Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Walter Ego]

Testosterone Damaged Women Unite!

Even if that were true, what's the solution? Get rid of all the white males?

Get rid of all the males. This has actually been suggested, though only semi-seriously. In other news, former Freethought blogger Greg Laden informs us (on Science Blogs no less so it must be true) that Men Are Testosterone Damaged Women!

Opinions differ, however (see video).

 

[Badger3k]

Get rid of all the males. This has actually been suggested, though only semi-seriously. In other news, former Freethought blogger Greg Laden informs us (on Science Blogs no less so it must be true) that Men Are Testosterone Damaged Women!

Opinions differ, however (see video).

Laden said it, people agreed, his blogger-drinking-buddy Stefunny Zvan (I believe it was her - she was the one defending him for his stalking and threatening letter IIRC) even had a blog post defending his bizarre pseudoscientific BS. It was torn apart by someone (it's on my computer at home) and she just dug in deeper. It was quite, er, interesting. Like watching truthers or homeopaths.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Get rid of all the males. This has actually been suggested, though only semi-seriously.

An interesting idea...and one worth exploring, if the premises held any validity.

While Kagin points out that his post was a "Rorshach test", Laden goes even further out of his way to explain that he's just trying "to poke certain men in the eye".

I have found the ongoing conversation about “testosterone damaged brains” to be somewhat less than interesting, full of distraction, very often little more than troll fodder and a huge waste of time. I’ve been asked to explain, to apologize, to produce copious documentation to back up may amazing claims. There are, however, only two reactions to my comment that I’m interested in. One: You go “Ouch” and put your hand up to your eye because I just poked you there. Two: You go “heh, that was funny.” All other reactions are really your problem, not mine. Sorry.

So, yeah. His defense is "I was trolling". Or perhaps this was something he said to curry favor with the Skepchicks, got flak for it, and is now backpedaling. In any case...what's the point? Again: An interesting idea...and one worth exploring, if the premises held any validity. Which they pretty clearly do not.

It has even occurred to me that Atheism+ itself could just be one big troll job. Think about it. They have no goal, no agenda, no purpose...other than to rile up the atheist community. What a colossal waste of time for everybody involved.

 

[westprog]

Even if that were true, what's the solution? Get rid of all the white males?

A+ has no solution for this, either. It has been shown again and again that building up a community of European-Americans spouting far leftist jargon does not attract minorities...it attracts more European-Americans spouting far leftist jargon.

The language and attitude prevalent among the group is not inclusive. It's very much of a particular class. I don't see it as being a place where someone using different language would be welcomed.

 

[westprog]

Funny thing is, the do attract the odd minority poster, the odd POC and they very rarely behave as the left expects them to and usually end up under the ban hammer.

Of course. The "douchebag" rationalisation shows how shallow the language policing really is - what is claimed to be a way to remove offence is simply making language comfortable to one specific group. They hate ****, ****, and ******-******, but because they've grown up using other phrases, they'll come up with an explanation of why they aren't offensive really. Someone from a different culture will have quite a different attitude - which is wrong.

That's not to say that offensive language shouldn't be avoided, but with some degree of objectivity.

 

[westprog]

Get rid of all the males. This has actually been suggested, though only semi-seriously. In other news, former Freethought blogger Greg Laden informs us (on Science Blogs no less so it must be true) that Men Are Testosterone Damaged Women!

One of the features of the women's movement over many years has been opposition by various men in white coats explaining that if women were to try to study, their silly female brains would explode. Rightly, such biology-with-an-agenda was derided then and is ludicrous now. However, no matter how silly it is, any tool is handy for re-use.

It's possible to argue that the reason that women haven't, over centuries, been scientists, scholars, artists and so on in the same proportion as men has been through social conditioning. It's also possible to argue that this difference is due to innate limitations that women have. Clearly, the second view is unpopular nowadays, and has been severely undercut by the extent to which as societal restrictions have been eased, women have been able to take up roles in society

However, both points of view, and shadings between them, are at least defensible to some extent. However, the Laden view (which is not unique) is that this isn't good enough. Anything bad to do with men - war, violence, leaving the seat up - is an inherent flaw. Anything good - finding pennecilin, painting Guernica - is as a result of excluding women from opportunities to do just as good a job. The special pleading is obvious, and unevidenced. However, it's something that's very palatable to certain tastes.

 

[rustypouch]

One of the features of the women's movement over many years has been opposition by various men in white coats explaining that if women were to try to study, their silly female brains would explode. Rightly, such biology-with-an-agenda was derided then and is ludicrous now. However, no matter how silly it is, any tool is handy for re-use.

