Tag Archives: atheismplus
She brings it
More divisiveness from the Atheism Plus crowd
As I said unequivocally in this post, I don’t necessarily agree with all the content nor the manner in which Thunderf00t presented his case against the neofeminists and the Atheism Plus crowd in his hack-job video, “Why ‘Feminism’ is poisoning Atheism,” but I will say that feminists and their supporters are doing little to mitigate the situation. Creating “diversity” they are not, which renders this petition from Adam Lee, “Support Feminism and Diversity in the Secular Community,” not only meaningless but disingenuous.
Maria Maltseva makes the excellent case that leaders in the skeptic community who may be on the fence on feminism are fenced into a no-win situation:
If you refuse, you’re clearly a woman hater (since in those situations, feminism is said to be nothing more than equality between the sexes — a far cry what modern feminism teaches today). And who’s opposed to equality of the sexes/genders/races/and people of different sexual preferences, and a more inclusive environment for all? No one, as far as I know. Still, if you say nothing, it appears that you don’t care about women. And if you do agree to sign, then you’ve been trapped into supporting feminism, an amorphous and shape-shifting beast which is frequently anti-science (due to the bias those allegedly awful white males have been constantly injecting into the field), and you’ve betrayed the fundamental principles of the pro-science movement.
Unlike what P.Z. Myers argues with reckless abandon, namely that people who do not support feminism are vile, less-than-human cretins of the most despicable order (obviously a paraphrase), the problem as I see it is that critics of feminism and Atheism Plus — notice that to mention one is to also mention the other — like myself want nothing more than total equality of the sexes. Sure, the skeptical community has its bad apples like any community. But atheists, freethinkers and humanists, perhaps more than any other group of people, chafe at being told that they must support such and such or else be castigated, banned, blocked or otherwise shunned from the community as a consequence.
Feminists can’t escape the fact that the “movement” has deep and historic ties to politics, and while, in principle, of course most of us desire equality among the sexes. That goes without saying, but I don’t blame the droves of nonbelievers who want no association with politics whatsoever. I don’t take this view myself because, though often stained with corruption, politics is one of the practical ways that change can be enacted in a way that can positively affect millions of people.
As a side note, Myers is back to preaching again:
First, go read Amy Roth’s summary of the situation: there is a small group of Mabusesque obsessive haters who have been harassing a number of vocal atheists for the past few years. I know; I’m one of their targets, and I can tell you, these people are really screwed up and pathologically focused on hating anyone who dares to profess any support for feminism, or any kind of support for increasing the diversity of the movement. They’re loud, they’re persistent, and they’re an embarrassment to the community.
Now, once you’re in the right frame of mind to understand the context, go read Adam Lee’s petition to support feminism and diversity in the secular community.
You’ll know what to do.
Maybe I’m just as moronic as the cretins that he blasts on a daily basis, but wouldn’t “increasing diversity” in the community include welcoming the very people who have been critical of Atheism Plus, along with feminist supporters? Where is the petition to support harmony in the community? I realize that achieving harmony would be a long shot, but wouldn’t that be a better, more genuine goal, rather Adam Lee’s petition, which is so laughably hypocritical.
The Neofeminists, ctd
Here is a video from YouToube user NoelPlum99 discussing a similar topic that was addressed in my last post:
I don’t think it matters terribly whether skeptic conferences are represented equally among women and men and attempts to do so seems to only politicize a topic that doesn’t need politicizing. To take Jim’s (NoelPlum’s) example above, more men seem to be interested in cars and mechanics, whereas more women seem to be into fashion. Similarly, more men seem to be engaged in philosophical pursuits, and thus, the perception is that males are generally more likely to be nonbelievers. While it is difficult to measure any of this, simply stating that perception doesn’t suggest in the least that women are any less capable of critical thinking than men. Quite the contrary, and history bears this out. We can outline a long list of skeptics who also happen (or happened) to be women and great thinkers: Susan Jacoby, Hypatia, Simone de Beauvoir, Mary Wollstonecraft, Julia Sweeney and many others.
