Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[westprog]

So Pharyngula has a lengthy post about Atheism Plus following some sort of Google+ discussion. The blog post includes this exchange (PZ Myers' response in bold text):



http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/27/following-up-on-last-nights-atheism-discussion/

"We get that a lot, people who say we accuse anyone who doesn't agree with us of misogyny. That's because they are misogynists!"

I don't use gender slurs, I have never heard comedian Jim Jeffries and I have no real strong opinions on feminists. But apparently the crime of thinking that this Atheism+ thing is half-baked and embarrassing (just like "brights" - see, I can criticize old white men too! Oh wait, PZ Myers is what?) makes me a torrid hater of women.

Vive le révolution?

One little thing that I find bizarre is the word chiefly used to describe the opposition. The word has a specific meaning - it's a container for fluid used to clean women's genitalia. Using the word as an insult has an obvious implication - that women's genitals are a particularly disgusting thing, to the extent that anything in contact with them is loathsome.

I'm not the language police, and I don't feel the need to tell other people what they should or shouldn't say. The word is not one that I would usually use, and I certainly would consider that it's something that most women I know would find somewhat offensive. Yet for some reason, it's almost a rallying cry for A+.

If you have a movement which has as its raison d'etre the ethical treatment of women, and which demands that language be purged of words and phrases that denigrate women, to use this particular term as a designation for ones opponents seems to reflect a complete confusion as to what they want.

 

[Walter Ego]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/27/following-up-on-last-nights-atheism-discussion/

"We get that a lot, people who say we accuse anyone who doesn't agree with us of misogyny. That's because they are misogynists!"

I don't use gender slurs, I have never heard comedian Jim Jeffries and I have no real strong opinions on feminists. But apparently the crime of thinking that this Atheism+ thing is half-baked and embarrassing (just like "brights" - see, I can criticize old white men too! Oh wait, PZ Myers is what?) makes me a torrid hater of women.

Vive le révolution?

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists misogynists.

 

[jt512]

So Pharyngula has a lengthy post about Atheism Plus following some sort of Google+ discussion. The blog post includes this exchange (PZ Myers' response in bold text):

'My whole point is that not everyone dismissed as a “misogynist” or “hate and rage filled *******” by the Atheism+ crowd is actually anything of the kind.'

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/27/following-up-on-last-nights-atheism-discussion/

"We get that a lot, people who say we accuse anyone who doesn't agree with us of misogyny. That's because they are misogynists!"

I don't use gender slurs, I have never heard comedian Jim Jeffries and I have no real strong opinions on feminists. But apparently the crime of thinking that this Atheism+ thing is half-baked and embarrassing (just like "brights" - see, I can criticize old white men too! Oh wait, PZ Myers is what?) makes me a torrid hater of women.

Vive le révolution?

You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.

Walter Ego makes the same mistake: "You are either with us or you are with the misogynists."

Jay

 

[The Big Dog]

You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.

Walter Ego makes the same mistake: "You are either with us or you are with the misogynists."

"Jay

No they are not. Not even remotely. To someone stating this:

"Sometimes that kind of response is aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with them, rather than the genuine trolls who are sending threats and abuse."

PZ states this:

"It’s just those uppity, aggressive, rude feminist women that they think need to be raped into submission.

And that’s you, guy. And it’s all those other anti-feminists who turn apoplectic with fury whenever the issue of treating women as diverse human beings with personalities and intellectual interests and ambitious goals beyond worshipping your penis is brought up."

So "a guy" states that PZ's baseless accusations of misogyny are sometimes aimed at people who simply have a reasonable disagreement with him and PZ states that the guy wants to "rape women into submission."

OK PZ, nice apoplectic fury there, sport.

By the way, he is the worst writer I have ever seen.

 

[qayak]

You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.

Walter Ego makes the same mistake: "You are either with us or you are with the misogynists."

Jay

Of course Myers is dismissing Squealpiggy and anyone else who disagrees with his clique out of hand.

