The YouTube version of this blog can be found here.
Quick thanks to my latest Flattr’er :)
Since dogmatic feminism made its way into atheist circles, most notably in the ignominious social justice group Atheism+ born and raised on FreeThoughtBlogs, I’ve kept a skeptical eye on it. This was my first full-blown exposure to feminism, in its pseudo-third-wave form. Before I dismantle feminist “theory”, I want to talk about dogma and why the way we think is more important than what we think.
A few years ago, I had my eyes and mind opened when I discovered Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Randi, among others. Although I was never deeply religious, the world of the rational, reasonable and skeptical fed my curiosity and made so much more sense to me than the mess of religious beliefs that floated around in my immediate family. (My father is a devout Christian and my mother believes in God but isn’t conservative.) I clearly remember the night I didn’t sleep, watching talk after talk (YouTube) and just soaking it all in.
It was reassuring to know that others felt the same way about supernatural/magical claims as I did. Moreover, it opened my mind to look at things from more than one angle. Let’s not forget: atheism is redundant without theism—and a lot of what I was interested in afterwards was people’s religious beliefs, what they believed, why they believed that, and what they did because of those beliefs. I took a good hard look at the facts, in search of truth, and started to re-examine what I knew and how I knew it. In the process, I learnt a lot about myself and the world. I sharpened my critical thinking skills.
That is what I think the skeptic community rests on: reason, evidence and critical thinking. And it is what the atheist community largely rested on too, because once you apply that to specious God claims you are left with no choice than to be an atheist (to those claims.) Those of us who fight for reason and critical thinking do so for one simple reason: it works. Science demonstrates that.
Dogma is a barrier to rational thinking. In my own words, dogma is belief/s that cannot be changed by new information. It is something you know to be true because “it just is.” It should be obvious why such “protected” beliefs are against the principles of rational thinking but I’ll quickly explain: we are exposed to a necessarily incomplete view of the world. We will invariably be exposed to ideas that are not correct. To form a more accurate view of the world, we must be able to purge ideas or beliefs that are incorrect—which is not possible if we cling onto them and defend them against facts.
A lot of atheists have become more involved with anti-religious and anti-theistic activism because religious dogma is arguably the biggest and most accepted form of dogma that pervades our society today. It has been allowed to continue to the point of terrorism. Dogmatic religious beliefs hold back medical advances (research that could cure cancer), human rights (such as gay marriage, reproductive rights, women’s liberation in other parts of the world) and education while at the same time manufacturing hatred on a large scale (towards blacks, women, gays, atheists/infidels, you name it), creating artificial divisions on ideological boundaries and generally making it harder for us all to get along as a global community. (Why can’t we just live and let live? Therein lies part of the problem.)
The problem isn’t just religion though. Pretend sky fairies and zombie Jesus never hurt anyone. The problem is dogma—bad thinking—which has gone unchecked for too long. This is how we naturally are. We are animals, and we are wired for survival and to seek out patterns (discriminate and apply prejudice.) The human brain is not innately rational. But we can do a bit better than survival, if we use our brains properly.
This is why critical thinking is so important. If religion and religion alone were to cease tomorrow, new dogmatic ideologies would spring up in no time. In a parallel universe where the Bible was never discovered, a different, equally rough-around-the-edges story would have surfaced, with much the same purpose.
There are those who, in semi-serious jest, call Atheism+ “the first atheist cult.” There is a good reason why this is both apt and important: the same dogmatic thinking that the atheist movement has been trying to dissolve is, ironically, manifesting itself within the atheist movement. This has caused a large operation-halting (or at least in many online communities) schism in the atheism movement between those who are atheists as a conclusion of rational thinking and those who are atheists for other reasons. This only goes to prove what we knew all along. Being an atheist doesn’t automatically make you smart, or rational, or reasonable.
This is exactly what I’ve said previously.
The dogmatic feminism responsible for Atheism+ has caused an impasse in the atheist community by shifting the spotlight from skepticism to “social justice”. With injustices to women (naturally—it’s feminism) near the top of the list. (I won’t speak about the delusions of “social justice” in this piece.)
Feminists who work under the presumption of Patriarchy theory cannot work for true equality. Whenever you hear “Feminism is for equality,” you should also hear “and Islam is a religion of peace.” Really think about that one. There is no deception going on, just an ideologically deluded worldview that distorts definitions. As for “the radical notion that women are people”? Is that really necessary in first-world countries?
I object to feminism because it is a dogmatic and harmful ideology that is in conflict with science and reason and has demonstrated this in, among other things, its anti-free-speech fiascos both online and in real life. Free speech is non-negotiable. If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for those whose ideas you detest most or object to the most, you don’t believe in freedom of speech at all. Remember that when you see “hate speech isn’t free speech.” The answer to ‘hate speech’ is not silence, but more speech.
