Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[tsig]

Your comments were rightly rebutted IMO. It looked like the same things you've been saying in this thread that, to me, seemed to make no sense. "You're acting morally superior by posting that", "you should've posted scientific evidence for your decision not to eat meat", etc (paraphrasing).

There were a lot of veg-positive posts in the thread from non-vegetarians. And PZ as well as some others seemed to be emphasizing the "this is just my choice, I'm not saying meat eaters are bad, blah blah.." message. Things PZ would never say with respect to social justice issues. So it'll be interesting to see if it evolves any further. I'm skeptical that it will, but it's certainly possible.

Lots of people seem to have this inability to understand anything that disagrees with their viewpoint.

 

[Meed]

You've yet to provide any counter-arguments.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No, you can't.

Plus, I don't believe that was even stated.



Cite? Or are you just throwing the vegetarianism thing in as a hypothetical?



I doubt it just because I don't think the majority of pharyngulites (or the majority of SJWs in general) are vegetarians. And many of them have been known to complain about vegetarian talk triggering their eating disorders or that it's impossible for someone with their income/mental condition/whatever.

I think you need to see the thread they started in November at A+. The "don't erase me" drama llama is in there sounding reasonable. No wild accusations and no threats of banning. A year ago, they ran a vegan out of town on a rail. And, as I mentioned, this was prior to PZ's blog on the subject, but I believe it was after Ste. Greta's blog on her one-month trial, so I think it has to do with what their "leaders" espouse.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A little background is helpful. One of the comments on PZ’s announcement was a link to the blog The Academic Abolitionist Vegan. I noticed it has a badge in the corner for A+. Animal people can be divided between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights. Vegans generally fall under Animal Rights because they want more than just better treatment of animals. This is where there is a division between New Welfarists and Abolitionists. New Welfarists are basically all the animal groups you may have heard of (PETA, HSUS, etc.). They believe that stopping animal use involves welfare and single issue campaigns to make slow progress. Abolitionists believe these campaigns are self-contradictory and do more harm than good, and advocating 100% veganism all the time is the way to go. Gary Francione is an infamous Abolitionist character, whose animal philosophy is top-notch but has the misfortune of being a divisive prick. This bog as a whole is very much in line with Francione's feminist critiques and general antagonism to the main groups.

With that background out of the way, onto the A+ stuff:

On the matter of whether men can be feminists:

So here's the thing...men can't be feminists. Sorry. To be feminist is to be a woman fighting for female equality. Men who go up in arms over this fact are demonstrating their need to be in control, included, and privileged--they are demonstrating patriarchy. Sorry, you will have to relinquish control on this one. On the other hand, men can absolutely be allies.

…

2. If you are attending an event or otherwise participating in a project that is led mostly by men (which is especially strange given our movement is 80% women), demand to know where the women are and refuse to participate until women are included. This issue also happens in the atheist/skeptic movement, and feminists and their allies have been very successful in pressuring event organizers into improving their gender ratios.

3. NEVER, EVER, EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE USE THE "REVERSE SEXISM" CARD. Because guess what, women--who are an oppressed group living under a patriarchy that privileges men--cannot, by the very nature of their social status, wield sexism against men. Calling a woman sexist is intended to redirect attention from men--a privileged group that typically goes completely unexamined--to women. It's a tactic intended to divert focus from the oppressor to the oppressed. It is a tactic intended to silence. Don't do it.

4. DON'T MANSPLAIN. You don't know more about women's issues than women. You don't, sorry. I can't tell you the number of debates I've been sucked into with so called "feminist" male vegans who feel they are more knowledgeable about female oppression (things like rape) and that my personal experiences as a woman (and my personal experiences with rape) have been completely dismissed and devalued. Don't mansplain--it's not helpful, it's oppressive. Men cannot have the final say on everything...especially when it comes to women.

6. LISTEN. Again, you don't know what it's like to be a woman (unless you are transgender, perhaps...sorry to speak in binaries). Just as white people can never fully understand what it's like to be a person of color, a man can never fully understand what it's like to be a woman. It's condescending and unhelpful for a white person to presume to have all the answers about challenges people of color face...and guess what, the same goes for men who think they've got the female experience all figured out. Listen to women--try to understand where they are coming from, what problems they face, and what solutions they seek. When we want your opinion, we'll ask for it...because guess what, in a patriarchy, it's men's opinions all day every day. Give us a break and listen for a change! Oh, and doing some reading on feminist issues wouldn't hurt either.

7. DON'T GASLIGHT. A common tool of oppression against women is gaslighting--it is a tactic intended to make a woman doubt her reality and experiences. If a woman claims she experienced sexism in a forum, for instance, and you tell her she's making something out of nothing--that's gaslighting. Trying to make a woman feel "crazy" or appear "crazy" to others is a means of disempowering and controlling her. Don't do it.