The A+ crowd hasn't addressed any of the issues people bring up, they simply lump them all together as misogynists and therefore not worth addressing.

By definition, people who are truly interested in skepticism would address issues, ie.- logical fallacies, in their arguments. This crowd doesn't. In their narcissistic view, their work is so important that anyone disagreeing with them is the enemy, to be attacked instinctively and without thought.

 

[franklinveaux]

That's the pernicious side of the privilege concept. It presupposes that rather than groups having various privileges, that there's a simple hierarchy, and that the people on top of the hierarchy inherently cannot be disadvantaged in any way, and particularly not by their classification.

Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. There is not a single "privilege," nor a single hierarchy of privilege; instead, it takes the form of a complex set of overlapping advantages that give members of some groups an advantage over members of another group in ways that can change according to context.

For example, men generally have a lot of advantages over women in many jobs; it's no accident that women make up 50% of the population but a single-digit percentage of CEOs at large companies. A black man might have an advantage over a white woman if they're both seeking a job at an auto mechanic, whereas a white man might have an advantage over both. On the other hand, a woman has an advantage over a man when seeking custody of children in child court.

The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.

 

[Myriad]

Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. There is not a single "privilege," nor a single hierarchy of privilege; instead, it takes the form of a complex set of overlapping advantages that give members of some groups an advantage over members of another group in ways that can change according to context.

For example, men generally have a lot of advantages over women in many jobs; it's no accident that women make up 50% of the population but a single-digit percentage of CEOs at large companies. A black man might have an advantage over a white woman if they're both seeking a job at an auto mechanic, whereas a white man might have an advantage over both. On the other hand, a woman has an advantage over a man when seeking custody of children in child court.

The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.

Okay. Who has the privilege when commenting on an Internet forum or socializing at a conference? Because so far all the recent discussion of privilege in the atheist community has been completely focused on those two contexts.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[qayak]

... much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.

Ummm, no. That one's true.

 

[bpesta22]

The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.

Seems to me that feminists 10:1 use it to mean the simple hierarchy-- esp when dismissing what someone says because of his protected class status.

 

[westprog]

Actually, that's entirely untrue. Privilege is a lot more complex than that. There is not a single "privilege," nor a single hierarchy of privilege; instead, it takes the form of a complex set of overlapping advantages that give members of some groups an advantage over members of another group in ways that can change according to context.

For example, men generally have a lot of advantages over women in many jobs; it's no accident that women make up 50% of the population but a single-digit percentage of CEOs at large companies. A black man might have an advantage over a white woman if they're both seeking a job at an auto mechanic, whereas a white man might have an advantage over both. On the other hand, a woman has an advantage over a man when seeking custody of children in child court.

The idea that privilege is presented as a simple hierarchy is a straw man invented by people opposed to the idea of privilege, much as the idea that atheists are immoral hedonists is a fabrication of religious people.

And privilege is never presented as a hierarchy? It's always a straw man?

This wasn't plucked out of the air. The quote was

"@TimNeale65 mens rights are for the most part already assured. Campaigning for them usually means, in reality, campaigning against women"

I agree with your definition of privilege. I think in that form it can be useful. However, the idea that it's never used in a hierarchical sense, and that it's a pure strawman doesn't seem to be supported by quotes like the above.

I've noticed that it's fairly easy to find lists of male privilege and white privilege. Finding lists comparing gender privileges is a bit harder. Female privilege, if mentioned, is parenthesized or assumed to be comparatively trivial, almost by definition.

Of course there are sites, books and lists that attempt to provide a non-hierarchical definition of privilege. However, I would suggest that not only are they not the only point of view, they are in fact a minority.

 

[franklinveaux]

Okay. Who has the privilege when commenting on an Internet forum or socializing at a conference? Because so far all the recent discussion of privilege in the atheist community has been completely focused on those two contexts.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats. It's rare in the extreme that women who say something controversial on an Internet forum don't.