It's possible to argue that the reason that women haven't, over centuries, been scientists, scholars, artists and so on in the same proportion as men has been through social conditioning. It's also possible to argue that this difference is due to innate limitations that women have. Clearly, the second view is unpopular nowadays, and has been severely undercut by the extent to which as societal restrictions have been eased, women have been able to take up roles in society

However, both points of view, and shadings between them, are at least defensible to some extent. However, the Laden view (which is not unique) is that this isn't good enough. Anything bad to do with men - war, violence, leaving the seat up - is an inherent flaw. Anything good - finding pennecilin, painting Guernica - is as a result of excluding women from opportunities to do just as good a job. The special pleading is obvious, and unevidenced. However, it's something that's very palatable to certain tastes.

Heh. Just point out that the vast majority of scientific, technological, cultural and artistic breakthroughs, innovations and advancements over the last 500 years have been a result of white men, and see where that gets you...

 

[Humes fork]

Even if that were true, what's the solution? Get rid of all the white males?

I don't know. Perhaps someone will get a chance to ask them. They continuously rail that so many atheists/skeptics/humanists are white males, so it must be something that really bothers them.

A+ has no solution for this, either. It has been shown again and again that building up a community of European-Americans spouting far leftist jargon does not attract minorities...it attracts more European-Americans spouting far leftist jargon.

That's a good point. I myself am not a far leftists, so I have very little sympathy for such people. I'm for gender equality of course, but I wouldn't call myself a feminist because that term is associated with so much nuttery (at least here in Sweden). I'm also not opposed to capitalism and the market economy, quite the opposite in fact (without going too far in that direction). I also think Noam Chomsky's ideas on how to organize society are completely unrealistic.

 

[Walter Ego]

While Kagin points out that his post was a "Rorshach test", Laden goes even further out of his way to explain that he's just trying "to poke certain men in the eye"... So, yeah. His defense is "I was trolling". Or perhaps this was something he said to curry favor with the Skepchicks, got flak for it, and is now backpedaling. In any case...what's the point?

To prove that being a highly-educated atheist doesn't mean you can't be an idiot at the same time?

It has even occurred to me that Atheism+ itself could just be one big troll job. Think about it. They have no goal, no agenda, no purpose...other than to rile up the atheist community. What a colossal waste of time for everybody involved.

A waste of time for sure but these people are serious. As serious as cancer.

 

[Humes fork]

As far as Asian, I know a bit about them. For the Japanese, and to some extend the Chinese, they have a different relationship with religion. For the Japanese, religion comes only during rituals, such as marriage, funeral, etc. During their normal daily life, it does not really have an impact. Even during rituals, it is more cultural than religious. For weddings, the traditional ceremony is shinto but I've seen Catholic. Funerals are buddhist. At New Year and other special occasions, a lot of people goes to the temples, but not on a regular basis.

Sounds like many Swedes, except we don't have a history of mixing religions. Or we do in a way, but many of the pre-Christian traditions (except Midsummer) have been given a Christian veil.

As for Asians in general, if I'm not mistaken, the South Koreans have many Evangelicals, the Japanese have many atheists (or at least non-religious).

 

[westprog]

Heh. Just point out that the vast majority of scientific, technological, cultural and artistic breakthroughs, innovations and advancements over the last 500 years have been a result of white men, and see where that gets you...

I've no problem with accepting that achievement may often be purely a result of opportunity, but I wouldn't then try to layer biological determinism on top of that. When trying to reason from desired conclusions, it's a good idea to fix it up to look as if you went the other way, like walking backwards through the snow.

 

[Humes fork]

It has even occurred to me that Atheism+ itself could just be one big troll job. Think about it. They have no goal, no agenda, no purpose...other than to rile up the atheist community. What a colossal waste of time for everybody involved.

Could well be. And yes, it is a big waste of time and energy.

The thing is, even when you disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, they are still intelligent, thinking people worth listening to in most cases. And they don't tell people to agree with them or else they are douchebags. I don't get that feeling with Myers. Yes, he is right when railing against religion, and I like reading his mockings of singularitarians, but other than that not really. And he is very snarky at people disagreeing with him on any issue more or less.

Richard Carrier is a mixed bag. I remember first seeing him in the movie The God Who Wasn't There (should be watched as entertainment, not education) and he came across as intelligent and well-read. He has written some very good material at Internet Infidels. I do disagree with him on morality (he is a moral realist). His fetishism for Jesus mythicism is slightly annoying. His involvement is atheism+ is a huge letdown.

 

[WillyWonka]

That's a good point. I myself am not a far leftists, so I have very little sympathy for such people. I'm for gender equality of course, but I wouldn't call myself a feminist because that term is associated with so much nuttery (at least here in Sweden). I'm also not opposed to capitalism and the market economy, quite the opposite in fact (without going too far in that direction). I also think Noam Chomsky's ideas on how to organize society are completely unrealistic.

