, an accusation which you don’t even begin to support.
“When [moral assertions]become institutionalised and upheld on a massive scale”. As I explained above, the nature of moral arguments demands that they are distinguished by assertions of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’. The institutionalization of moral norms is common place in law and unless you are to claim that laws which prevent people from acting in certain ways are unjust then you would need to distinguish between why as a country we can condemn rape or hate-speech but as a social movement it is inappropriate.
“We routinely avoid people that make us uncomfortable, and go about our own way.” Such behavior is self-serving and possible for only certain privileged people. For those in situations where avoidance is not an option or avoidance would prevent them from attending conferences or online discussions, as is the case, then there is a problem. My personal opinion is that individuals are not obligated by any duty to protect those around them from such oppression but that is only an extension of the fact that I don’t believe individuals have a duty to be good. My perception of the moral character of those around me is often derived from their compassion and willingness to aid those even when they themselves would not reap any benefit though.
It is also not the case that simply stating something constitutes an instance of groupthink. If you wish to imply that FreeThoughtBlogs are actively encouraging groupthink then you need to explain why they aren’t encouraging critical thinking. As it stands statements such as “Richard Dawkins disappoints me again” don’t stand by themselves but rather as the conclusion pertaining to an argument. This would at least seem to be antithetical to groupthink, which would need to discourage critical thinking.
“I haven’t actually seen with my own eyes any evidence of the latter, but evidence of the former is as clear as day.” I think you may have misunderstood my phrase and so I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here.
The rest of your response is difficult for me to reply to because either way you seem to win. If I offer no defense then you win, if I defend feminism as a legitimate cause then you seem to just fall back on saying that no one acts according to the way I describe it. Your ‘evidence’ appears very cherry picked and simply reading the Atheism+ forums demonstrates its inaccuracy where all view are being considered and civil discussion are being had on the place of men’s rights, circumcision, etc. Not to mention the articles I linked to from Greta discussing the issues that you claim members are ostracized for mentioning. On a more technical note, you have here and in other places referenced the ‘True Scotsman Fallacy”. This should not actually be considered a fallacy, as it doesn’t contest any logical stance. It exists as an informal fallacy that only in some circumstances might suggest a dilemma. Criticism by definition is an entirely valid argument and one that would require substantive criticism before dismissal. Examining the argument 1) Pacifists don’t shoot people 2) George is a pacifist and often shoots people 3) Then George is not really a pacifist. Here you can see that the so-called ‘true Scotsman fallacy’ is inadequate. Likewise if one were to take the definition of a feminist as ‘follows and acts as though x,y and z’ and you were to present them with an example of a person who calls themselves a feminist who doesn’t follow and act as though x,y and z then simply dismissing feminism on account of this ‘fallacy’ would in itself be fallacious.
Also I should add that you also need to substantiate your claim that feminists are acting deceptively by using a redefined account of sexism. This again is a strong accusation where you draw into question the motives and character of feminists but you don’t offer any reason for doing so beyond speculation. In fact the two pieces of evidence you do provide would seem opposed to your claim. The first being taken from a page solely dedicated to explaining the difference and justification for using the redefined account. The second explains the redefinition in less detail but still contrasts sexism with prejudice and explains that women can act unfairly towards men. This is by no account willful deception.
Tom, by not stating your issue with the blog you come across as a bit jerky.
I’ve only started looking into feminism recently due to Jordan’s perspectives; originally I was not in total agreement with him but I’m closer now. Any impartial and critical look into feminism shows that there is a lot of irrational people under that banner today, and that it is a very different beast than what it used to be in the 50s and 60s. Something about it has been very susceptible to nutters infiltrating it. I agree with Dawkin’s comment that this “…saddens me as I am sympathetic to true feminism.”
I feel that no individual, organisation, institution or (in particular) social movement should be spared criticism or even mockery. Without it we are placing these concepts on a pedestal and placing them beyond criticism, thus begging for legions irrational idiots to defend it regardless of the validity of any opposing points. If for nothing else, even a feminist should welcome Jordan’s position for this reason.
I am staunchly in support of facing our human problems united as humans, and not segregating ourselves into victims and evil-male-pig-dogs. I’m sure I’ve posted somewhere else recently that by better addressing the anger and frustration in young men, and by addressing the excessive alcohol consumption amongst the youth, we would see a positive impact on rape statistics.
Finally, I feel the comments of that guy above were offensive (the atheist that Mel mentions). I’ve never seen him before but he looks to be essentially an atheist shock-jock radio stooge; his chainsaw cock comments are grossly inappropriate and offensive; to the point of being deliberately so. I do think he was out of line. I do not think he is a sexist pig who condones chainsaw rape. However I think that his shock-jock career should be (and apparently is) over.