Part of the sneaky thing about privilege is that it tends to be invisible to folks who have it. It is easy for men to shrug and say "Well, that's just trolls being trolls" when women receive rape threats, because men don't live in a world where the odds are in the double digits that they will be raped. It's common for Internet trolls to issue death threats, but we shrug them off because it's so astonishingly rare that anyone follows through on one. If we lived in a world where 17% or so of people who'd ever received a death threat were actually murdered, we might have a different attitude about it.

Similarly, in social settings, men don't have the awareness that they can be assaulted in the same way women do. A lot of folks wrongly claim "oh, all these feminists are saying that all men are rapists!" when the reality is very different: they're saying that NOT all men are rapists, but rapists don't wear special hats or have an insignia tattooed on them, so there's no way to tell who is the potential threat and who isn't.

All of that can be really tough to grok when you're a guy; it's a bit like trying to see your own back, or trying to see the air you live in.

It still surprises me, though, that more men don't pay attention to what women say when women talk about these things. I mean, even if you're a totally narcissistic, self-absorbed sociopath with absolutely no empathy or remorse whatsoever, it would still make sense to listen to the women who talk about social environments that make them uncomfortable, because at a fundamental level these women are telling you how to approach them successfully, and what approaches aren't going to be successful.

Of course, if that's the only reason someone listens, that person is likely a horrible human being, but still. I don't get the OMG defensive reaction.

I agree with your definition of privilege. I think in that form it can be useful. However, the idea that it's never used in a hierarchical sense, and that it's a pure strawman doesn't seem to be supported by quotes like the above.

The quote doesn't necessarily imply that privilege is a simple hierarchy. Even given the overlapping nature of privilege, it's still pretty plain to me that straight white cisgendered men have more than the lion's share of advantages. While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.

 

[westprog]

The quote doesn't necessarily imply that privilege is a simple hierarchy. Even given the overlapping nature of privilege, it's still pretty plain to me that straight white cisgendered men have more than the lion's share of advantages. While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.

It might be the case that men, in general, in society, are advantaged over women as a whole. However, if one is to take that seriously, it's necessary to look in prisons as well as boardrooms, to look at life expectancy, to look at healthcare, to look at suicide.

In fact, I suggest that the same criteria which are used to evaluate racial privilege should be applied to evaluate gender privilege. If whites live longer than blacks and hispanics, are less likely to be in prison, are viewed with less suspicion by the police - we don't dismiss this form of privilege. When comparing men and women we tend to do so.

In fact, for much of the disadvantage suffered by black men in western society, one could strike out black and many of the statements would remain valid - just to a lesser extent.

Yes, women are far more likely to suffer threats of violence on internet forums. That's disgusting and wrong, and should not be tolerated. However, men are far more likely to suffer actual violence, in the real world. An honest evaluation of women's status in society would take account of both facts.

 

[Humes fork]

Don't get me wrong, I generally like Richard Carrier, despite some of his more odd ideas. Look at this post:

Atheism and skepticism should embrace diversity (and not just be a bunch of white guys reading a bunch of white guys). In fact, we should be really keen on expanding our experience and horizons in that regard, aiming to learn as much as possible, and provide resources to help all our comrades in arms.

And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors. Silly me. But I guess Richard Carrier's books are also out, given that he is such a white male.

Atheist and skeptic communities should encourage everyone to apply skeptical analysis not just to religion, pseudoscience, and woo, but to social, moral, and political policies, theories and activists.

I'm at a loss at who is against this. But what should not happen is that skeptical groups as such endorse political candidate X. Greta Christina wants skeptics to advocate a political platform, that just happens to be her personal politics. That should not happen.

Considering the history of religion and how it has even warped secular life and thought in countries around the world, atheists and skeptics should spend as much time and energy deconstructing illogical and/or inhumane secular policies and claims as they do actively fighting religiously-based interference. We have to be as critical of ourselves and each other as we would expect anyone to be of religion, so we can be sure we don’t make the same mistakes. We must police the rot within, if we are to stand strong against our foes without.