Linky.

These are the old A+ rules that we are familiar with, and we all know how absurd conversations can get when trying to follow them (Francione has a hilarious quip further down). Number 7 finally gives a definition of “gaslighting”, and it is basically that you literally can’t disagree when someone interprets something as sexist, racist, etc.

The thing that will spark further debate is the very first claim, that men can’t be feminists.

Want an example of sexism in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement? Check out Kim Stallwood's discussion of Margaret Thatcher's death:

For those who can't read the image, it states: "The Wicked Witch is Dead!" (in reference to Thatcher) and links to a clip from The Wizard of Oz where the townsfolk cheer and sing in the streets when a woman is crushed to death.

Here we have one of the most prominent male leaders in our movement hurling a gendered pejorative at a woman and celebrating her harm. If you haven't done so already, check out this discussion on how men of our movement can be effective allies. My prediction is that no one will comment on his offending tweet, and he will continue on about his day having successfully engaged sexist behavior and will continue to do it in the future. We live in a world where violence against women is real and at epidemic levels...a world where that violence is condoned and trivialized. When you stay silent, women suffer. Speak out.

Linky.

Well, check out these comments I received from male readers who insist on dismantling my feminist critique...because, well, they're men and that's their entitlement. The first can be summarized with:
"Why can't men who fight for female equality be considered feminists?"
Simple really, men aren't women. I explain further in my essay, Men of the Animal Rights Movement: How to be a Vegan Feminist Ally. When a man challenges a feminist who defines feminism as female territory and that man demands being considered a feminist, this is evidence of patriarchal control, co-optation, domination, colonization, and a general lack of feminist understanding. Read more from this short essay from the National Organization for Men against Sexism:

...

In regards to the sexist tweets popping up from Kim Stallwood on April 12th, I received comments from yet another man (in addition to the harassment on Twitter I received over the weekend) who felt the need to invalidate the offense I took:
While use of sexist pejoratives is problematic, it's an overstatement to suggest, from Stallwood's tweet, that his remarks about Thatcher is an instance of "celebrating harm against women"--that isn't accurate. Celebrating the death of a bad public figure, who happens to be a woman, isn't the same as celebrating the death of a bad public figure *because* she's a woman. (For the record: I don't think we should be celebrating the deaths of monsters, but that's a different issue).
Classic patriarchal silencing technique: Calm down lady! You're overreacting!

If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times...men, you do not have the privilege of defining and verifying sexism.

The offending tweets can basically be summarized as such: "DING DONG THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!" This is a pejorative against women embedded in a celebration of harm against a woman embedded in a society that trivializes and often condones violence against women. Folks, I don't know how I can make this any clearer...this is sexism...and the cybermobbing I received after pointing this out only reinforces how incredibly sexist the whole affair is.

Insulting a person of color using racial insults and then celebrating harm against them is racist.

Insulting an LBGT individual using sexually oriented insults and then celebrating harm against them is heterosexist.

Insulting a woman using gendered insults and then celebrating harm against them is sexist.

Linky.

First, Francione states:
There are some "radical" feminists who claim that men cannot be feminists. I believe that is wrong and that is sexist.




Many feminists insist that men can't be feminists (and the National Organization for Men against Sexism agrees). To be feminist is to be a self-identified woman fighting for female equality. To be a feminist requires a direct experience of gender oppression, because it is this unique experience as a member of the targeted group that will inform activism. Men who become disgruntled with this definition and demand inclusion only underscore the ubiquitousness of male privilege. When men reassert their entitlement, they are demonstrating their need to be in control and they are demonstrating patriarchy. While men can never fully remove themselves from the privileges of their gender, men can absolutely be allies. But any man who insists on being included and insults those feminists who deny him inclusion demonstrates a complete inability to recognize his unchecked male entitlement and has no business being considered a feminist in the first place. We really don't give a crap whether you, aman, think its wrong...and the fact that you consider it "sexist" to be excluded illustrates how little you understand the meaning of sexism.

Women--who are an oppressed group living under a patriarchy that privileges men--cannot, by the very nature of their social status, wield sexism against men. Calling a woman sexist (or, worse, a "misandrist") is intended to redirect attention from men--a privileged group that typically goes completely unexamined--to women. It is a tactic intended to divert focus from the oppressor to the oppressed. It is a tactic intended to silence and maintain male entitlement and privilege.

…

Very professionally, Francione responds to his rightfully deserved criticisms by either deleting them, blocking critics from his page, or calling their position "********":
The notion that a man can't be a feminist is complete, unadulterated ********, and I mean no offense to bulls. The idea that membership in *any*group is determined by biology is, to put it plainly, also ********. And again, I mean no offense to bulls.
Feminism is based on gender, not biology. Gender is a much different concept than sex--gender implies socially constructed roles, expectations, and treatments. Gender is about experience. And, I'm sorry Gary, you neither have a vagina or the experience of living as a self-identified woman.