I would call myself a feminist and I am a guy. In my area of work, 30 years ago, most scientists were male, but with time it changed. I mentored a few women, promoted them and I am happy to that my research group is pretty even, gender wise. Half of the chiefs (level -1 executives) are women, really, really smart women (the other half are really really smart men). It is harder on women still, but with hte right support, they flourish. They get great support (in Canada they get 1 year paid mat leave, etc), and I find that they are more loyal employees. (I probably done more for women than A+, but since I do not have a blog, and sell t-shirts, I guess it does not count)

 

[Hokulele]

(I probably done more for women than A+, but since I do not have a blog, and sell t-shirts, I guess it does not count)

Nah, it's because you still leave the seat up.

 

[rustypouch]

I've no problem with accepting that achievement may often be purely a result of opportunity, but I wouldn't then try to layer biological determinism on top of that. When trying to reason from desired conclusions, it's a good idea to fix it up to look as if you went the other way, like walking backwards through the snow.

There's no doubt that someone's achievements can be greatly affected by the environment they're born into, and the opportunities they have.

I agree with your assessment.

I'm still just trying to wrap my head around some A+ thinking. According to some of them, I'm suspicious and untrustworthy because some people who have similar physical characteristics to me did bad things before I was born. I'm expected to take the blame for this, but can't feel proud about good things done by similar people...

 

[Humes fork]

I would call myself a feminist and I am a guy. In my area of work, 30 years ago, most scientists were male, but with time it changed. I mentored a few women, promoted them and I am happy to that my research group is pretty even, gender wise. Half of the chiefs (level -1 executives) are women, really, really smart women (the other half are really really smart men). It is harder on women still, but with hte right support, they flourish. They get great support (in Canada they get 1 year paid mat leave, etc), and I find that they are more loyal employees. (I probably done more for women than A+, but since I do not have a blog, and sell t-shirts, I guess it does not count)

I don't really object to that. However, in Sweden feminists have suggested a male tax, one of the said that the same gender structures exist in Sweden as in Afghanistan under the Taliban. And of course the widespread meme that genders are just social constructs.

 

[WillyWonka]

I don't really object to that. However, in Sweden feminists have suggested a male tax, one of the said that the same gender structures exist in Sweden as in Afghanistan under the Taliban. And of course the widespread meme that genders are just social constructs.

When I said feminist, I mean supporting women to obtain and maintain equality and to remove historical barriers. For example, providing support not only to smart women but also providing support for teenage mothers, women in abusing relationship, removing stigma for women taking time to raise their children, etc. I hired women that few managers would look at, and I was never wrong. I fought other managers telling me not to hire middle age women. I was never disappointed.

The type of feminists you mention are so radical that they get very little support, and mostly in academia, or it radfem groups. They are never taken very seriously.

 

[westprog]

I'm still just trying to wrap my head around some A+ thinking. According to some of them, I'm suspicious and untrustworthy because some people who have similar physical characteristics to me did bad things before I was born. I'm expected to take the blame for this, but can't feel proud about good things done by similar people...

Part of the problem with the "privilege" doctrine is that it involves well-off, well-educated people telling those a lote worse off than they are that they should be ashamed of their background, and simultaneously grateful to be so lucky as the dominant force of society, even if they personally happen to be unemployed and homeless.

 

[Paulhoff]

Nah, it's because you still leave the seat up.

You can put the seat down on your way down.


Paul

 

[Axiom_Blade]

To prove that being a highly-educated atheist doesn't mean you can't be an idiot at the same time?

No, I meant "What's his point?" What caused him to make this comment in the first place? It seems like he thinks that there's a grain of truth to it, but when you examine his "evidence", it's either flimsy or bogus. (A commenter debunks his 1-in-4-women-raped myth, and he responds irrationally, like a 9-11 Truther.) But even he admits that he's mostly trying to get a rise out of people, and he's not terribly interested in defending the whole thing.

This allows quite a bit of equivocation. If somebody calls him on his BS, he can say "Gotcha! You're taking it all too seriously!" So, how much of it is serious, and how much hyperbole?

I would be interested to see in what context the comment was made (i.e. the panel discussion).

A waste of time for sure but these people are serious. As serious as cancer.

I try not to underestimate people, but the worst A+ has done, so far, is irritate people on the Internet. For crimes against humanity, that ranks pretty low.

(Okay, they may have irritated some people in person, too. Fortunately, I have not had to experience that, yet. Perhaps that is part of my privilege? I apologize in advance for any victims of A+ that may have been offended by this comment.)