Again, I'm at a loss to who is opposed to this. If anything, alternative medicine is a secular issue.

In the field of education, atheists and skeptics should help promote courses and curricula that include logic and abstract thought rather than focusing all efforts on science. We need to train kids with a universal toolkit of skeptical and critical thinking about all issues in their lives, not just the scientific, but the social, political, and ideological as well. And we need to take seriously the effort to push for that and make it happen at the fundamental and national level.

Carrier has evidently not looked very deeply.

The comment field has idiocies of its own.

 

[Dinwar]

You've mischaracterized what PZ was saying. If you don't use gender slurs, etc, and have not been 'dismissed as a misogynist,' then he wasn't talking about you.

Considering at least one member of Atheism+ has dismissed ALL non-members as misogynists, your argument is irrelevant whether or not it's the correct interpretation.

It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats.

Really? You and I have been on different forums, then. Ever go to Xbox Live? Sure, women recieve more than their fair share, but men aren't exactly immune to it, nor is it rare by any means (I'd go so far as to say that it's the major form of communication, in fact). It's just that in our culture what counts as a rape threat when directed towards a woman counts as nothing more than harmless banter when thrown at men.

If you examine what's said, rather than the reaction to it, you'll find that jackasses are jackasses no matter their audience. It's our culture, not the speaker, that treats genders differently.

Even given the overlapping nature of privilege, it's still pretty plain to me that straight white cisgendered men have more than the lion's share of advantages. While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.

Maybe. In this context, so what? I don't mean that we shouldn't fight for more gender equality--rather, I mean that this is utterly beside the point. The point is that Atheism+ (or at least spokespeaple of the group) is arguing that all non-members are guilty of discrimination and sexism, merely by virtue of being non-members. The nature of sexism in today's society is a non-issue here; the issue is whether or not membership in a new, exclusive, divisive club that utilizes the most vicious rhetoric they can come up with is the only way to demonstrate that one is not a sexist pig. I hold that the views Atheism+ holds are insane, and the product of magical thinking.

 

[Dinwar]

And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors.

That's really the heart of my view on gender and race equality. To make the races and genders equal you IGNORE THEM. Feminism and the modern way of dealing with race in the USA do the opposite--they force these traits into the forefront and demand that we consider them to be of overwhelming importance. It's not enough that a speaker be wise--they also have to be of hte right skin color. It's not enough that they present a logical argument--they have to have the right plumbing.

To do the opposite of a thing is to be controlled by the thing. You don't eliminate a privilaged class by making another class privilaged. You eliminate it by ignoring classes entirely.

In the field of education, atheists and skeptics should help promote courses and curricula that include logic and abstract thought rather than focusing all efforts on science. We need to train kids with a universal toolkit of skeptical and critical thinking about all issues in their lives, not just the scientific, but the social, political, and ideological as well. And we need to take seriously the effort to push for that and make it happen at the fundamental and national level.

It's astounding how often people who start by saying "We need to look critically at social, political, and economic issues" end by saying "People need to agree with me in order to be rational." Not that this disproves his point--of course it's a good idea to examine all aspects of life logically and rationally--I'm just saying that this sends up all sorts of warning flags in my mind.

 

[westprog]

Don't get me wrong, I generally like Richard Carrier, despite some of his more odd ideas. Look at this post:



And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors. Silly me. But I guess Richard Carrier's books are also out, given that he is such a white male.



I'm at a loss at who is against this. But what should not happen is that skeptical groups as such endorse political candidate X. Greta Christina wants skeptics to advocate a political platform, that just happens to be her personal politics. That should not happen.



Again, I'm at a loss to who is opposed to this. If anything, alternative medicine is a secular issue.



Carrier has evidently not looked very deeply.

The comment field has idiocies of its own.