Here is YouTube user, buybuydandavis, who I think gets it right in his/her characterization of these skeptic conferences and the perceived need for equal representation:
The point of pushing equal representation isn’t the representation, it’s to turn an atheist conference into another revival service for Progressivism.
Instead of discussing atheism and theism, you can spend all day discussing racism, sexism, and homophobia. That’s the wonderful thing about Progressivism – a meeting about anything can be turned into a meeting about who is at the meeting and how they will be forced to behave if they want to avoid expulsion.
This is one of the many problems I have with the AtheismPlus crowd and neofeminists, groups who in most cases overlap. Atheism never was and never should be associated with progressivism or any other actual political movement. Some atheists are progressives; some may be conservative. As I’ve said previously, if a person wants be considered as a progressive skeptic, adopt secular humanism. AtheismPlus is redundant, and as we are seeing, neofeminism is increasingly counterproductive to the cause of women’s rights. This is evidenced by the fact that more and more nonbelieving women and self-professed feminists want nothing to do with either.
The Neofeminists
How to describe this “new wave” of hypersensitive, reactionary, dogmatic and witch-hunt brand of feminism that has surfaced in the last year, with Ophelia Benson, Jen McCreight, Rebecca Watson and others carrying the banner? As I’ve said before, I think the term neofeminism is about right.
Here is Benson at her accusatory best, this time accusing Michael Shermer, of all people, of believing that women are, at least implicitly, “too stupid to do nontheism:”
Don’t laugh: Michael Shermer said exactly that during a panel discussion on the online talk-show The Point. The host, Cara Santa Maria, presented a question: Why isn’t the gender split in atheism closer to 50-50? Shermer explained, “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”
It’s all there—women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a guy thing,” like football and porn and washing the car.
What Benson didn’t mention was that Shermer’s remarks were lifted out of context. Here is part of Shermer’s response:
First of all, Benson shortened the quote. What I prefaced the above with is: “I think it probably really is 50/50.” Benson also left out my follow up comment moments later that at the 2012 TAM (The Amazing Meeting) conference of skeptics and atheists, there were more women speakers than men speakers. I misspoke slightly. According to D. J. Grothe, the TAM organizer, there were an equal number of men and women speakers (the roster on the web page is incorrect) until, ironically, Ophelia Benson herself dropped out.
Whatever reason Benson had for dropping out of the conference, this is telling. So, she is calling for more nonbelieving women to get involved in the conversation but was absent herself. Nice. As it turns out, a brief browse through the Twitter secular community will reveal that many women have spoken out against this new wave of feminism that seems more about exclusion and frantically thwarting contrary arguments than really enacting societal change. The us against them dichotomy, which seems to include most everyone, couldn’t be stronger.
According to Shermer’s blog post, even Harriet Hall, who was instrumental in the “first wave” of feminism, has even been put off by this new brand of nuttiness:
Harriet Hall, M.D., the SkepDoc columnist for Skepticmagazine (one of two women columnists of our three, I might add, the other being Karen Stollznow), who lived through and helped bring about the first-wave feminist movement, told me she “was vilified on Ophelia’s blog for not following a certain kind of feminist party line of how a feminist should act and think. And I was attacked there in a disturbingly irrational, nonskeptical way.” I asked her why she didn’t defend herself. She wrote in an email (12/08/12):
“I did not dare try to explain my thinking on Ophelia’s blog, because it was apparent from the tone of the comments that anything I might say would be misinterpreted and twisted to use against me. I have always been a feminist but I have my own style of feminism. And I have felt more oppressed by these sort of feminists than by men, and far less welcome in that strain of feminism than in the atheist or skeptical communities.” (Italics mine)
There you have it. Straight from a feminist that these folks are overtly confrontational and misguided.
Aversion to feminism: a branding failure?
I sense a tinge of counterplay against the AtheismPlus crowd and modern feminism in this article. The ideals of equal rights and equal pay, etc., for women and men are something we should strive for, but perhaps Katy Perry and countless others have picked up on a new reality that feminism in its modern manifestation seems to be a sickly, timid, hypersensitive, reactionary shell of its former self:
Katy Perry accepted the Woman of the Year award from Billboard on Friday by declaring, “I’m not a feminist, but I do believe in the power of women.”