I must say that many of his points are sourced or echoed from other places (eg, the mutilation of male genitalia is such a funny topic, apparently). I do believe that there are double standards against men, and that any of them can be swiftly an invalidly justified by rape stats. This is unfair and irrational. Also, one should not discount everything said by a person because of one out of line thing they say. Issac Newton was religious, but I think that the theory of gravity stands… err… falls, rather.
He had a qualm with the term ‘rape survivors’ and to be fair it is a little inaccurate; but by one source I’m looking at, rape victims are 4.1 times more likely to commit suicide and one third will develop post traumatic stress syndrome. Horrible stuff. http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml
I think a large but relatively small number of irrational super-zealot feminists taint the entire movement. The hyper-sensitive attitudes are as disgusting as they are absurd, and the ‘sisterhood’ mentality they have stinks of cult mentality; Germaine Greer could tell you what a barrel of laughs they are:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/germaine-greer-lets-down-the-sisterhood-again/story-e6frfhqf-1226305610478
I say again that I think we should face human problems united. Nothing should be beyond criticism or review.
In response to Jarrah (comment levels only go so deep)
A lot of the issues you now raise are morality ones, and that is more towards philosophy which I won’t get into right now.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to where I often accuse Greta Christina of anything.
I don’t think I misquoted you, but without blockquotes and easy formatting of quotes it can get confusing.
In regards to the NTS (informal) fallacy and feminist/pacifist, is that pacifism is defined as the opposition to war and violence. One might agree that killing Hitler to prevent the Holocaust is pacifism, other might not. However there generally isn’t much debate about who is or isn’t a pacifist. Routinely, feminists are expunged of their label for having fringe beliefs. I mean, look at Carrier right now. It’s only a matter of time until FtB drops him.
I will say that I’ll take your final criticism into account and try to provide more references in my future pieces – I’m letting you off the hook for saying things like “some may believe” because you’re writing a comment.
In regards to your “in either way you seem to win” – I hope you don’t mean that literally, which would imply that the only reason you’re commenting is because you want to prove me wrong.
To the issue of misquoting, I originally said “Building from here you explain that, lacking a complete causal link, the reality of the movement is that it is riding on the success of atheism. This is to a large degree true though that doesn’t necessitate any negativity towards the movement.”
To which you misquote me, placing my statement in a completely different context. “Atheists are not necessarily against religion. You agree with me here, “This is to a large degree true though that doesn’t necessitate any negativity towards the movement.””
Discussions of social justice in all its forms are inherently moral discussions. They would make no sense without reference to what is the right thing to do or what is just, etc. Even your initial opinions are largely moral ones, judging the appropriateness of certain actions and views, etc.
As to where you accuse Greta, you have an entire blog post dedicated to accusing FreeThoughBlogs, for whom which she is an author, as being an agent of groupthink and not tolerating alternative perspectives. You make the exact same insinuation only 5 sentences later in your comment.
As to the NTS fallacy, my criticism still stands despite your further speculation regarding FtBs. If A is defined by its necessary possession of x,y and z properties (desire for equality, refusal to deliberately harm, etc) and an agent fails to possess those qualities or holds contradictory ones then we are justified in saying that they have been falsely categorised as A. The NTS fallacy is only legitimate in circumstances where the property is not essential but only commonly associated with the definition. So if I were to respond to you calling feminists rude by saying that there not true feminists then I am obviously wrong and the NTS fallacy applies but that is not what has occurred here. We are discussing the necessary and sufficient conditions of feminism and so it is wrong to dismiss refutation out of hand simply by appeal to the NTS fallacy.
You don’t have to let me off the hook either. Your blog is evidence that some people (at least you) appear to believe this. The ‘may’ is there because I cant be sure of such an assertion; I may have misunderstood you, etc. There is a substantial difference though between saying ‘some may believe’ and saying this is the case. “[T]his ‘is’ wilful deception”, “It ‘is’ only a matter of time until FtB drops him”, etc.
And yes, I do want to prove you wrong. Just as I would imagine you want to prove me wrong. Thats what this is, a debate. We are trying to dismantle each others position and show our own to be better placed to explain the situation. I am unsure why this is morally suspect to you. I hope to present a clear and articulate argument which addresses concerns you have raised and hopefully convince people that your position has prominent flaws. If your criticism is because of my choice to use the word “win” which may very well imply a game then I will retract and apologise for the use of the word. I in no way mean to belittle the seriousness of these discussions. It was used in context of how one might ‘win’ a debate but I should have anticipated how it might be misunderstood.