On the face of it, teaching critical thinking and scepticism seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, it's important to know what words mean in practice. Are children to be taught a methodology which they can apply for themselves, or are they to be tested according to the conclusions they arrive at? I get a strong impression from reading Carrier that there are right and wrong answers to certain societal questions, and that people who don't arrive at the correct answers can be assumed to have not applied critical thinking - and those who have the correct answers can be assumed to have somehow reasoned correctly. This certainly seems to pervade the Atheism Plus discussions. Critical thinking to be judged on results.

 

[qayak]

And I who thought the books of Sagan, Dawkins, Shermer etc were judged on their merits, and not on the skin color and gender of the authors. Silly me. But I guess Richard Carrier's books are also out, given that he is such a white male.

With the exception of Carrier's books, there is money to be made. Double if you are black and female.

Just rewrite all these bestsellers and members of A+ will be morally obligated to buy them to get your perspective based on race and gender.

 

[lopeyschools]

While we may not have every privilege, going through life as a straight white cisgenered man is still playing the game on the easiest possible setting.

I also play with the cheat codes: born into stable western democracy and born into middle-class family.

 

[westprog]

I also play with the cheat codes: born into stable western democracy and born into middle-class family.

Being born in a Western democracy into a middle-class family is like having the easiest settings. Being white, hetero and male is like having lottery tickets. You have more lottery tickets than black, gay, female, but there's no guarantee they'll come up. She might only have one ticket, but if it wins, she gets the prizes.

That's not to say that an uneducated poor white guy from a broken home with family members in prison and on drugs doesn't have any privilege - but most of it was in those lottery tickets, and if they don't come up, they're just waste paper. Taunting someone in that situation with all the CEO's who look just like him isn't really any consolation.

 

[Myriad]

It's rare in the extreme that men commenting on an Internet forum who say something controversial receive rape threats. It's rare in the extreme that women who say something controversial on an Internet forum don't.

I did expect that answer, and of course it's absolutely correct. However, those rape threats are pretty darned rare here, right? Direct threats will get you banned; indirect "teasing" will be infracted as personal attacks (and get you banned if you persist); and the forum has registration procedures that make banning mean something.

Of course that's not true elsewhere. That's one major reason I choose to post here almost exclusively. In that way, voluntarily, I give up whatever gender-based posting privilege I have. Privilege problem erased -- unless someone can persuade me that I have sort of moral responsibility to go clean up YouTube or somebody else's blog.

There is an argument out there that attempts to do exactly that, under the guise of not "blaming the victim." It claims that if I don't regard YouTube comment threads as my problem, that could imply that I'm blaming women and girls who do participate in YouTube comment threads, or Tweeter or Deface-A-Book or whatever the kids are into nowadays, for the pain they suffer when they get threatened or verbally abused there.

But I don't. I blame the people who threaten and verbally abuse people in those channels.

But there's not much I can do about them. I can lay a mean verbal smackdown, but scolding trolls is worse than ineffective. I could help FtB fix their broken culture e.g. by setting up rule-based and evidence-based moderation, but I'm pretty certain they don't want that. I could urge my government to enact more Internet regulation, but I doubt that would make me many friends. I could treat the women I interact with as equals, and not associate with any misogynists, but I already do that. Rape threateners are a superstitious cowardly lot, so if I dressed up as a bat... wait, no, the Wayne fortune went to somebody named Wayne instead of to me.

So, re privilege, I'm left where I started. Sure, there is such a thing and it has real effects. And if I make an argument that is invalid because of my privilege, I would expect and invite a refutation that includes an explanation of what my privilege has caused me to get wrong. (Go ahead and talk about the privilege if you wish, but the actual reason I'm wrong will be of more interest to me.) On the other hand, saying I'm wrong because of my privilege, without such an argument, is fallacious.

(I realize there was more to your post that I haven't addressed yet, but it's getting late.)

Respectfully,
Myriad