This isn’t an especially surprising statement. As a number of folks have pointed out, many young women—and a good number of not-so-young women as well—are uncomfortable with being labeled as feminists even though they embrace many feminist goals. Last month, for example, Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer eschewed the feminist label while simultaneously declaring that she “believed in equal rights.” It’s tempting to simply dismiss such comments as incoherent, but I think doing so risks missing out on insights and criticism that might be of value to feminism.
Understandably, many feminist writers don’t see things this way. Instead, they find such rhetorical contradictions infuriating. Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon, for example, explains with barely-restrained snark: “Let me just point out that if you believe in the strength of women, Ms. Perry, or their equality, Ms. Mayer, you’re soaking in feminism.” Madeleine Davis at Jezebel adds, with less restraint, “the ignorance and ridiculousness of Perry’s comments—especially in the context of accepting the Woman of the Year award—is enough to set the teeth of any feminist on edge.”
Again, the frustration is understandable—you’ve got people in the public limelight standing up, saying they agree with your principles in one breath and then denouncing you in the next. Getting kicked by your enemies sucks, but is at least expected. Being spit on by your friends, on the other hands, is a betrayal.
Still, as Slate‘s Amanda Hess points out, condemning women for not embracing feminism probably isn’t that helpful. As Hess says, “Here’s one reason some women might not identify as feminists: Whenever they begin to engage with the material, feminists condescendingly dismiss them as morons.” Hess adds, “I’m beginning to realize that the question “Are you a feminist?” tells us much more about the feminist movement’s own branding failures than it does the beliefs of the women prompted to respond.”
Atheism Plus forum: ‘privileged, observational ass’
A user named d4m10n posted the following on the Atheism Plus forum on Oct. 29:
Atheism Plus vs. SlymePit
I’m posting this on both forums, word for word. My apologies in advance.
I’m working on a post comparing the two forums (which are alike in a number of surprising ways) but so far it is mostly quantitative and historical and oddly dry. I’d like to try and get a sense (mostly from non-mods) of what it is about the moderation rules, stated goals, and unstated ethos of this particular forum which draws you to post here. I have my suspicions, of course, having lurked quite a bit, but I don’t want to paraphrase when I can quote directly from the users themselves.
The writer, of course, got some snarky replies from the folks on the A+ forum, although he clearly said he was posting it on both forums, so as to not to show favoritism.
A person named Sun Countess replied with this gem:
The only thing we have in common is that we’re both like churches. At least that’s what all the idiots seem to think. I think that’s because we both have members.
What we’re not is a zoo or an experimental lab, so you can take your privileged, observational ass back to the slymepit. See, we treat people here like human beings with value, and when you come in asking to perform an experiment on us that you get to walk away from, and even joke and laugh about with people at the slymepit, then you have shown that you are willing to devalue other human beings. You will fit in very well over there.
Wow. So many assumptions, so little time. The first thing to note: the writer gets called a “privileged, observational ass” without provocation, and then in the next sentence, Sun Countess talks about how Atheism Plus supporters treat people like human beings. Nice.
Not only is the writer “privileged,” a favorite word that A+ folks like to throw around like candy at all who have the audacity to ask questions or disagree with their smug point of view, the writer also apparently does not treat people like human beings with value, is performing an “experiment” on just the A+ crowd (again, Sun Countess ignores the point that the writer was posting to both forums verbatim), will walk away and make jokes, again devalues humans and is actually a troll from the SlymePit. And they wonder why so many in the nonbelieving community have such contempt for Atheism Plus.
In any case, here is the equivalent post at the SlymePit. I thought this reply from Michael K Gray provided an interesting observation:
Executive summary:
Slimepit – Exposes Hypocrisy as well as it’s members are able.
FfTB – Conceals Hypocrisy as well as it’s members are able.
A✝Theism – A frightening view into a bizarro-ward of feeble damaged circus-freaks.