The whole idea of feminism puts women in a “you are a victim of the system” mentality. This is why so many of them are professional victims while claiming to be self-actualised and independent (fighting the Patriarchy, I’m sure.) It causes a lot of troubles and inner conflicts. I want to see women succeed, through legitimate achievements, alongside men, not curl up, blame men for everything and get special treatment. And I want to see boys and men, who are sons, brothers, fathers, husbands and friends, getting fair treatment, too.
The fact that in these circles “what about teh menz!?!1!” (typically written like that) is used to chide anyone who’s concerned about men gives us an indication on how their working definition of “equality” differs from most.
It’s not just women who are feminists. But it’s not actually that anomalous that there are male feminists. If I can draw an analogy to Christian theology, whose dogma is relatively well known: The original sin? Being born male. You are responsible for what your forefathers created (The Patriarchy.) But you can absolve yourself of that guilt by being a feminist advocate. The similarities don’t end there, but they’re not much more than exposed bits of dogma to giggle at.
Much of what goes by the name of feminism is nothing more than a gender ideology. It’s about time people realised that.
I’ll sign off with a quote from a friend:
2013, time to turn it around. No more submission to fear. Demand evidence at every instance. I think this is the theme that now needs to be driven by all who give a fuck.
Brilliant. Well rounded article. Cheers.
This article is simply outstanding! (Perhaps you should also be on Skeptic Ink)
How would you define evidence?
A finding that supports a claim or hypothesis. However, when I talk about using evidence in any meaningful way I mean good evidence: objective, unambiguous findings that agree with established findings, statistics, and that do not rely on bad assumptions, logical fallacies and so on.
I saw this train wreck coming years ago. Too many people who think they are smarter than they really are, that somehow abandoning religion is an intellectually transcendant act. WAY too many geeks with personality disorders. Pfft. I went to a few atheist and skeptical gatherings. Lots of blind faith in various political and ideological dogmas. Bleah. I bailed. No thanks. My despair for humanity was complete at that point.
Meanwhile, this stuff is happening: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255970/Seven-Pakistan-aid-workers-murdered-new-polio-revenge-attack-Killings-blamed-Taliban-avenging-Osama-bin-Laden.html
Wonder if Ophelia will blog about this or another crazy homeless guy who dared be a crazy homeless guy in her royal presence
You might be interested in the dictionary definitions for evidence and proof:
In a murder trial one can have all sorts of evidence, but all of it has to hang together in a certain way and to be of a certain quality to qualify as a proof of the charge and to justify the judgement of murder.
Christopher Hitchens said:
I think that he used the word “proof” and not “evidence” is of more than passing significance, that he was well aware of that salient difference.
I think my internal definition of ‘proof’ is stronger, more akin to mathematical proofs… thanks for bringing this up though. :)
Great article. I’ve been looking for a scientific study of what the patriarchy is and why it can’t/can be proven. Do you have any links? Where did you inform your own opinion?
Thanks. The article on Wikipedia should give a good indication of the definition of the word. The section on Feminism theory (linked) explains that feminism often expands on the definition to include any perceived social mechanism that unjustly favours men over women. My opinion was primarily formed by this blog post, which I addressed in my piece here. I’m not sure there are any scientific studies on patriarchy theory or privilege, or any feminist dogma for that matter. ‘Theory’ is used with a grain of salt- ‘narrative’ would be more apt, ‘hypothesis’ at best.
I hope that helps!
[…] are false idols, attempts to replace thought with mindless obedience. And one such ideology is the dogma of feminism. Therefore, we need to start being much more critical about […]
You misrepresent feminism in your article it is a strawman where you have redefined feminism in your own terms.
You say”I’m not sure there are any scientific studies on patriarchy theory or privilege” well for ease of use here’s some titles for you to have a look at with links below, “Patriarchal structure and demographic change,” “Persistent inequalities: women and world development,” “The European family: patriarchy to partnership from the Middle Ages to the present,” Credit programs, patriarchy and men’s violence against women in rural Bangladesh” and a link to Informal logic “This special issue of Informal Logic brings together two important areas of philosophy that have shown significant development in the last three decades: informal logic and feminist philosophy.”
http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/359
http://www.popline.org/node/380980
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19901882875.html;jsessionid=9AE4293EF5B707C964B6CFD5073BB408
http://www.popline.org/node/397425
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953696000688
Quote from Informal Logic:
Among the fundamental questions feminist
philosophers ask are the following: What would philosophy and
philosophical argumentation (in the Western tradition) look like if
women had had an equal share in their development? What would
philosophical arguments about human nature, reason, morality, and
politics look like if they hadn’t implicitly assumed that males (or
males of privileged groups) were the norm or ideal of humanness?