Hey Jarrah,
Sorry for the late response. I see now where you’re referring the misquote to – that’s my bad. I deleted the preceding sentence without deleting that one.
About accusing FtB, it’s mostly the vocal ones I’m talking about. Most of the 35 authors over there are either neutral or don’t want to get involved (as both evidenced by their lack of writing on A+ and *also* informal statements they have made.)
I’m not going to sit here and argue logic and semantics because I’m not here to win an argument. I’m not here to prove you wrong. Honestly, I have better things to do (this can be quite time consuming.) I’m here to discuss the topic at hand, and I feel as this point there is little left to discuss on the topic at hand when our focus now is the definition of fallacies, moral philosophy and the very nature of our discourse.
It’s increasingly evident to me that you are very close in (invested in) the issue at hand and in the interest of not burning bridges I’m not going to continue arguing.
Feel free to comment on my current or future blog pieces.
Reading between the lines, as your so fond of doing Jordan, your last comment reads “I really want people to believe what I say but I just can’t justify or explain any of my fancy arguments. I don’t really want to respond to criticisms (that would mean I would actually have to critically evaluate my own position), I’d much rather just write more illogical, speculative, inflammatory, uncritical and accusatory blogs posts supported by cherry picked ‘evidence’ and hope that my readers don’t bother reading the comments section. In case they do though I’ll try and undermine responses by insinuating their too emotionally involved.”
I could try my hand at speculation as well: Having removed the ability to like/dislike comments after it began to make you look bad, it is only a matter of time until you just start deleting comments as well.
Starting to get the drift as to why these things are frowned upon?
There’s a difference in responding to criticism (which I have done) and continuing an argument in order to win or lose. If you have any serious criticisms, not just “you’re not talking to me”, then raise them. If you just don’t like what I’m saying, and want me to shut up – then good. I’m doing my job.
I’m not here to beat my chest and continue the circle-jerk into the comment voting, which I disabled for reasons outlined in my recent post.
I won’t delete comments simply because they disagree with me. I’m not having comment rating on (right now) for those few reasons I stated, least of which is how a few numbers make me “look” in light of your ilk.
Jarrah has raised perfectly valid criticisms which you have almost completely ignored. Where you do address them you do so by simply referencing an informal fallacy which, as Jarrah points out, is not valid in such a circumstance. He/she (sorry!) is claiming that the framework from which you make your arguments is inconsistent and illogical and that this nullifies your arguments. This is how most debates are done. If we were to just accept everything you say, and that all your premises are true then of course your conclusions will seem valid.
It also doesn’t count as responding to criticism if your unable to account for why your replies are valid. And no one is asking you to shut up, you said you were leaving the conversation. I would actually like to see how you would respond to Jarrah.
And you have just proven my point (and I think the point Jarrah was trying to make) about speculation: that it’s useless. The difference is that mine was done satirically, and in a place where you had the chance to correct. Yours was simply asserted as fact and provided as evidence to support your position in a situation where the authors are not going to be able to correct you.
You can paint Jarrah as some intellectual snob who is just trying to ‘win’ so they can pat themselves on the back but there is again no evidence of this. They have criticized your position, then criticized your response. That’s what you do when your trying to determine truth and validity. He/she (sorry again) is defending the feminist position against your attack. You on the other hand with comments like “If you just don’t like what I’m saying and want me to shut up-then good. I’m doing my job” seem more interested in antagonism and defamation.
Again, which criticisms? Specifically? Right now, your comment is simply character assassination. You’re doing nothing but talk about how I don’t meet your standard and how I’m “proving your point”. You may think they have been ignored, I have decided not to write a thesis on each point because I have limited time to respond to criticisms, especially those that bear no weight. If you think I haven’t fully answered something, then ask. Saying “Somewhere up there in those pages of comments is something I’m not happy with!” is not conducive to discussion. Here’s a newsflash: “And yes, I do want to prove you wrong. Just as I would imagine you want to prove me wrong.” No- I’m not interested in proving anyone wrong here. If it happens, it happens, I’m not debating. I’m discussing.
“About accusing FtB, it’s mostly the vocal ones I’m talking about”. Greta is one of the most vocal- she has certainly written about both feminism and Atheism+ a lot more then PZ has.
The logic, semantics and nature of your discourse are the underpinning of your argument. If you are going to lie and then say that when I criticise such tactics that I am going too deep and subtracting from the discussion at hand by questioning your particular approach to discourse then what is left.
As it stands it would appear that your arguments are inadequate to substantiate your conclusions. I have an interest in demonstrating these inadequacies not so I can puff out my chest and claim to have won another internet battle (no one ever wins these sort of things in any real sense) but because I believe it is important not to let inaccurate and uncritical arguments stand without objection, particularly those which pertain to issues of social justice which can culminate in actual harm. Uncontested claims seep through and can potentially be quite dangerous to social attitudes.