Response to ‘Why Atheism+ Should Lead to Interfaith Dialogue’
Boy, did Be Scofield catch the Atheism Plus bus about three months too late.
In his column, “Why Atheism+ Should Lead to Interfaith Dialogue,” he rehashes how Jen McCreight called for a “third wave” of atheism and how the A+ “movement” has caught fire online. Of course, he failed to mention that A+ is about as done as burnt toast at this point. Skeptically Left summarized the beginning of the end quite fittingly with this gem:
Its (Atheism+) fate was sealed when optimistic supporter, Matt Dillahunty, President of the Atheist Community of Austin and Host of Non-Prophet Radio got banned from the A+ forums in an attempt to show that those forums were fair to outsiders. To make a long story short, he quickly found out that they weren’t.
In any case, in Johhny Come Lately fashion, Scofield proceeds to tell us how Atheism Plus, and presumably atheists at large, should welcome a partnership with “progressive religious organizations” to move social justice forward:
I applaud all of those who have already laid out their visions and ideas about where this movement can go. There is, however one important question that has yet to be addressed. The answer to it could have profound ramifications for the future of atheism in all of its expressions. How will Atheism+ affect atheists’ relationship to religion?
Well, that is certainly is a question that I don’t think has been asked up to this point, mostly because many nonbelievers like myself have not only moved on from religion, but have moved past it. Way past it. Of course, to understand why Scofield raised such a question to begin with, one must understand that Scofield has been working on a master’s of divinity from Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley. I don’t know what a master’s of divinity is either, other than a faux-degree that has no meaning or value in a world free of religion and theology.
Atheism Plus’s slow demise makes most of Scofield’s article completely irrelevant, but let’s pretend that it doesn’t for a minute. Or, better yet, let’s pretend that instead of talking about A+ specifically, let’s just say that he might, in similar fashion, call for cooperation on social justice issues between “progressive” believers and run of the mill atheists, freethinkers or secular humanists. What then? What would such a partnership look like? Scofield asks us to consider a few questions:
Will (atheists) … be willing, in the name of social justice, to form new alliances, coalitions and networks with progressive religious organizations and people who are interested? Engage in interfaith dialogue? Explore the rich justice based traditions found within most any religious group? Soften the antagonistic rhetoric to advance the common good? Learn about the liberation based and prophetic teachings in religion and why they matter to people resisting injustice?
“Justice based traditions” found in most religions? Does he mean human sacrifice? How about stoning? Or eternal punishment by fire and brimstone for ever and ever? I can’t speak for everyone, but I dare say that even Atheism Plus supporters chafe when considering the “justice” of most religions. And what is that about the “liberation based and prophetic teachings” of religion? What does that have to do with issues of social justice? Certain religions teach liberation from this world, but most of the time, it is a type of liberation at the damning expense of millions of others who don’t follow that particular denomination or sect. Does he mean enlightenment ideas found in Buddhism? Maybe, but that’s more about personal enrichment than helping people on a broad scale have more fulfilling lives and supporting egalitarian principles. Further, how could the phony prophetic teachings of religion add anything to the conversation about social justice?
Scofield concludes:
Atheism+ is an exciting movement. I’m looking forward to seeing it grow and evolve. We can use this opportunity to bridge divided worlds, build interfaith coalitions and make social justice campaigns stronger. Imagine the Atheism+ movement and progressive religious groups united in solidarity against the real enemies: oppression, injustice and indifference!
Atheism+ is about as exciting as a rendition of “Taps.” In some ways, “progressive” or “liberal” Christians or other religious people are worse than evangelicals because while evangelicals are at least being honest when they tell you straight up that you are bound for an eternity in hell, progressive Christians want to gloss over the nasty bits about their religion, or redact them altogether, to make themselves and their faith appear less brutal and arcane than it actually is. Of course, Scofield’s last sentence is almost laughable since religion has at one time or another (indeed, throughout most of its history) gleefully supported both oppression and injustice, so for it to now make an about-face seems like a stretch. I certainly would hope that these “progressive” believers continue on a path more focused on social justice than dogma and divisiveness, but that will take place in spite of religion, not because of it.