How did assumptions about women’s irrationality inform conceptions
of reason (Rooney 1994), and understandings of argument as
that was taken to be a key practice of reason (Rooney, this issue)?
How did philosophical argumentation about social change and justice
hinder rather than help progressive change on behalf of women
and others who were socially and politically marginalized? That is,
why did philosophical argumentation supporting real constructive
feminist change only take off when women began to enter the discipline
in greater numbers in the latter part of the twentieth century?
and if you want more:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/ViolenceAgainstWomen
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014
http://www.unwomen.org/ca
http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2013/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/20134274739879996.html
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/oct/25/world-gender-gap-index-2013-countries-compare-iceland-uk
[…] is something I’ve talked about before, but in a discussion today, plus reading an excellent article, I realized that there’s really no point in talking about or criticizing religion anymore. […]
rocko2466 wrote:
“Brilliant. Well rounded article. Cheers.”
You are so easily impressed. You display a rather low standard for judging what constitutes brilliance.
elevatorgate wrote:
“This article is simply outstanding!”
You have a very low standard for what constitutes excellence.
“This has caused a large operation-halting (or at least in many online communities) schism in the atheism movement between those who are atheists as a conclusion of rational thinking and those who are atheists for other reasons.”
This is utter bullshit. You are falsely implying that those on one side of this schism are all rational thinkers and those on the other side are not. You are saying that those on your side of the schism arrived at their atheism through rational thought and those on the other side did not. This is the bullshit in your commentary. I am a feminist. I arrived at my atheism through scientific skepticism decades ago, probably while you were still suckling gently on the teet of religion. I am not alone. I know thousands of atheists who support feminism and are atheists because they applied scientific skepticism and rational thought to their religious beliefs. To paint the schism as simply two sides, with one side having a particular trait and the other side missing this trait is an example of non-critical, non-rational thinking, not to mentioned non-nuanced thinking.
“I object to feminism because it is a dogmatic and harmful ideology that is in conflict with science and reason and has demonstrated this in, among other things, its anti-free-speech fiascos both online and in real life.”
Now there is a whopper of a strawman with an enormous quantity of straw. No one in the Atheism+ crowd is depriving you of your free speech. Think about it. Are not you expressing your opinion without being jailed, clubbed to death, or physically maimed? The fact that after you say your piece, others criticize what you have said, even harshly, is not an infringement of your free speech. If you think it is then you don’t understand the meaning of free speech. No one in the Atheism+ crowd or at FtB has advocated that the government or any other body for that matter should restrict what you can say. Calling you an asshole, for example, or telling you to Shut-The-Fuck-Up is not an infringement of your free speech. Such remarks may not be the most appropriate response to things others say, but they are an exercise of a person’s right to free speech. No one in Atheism+ or feminism has argued that you don’t have the right to criticize them. If you think they have then provide examples. Show quotes from these persons where they clearly say that not only should you “shut-the-fuck-up” but they think you should be forced to do so by law and physical force. Otherwise, stop spreading your assinine misunderstanding of what constitutes free speech.
“Remember that when you see “hate speech isn’t free speech.” The answer to ‘hate speech’ is not silence, but more speech.”
Who the hell said that hate speech should be silenced? No one. What has been advocated is that hate speech should be punished when it can be established that it was a contributory cause to the physical assault and injury of another person. Here is a lesson for you: there is no such thing as an absolute right. No right exists that is not and should not be subject to some reasonable restrictions. So abandon this notion that hate speech cannot be and should not be subject to legal restrictions or punishment under some circumstances. It is not an absolute truth that the answer to hate speech is always more speech. I’ll agree that is probably true in most circumstances, but not all circumstances.
“The whole idea of feminism puts women in a “you are a victim of the system” mentality.”
Mere, baseless, opinion. I consider this to be more bullshit. Feminism recognizes that women are not treated fully equally in our society. Feminism is an effort to rectify this injustice. And yes, social justice is a worthy pursuit, regardless of whether you fight for it as a part of atheism and skepticism or not. You choose not to. The Atheism+ plus crowd chooses to make it a part of their atheism and their skepticism. They have every right to do so. You aren’t being forced to join them. You don’t own atheism and skepticism. You don’t get to decide how or whether some atheists choose to combine their atheism with other causes. You can climb down now from that pedestal you erected for yourself and then hoisted yourself up upon.
“I want to see women succeed, through legitimate achievements, alongside men, not curl up, blame men for everything and get special treatment. And I want to see boys and men, who are sons, brothers, fathers, husbands and friends, getting fair treatment, too.”
And just what exactly are you doing or have you done to help achieve this? What do you mean by legitimate achievements? And where did you get the idea that women, through feminism, are asking for or seeking special treatment? This is another load of bullshit, not to mention more straw in this strawman you have created, which seems to be getting bigger with each sentence of yours I read. What unfair treatment do you think men and boys are suffering as a consequence of feminism and the efforts of feminists?