Then you’d best be focusing your attention on YouTube, where the MRM is actually growing.
Cris: He, and thanks for checking.
Jordan: Here are just a few points that you haven’t yet got around to answering. Obviously they are shorthand and are meant to be understood in the context of the entire discussion not independently.
Why Atheism+ is divisive (in a bad way) when other groups that use moral distinctions aren’t?
How Atheism+ is an extension of feminism in any sense that distinguishes it from its other focuses?
Why Jen can’t justify her fancy new label even though she has written numerous blog post doing exactly that?
Why you believe Jen is lying?
Why possessing a certain moral code which wont tolerate certain actions is acceptable in some circumstance but not in this?
Whether or not you understand that saying “man up” is actually diminishing to women and therefore understand that feminists wouldn’t use such terminology?
Why you think that feminists are being deceptive even though all the examples you have provided are taken from sources where they describe and justify what they are doing?
Why you believe that things like A+Scribe and the fact that less then ¼ of forum posts are related to feminism doesn’t suggest that feminism isn’t taking a superior role in Atheism+?
Why you believe that your experience of being able to avoid insult and oppressive attitudes means that everyone should be able to? Why is this not just a bonus of being privileged?
What other justification have got for brushing aside certain attitudes beside the NTS informal fallacy or how you rescue the NTS fallacy?
Why you think that FtB can be perpetrating groupthink despite the fact that the bloggers voice the other side of the argument? And that attitudes are supported by evidence- a process generally considered to be opposed to groupthink? Why is your blog not spouting groupthink in the same sense or are you just opposed to any group that has large readerships?
Why law and many other groups can institutionalise moral norms (often with sever penalties) whilst Atheism+ is wrong for doing so?
Why it is when you attack FtB you don’t feel that your attacking Greta? And why you don’t believe she is a dominant voice despite the fact that she blogs on those issues more often?
Why you believe it ok to assert speculation as fact?
Why you believe having someone call you out on lying is subtracting from the conversation?
Why you don’t think Cris demonstrated that speculation is rubbish and derogatory?
Why you think in a moral discussion the discussion of morality is off topic?
Why you believe that presenting a position and then providing ‘proof’ of it doesn’t count as an argument and only a discussion.
Why you believe that in a discussion one person cannot be wrong?
Attacking Cris for not offering any examples is also not really accurate or truthful either. She provides at least two looking over her comment. One being why you believe you can dismiss arguments on account of the NTS fallacy when I have demonstrated it to be inapplicable and the other being why you think its acceptable to assert lies and speculation as fact and yet are outraged when someone satirically does it too you.
“Then you’d best be focusing your attention on YouTube, where the MRM is actually growing.” You invited me to come and comment on your blog. I actually don’t have a problem with the MRM in general either. There are some atrocious people out there but many have just been treated unfairly by courts etc.
And you’re welcome to do so – but you said you’re doing so in the interest of “not letting inaccurate and uncritical arguments stand without objection, particularly those which pertain to issues of social justice which can culminate in actual harm. Uncontested claims seep through and can potentially be quite dangerous to social attitudes,” to which I replied your efforts would better be put to use in the YouTube arena.
As of now, all you’re really doing is shouting into an echo chamber.
So if we respond you attack us and if we don’t you attack us- real mature. Yet we are the ones you label as not being conductive to discussion.
Alright, just for you I’ll do my next blog post on these.
Cris- no. You have it backwards- this is my blog. I write my opinion, and you comment on it. I ask for discussion, not criticism like “Oh, you’re not mature!” and “That’s a logical fallacy!” – it is more than evident that your goal is simply to knock down whatever I have to say, without putting much thought into it. Of course it doesn’t seem that way to you- otherwise you wouldn’t do it. Maybe I’m being overly critical, but thus far nothing I’ve read here has, to me, put my position into question.
I did say, and I stand by that you’re welcome to comment here- but don’t expect not to receive an appropriate response. I’m not attacking anyone here, apart from using direct language, and if you can’t handle that, maybe you shouldn’t come to my blog.
Lol
You realize that your entire next blog is about how you went onto someone else’s YouTube channel, attacked them, insinutating that they were, or were associated with bullshitters, and were childish. And then whine because they don’t address your criticism.
And don’t worry the last thing your being is critical.
This is my blog, not Matt Dillahunty’s.
[…] two weeks ago, I wrote a post entitled “Crashing the wave: Feminism and Atheism+” which was about what I thought of the […]
Good handling of the discussion here, Jordan. :-)