Freethought Tweets of the day: Atheism Plus edition
The WoolyBumblebee @WoolyBumblebee #Atheismplus has 2044 users – 13 mods – 3 admin – 38 banned users = 1990. Of which only 831 ever made MORE than ONE post on the forums.
Atheism+ @atheismplus #atheismplus inclusiveness. Everyone is welcome, just so long as you’re not foreign. Or if you are, you’d better have PERFECT English.
Atheism+ @atheismplus In #atheismplus we have special words. Objections are ‘hate’. Objectors are ‘angry at outspoken women’. Dislike of us/A+ is ‘misogyny’.
Atheist Smeghead @AtheistSmeghead My question about #atheismplus STILL hasn’t been answered: What do those social issues have to do with a lack of belief in any deity?
Renee Hendricks @reneehendricks Really? http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=26361#p26361 … WTF is wrong with those mods on #AtheismPlus? Gigantic asshats, I swear.
The post she is referencing:
Re: Men: Are You Willing To Be Called A Potential Rapist?
by maiforpeace » Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:34 pm
Specimen, bonjour!I speak several languages including French, and I’m afraid you don’t possess the English language skills to communicate properly in such a serious and mindful discussion. I think you are better off just reading right now, and maybe you can get a buddy who writes English better to help you write posts so you can participate and offer your own contributions to this thread.
So I will ask you politely to desist from posting further in this thread. Thank you, Mai
A reader was asked to quit posting because they don’t speak perfect English? Wtf.
And further down in the thread:
by Flewellyn » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:19 am
MOD NOTE: This topic is no longer serving a useful purpose. It has been locked.
So an admin just locks a conversation whenever they subjectively feel it’s no longer serving a purpose? Stunning.
More Tweets:
Stormye Weather @Nuclear_Wynter Can you imagine a room full of black men pontificating on being labeled “potential criminals” to make white people feel safe?!#atheismplus
Maria Maltseva @bluharmony @Stefanelli is my hero: Q&A about Atheism Plus, White Male Privilege, Guilt by Association, Schrodinger’…http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2012/10/09/qanda/ … …
Za-zen @Zaminuszen Next time that homeless wanker logs on to his laptop, somebody please point him to #AtheismPlus forums so we can correct his privilege.
Jamie Stanton @finalcontext Just told by #atheismplus mod that treating people equally regardless of gender, race etc makes me “part of the problem” *head explodes*
The faces of feminism, ctd.
So, apparently something I said recently struck a nerve with one reader with my last post, to the point that he felt compelled to say near the end of our discussion in the comments section:
You’re under no obligation to support your assertions with, you know, actual evidence in your rant against atheists who blog on feminist issues. And we who are reading your post are under no obligation to take you seriously when you not only don’t do so but make grossly exaggerated claims and fail to admit being wrong when someone else takes the time to do the research you didn’t and point out your mistake.
He was commenting on the last post, in which I referenced “the type of hypersensitive, reactionary and every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist-or-rapist brand of feminism of the Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight …”
This reader wanted me to cite references for my claims to prove that the Atheism Plus brand of feminism is indeed all the things I said it was. To which I said that my impression of the A+ feminists was just that, an impression and that I did not need to dredge through reams of posts and comments to validate an impression that I have gotten through two or three months of reading about this issue. I felt that would be a waste of time on my part because even if I had brought back quotes or links that I viewed as hypersensitive or reactionary, presumably this reader would have simply disagreed with my interpretation, and we would be at square one. Interestingly, I never received any quotes or links to invalidate my claim.
Further, note that I never said that Watson, McCreight and the like thought every man was a misogynist or a rapist, but based on their own posts and comments from their supporters, I got the impression that their brand of feminism was one that characterized men as potential misogynists, at best, and potential rapists, at worst. Perhaps I should have clarified further in the original post, but I thought my use of the English language was clear enough. Apparently not.
Of course, all of this does not address the myriad offenses and mishaps of the Atheism Plus crowd. For that, I highly recommend Avant Garde‘s post, “Atheism Plus: We’re Atheists… But We Behave Like Christians!”