Now it is true that courts have historically treated fathers unfairly in child custody issues, as one example of unfair treatment of men. But then feminists oppose this as well. Part of what feminists are working for is to end these kinds of legal prejudices against men as well as the inequality of women. I suggest you read this article about feminism: http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy. I suggest you pay particular attention to the section listing mens right issues that feminism is already working on. Feminists are not looking, as you so stupidly seem to think, to replace patriarchy with matriarchy. They are working for equality. They are working to remove from society all forms of gender discrimination, including the remnants of patriarchy, in the public sphere: the workplace, government, public and private agencies and institutions that operate in the public sphere. You are a damn blind fool if you think some degree of patriarchy does not still exist in our society. Certainly it is no longer ubiquitous nor as deeply entrenched as in decades past. But at the very least remnants of it still remain.
“The fact that in these circles “what about teh menz!?!1!” (typically written like that) is used to chide anyone who’s concerned about men gives us an indication on how their working definition of “equality” differs from most.”
The fact that you seem to think that women are not discriminated against much more often than “teh menz” only reveals how clueless and blind to prejudice you are. Mind you, now, I am not saying you are prejudice yourself. I am saying that you are blind to prejudice and discrimination that does exist. The fact that you have discovered critical thinking, skepticism and science somewhere along your life journey has not made you any smarter or more aware about prejudice, discrimination, and inequality. I science, skepticism and critical thinking well over thirty years ago. In fact, for over twenty years I taught all three as a science teacher. So I think I have a much more intimate relationship with them they do you. And nothing about critical thinking, skepticism or science gives me cause to dismiss feminism as a “harmful ideology” or accept as true or accurate any of your statements about or descriptions of feminism you have presented here.
“But it’s not actually that anomalous that there are male feminists. If I can draw an analogy to Christian theology, whose dogma is relatively well known: The original sin? Being born male. You are responsible for what your forefathers created (The Patriarchy.) But you can absolve yourself of that guilt by being a feminist advocate. The similarities don’t end there, but they’re not much more than exposed bits of dogma to giggle at.”
Now you are just being an arrogant asshole, assuming that I and other male feminists are feminists because we have a guilt-complex. You have been drinking too much of the Freudian kool-aid. I suggest that you actually take some time to study psychology instead of creating this dopey piffle you think is reasoned and intelligent thought.
And if my comments seem harsh and angry here, it is because your stupid psychoanalysis is deserving of anger and harsh treatment. It angers me when some pseudo-intellectual runt like yourself exhibits the hubris of thinking he has insight into the workings of the mind and motivations of others by employing their stupid Freudian understanding of psychology. You know even less psychology and have an even more shallow understanding of the human mind than did Freud, and we now know he was mostly full of shit. Why don’t you stick to your gaming and leave the real thinking to those who actually know how to do it.
“Much of what goes by the name of feminism is nothing more than a gender ideology.”
Now what do think gender ideology is all about? Did you even bother to research this topic before you decided to use this term? I suspect not, since you seem to be using the term as a means to pejoratively misrepresent feminism, and in the process misuse the term. There is more than one gender ideology, some good and some not. You are aware, are you not, that gender ideology refers to “attitudes regarding the appropriate roles, rights, and responsibilities of women and men in society.” (http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2013_chunk_g978140512433113_ss1-19) Is there something wrong with discussing this subject? Frankly, if you are, as you say, interested in advancing gender equality, then this is a subject you ought to be very much interested in discussing. If you aren’t then I submit that your claim to support of gender equality is insincere. In fact, gender equality is but one form of gender ideology. It is the egalitarian one. This is the type of gender ideology that feminism advocates.
“It’s about time people realised that.”
It’s time you realized that you too have a gender ideology; don’t think for a moment that you don’t subscribe to one. If you subscribe to the egalitarian one then you are likely a decent human being and I am 100% behind you. If you don’t then you are likely a worthless piece of shit. So which is it?
Finally, what intellectual filter did you use to make this flawed analysis of feminism? It was not science nor skepticism, as you seemed to have claimed at one point in your commentary. This is because science and skepticism do not lend support to feminism nor anti-feminism. Feminism is about ethics and values. It is about what ought to be. While science can provide some information and data to be considered in such questions, science, which is the study of what is, can not be the sole or final arbiter of what ought to be. Nor can skepticism. This is pretty basic philosophy, particularly the branch that deals with ethics. If you are unaware of this then I suggest you read up on some philosophy, starting with David Hume. I suspect you examined feminism through the lens of a conservative political ideology.
Better call a waaaahmbulance for dogfightwithdogma, they got a severe case of butthurt