Linky.

OK. SO, WHAT'S THE TAKE HOME MESSAGE HERE?

Women, be grateful to these highly rational and intelligent men who have figured out feminism for us and so kindly explain it to us over and over. Just be quiet and follow their lead, otherwise, you are a bigoted, ignorant, misandrist. Remember,men lead this movement comprised of 80% women, men define feminism, and if you find that odd, you're simply a sexist.

NOW FOR THE REAL TAKE HOME MESSAGE:

Men, LISTEN AND LEARN. SPEAK LESS, LISTEN MORE. Listen to our experiences, stop shoving your entitlement down our throats. Read some more. Subscribe to some feminist-focused blogs like Bitch, Feminspire, Feminist Current, Manboobz (written by a man), Skepchick, and Jezebel. Better yet, take a gender class if you are a student...or simply check out some books on feminism. This movement is 80% women, and we're suffering. Do your duty to make this space safe for women. Because while we suffer, Nonhuman Animalslanguish...and we need to be strong and focused for them.

On that note, where are the male allies? Where are you? I don't hear you? I don't see you, either. If you consider yourself an ally and you are remaining silent in the face of this sexist backlash, you're not doing your job right.

Linky.

On that note, this week I wrote about how feminism is inherently a female space. This space can (and should) be welcoming to men, but it shouldn't necessarilybe, and it most certainly shouldn't be because men demand it. I received quite a few messages from men who felt the need to define feminism to me and demand to be included. The irony is apparently lost on these people. Mansplaining feminism to women is absolutely ridiculous, and at this point, nothing short of insulting. These comments will not be published, unless they are so heinous I feel they warrant a public shaming. Seriously, nothing can be more condescending than a man defining feminism to a woman and insisting on having control over her experiences, her activism, and her space. Gross.

Linky.

Here's the thing: as a woman, I do not have the luxury of simply turning the other cheek and ignoring the "negative." I am enduring sustained and escalating abuse from influential men in this movement. To suggest I shush up and focus on vegan potlucks is a clear demonstration of male privilege--a complete cluelessness to gender-based discrimination and intimidation in a patriarchal society that is both demeaning and dangerous for women.

This is why I believe men cannot be feminists. For the most part, men have limited understanding of what women experience. Subsequently, many don't take our experiences seriously (and when they do take them seriously, it's at their convenience, because it's not their lived experience). The result is that many men lack the necessary expertise to deal with the issues effectively. Instead, self-identified women are insulted with suggestions that we simply shake off our harassment and go host a potluck.

I don't agree that men can be feminists, but men can and should be allies. Men, you either stand with us, or you stand idle and facilitate oppression. You either get loud against injustice, or you insinuate that women shut up and sit down.

This isn't about divisiveness or negativity, it's about my right to be treated like a person and my right to have a safe space in this movement. I am being victimized, and men tell me to "stop making our movement look bad" by speaking out against my victimization. Self-identified women are being hurt, women are being abused, women are being thrown under the bus..."for the cause." Is this not a movement to end suffering, violence, and oppression?

Linky.

Who decides who is a feminist? I don’t know, but I do know that the answer isn’t as obvious as some might think.

For example, I know that when men claim to be feminists there immediately exists the danger that, because of the inherent power and privilege that accompanies being a male (particularly a white male) in Western society, men will tend to assume authority over feminism and the feminist movement. An example of such danger would be when a white male, who holds a position of some stature and respect within the academic community, proclaims who is or is not a feminist, according to standards he himself has articulated, when such standards conform only to his own peculiar ideology. Obviously, women may rightfully take exception to such a man’s proclamations, wondering exactly what in his experience gives him the authority to tell them who and what they are.

What in any man’s experience can prepare him to be a feminist? I don’t know that either. But I do know that no man can understand what it’s like to be a woman in Western society, just as no human can know what it’s like to be a bat. It’s simply not the case that any man can understand “from the inside” what the experience of being female is like, and what the experience of living as a woman in patriarchal society is like.

R. W. Connell has written extensively about “hegemonic masculinity” and how males in Western societies must always measure themselves against the image of the quintessential male – think “Marlboro Man” plus “James Bond” plus the Brady Bunch’s “Mike Brady” and you’ll be on the right track. Men of color, men with disabilities, gay men, and other men who don’t fit the stereotypical image of a “real man” navigate life constantly aware of how they aren’t what society has determined that they ought to be. But no matter what, men are still men, and all men, even those who deviate most from the “hegemonic” ideal, still benefit from the power and privilege of patriarchy. A man, in the Western world, is still a man, after all.

Whatever men may think of themselves, whether they call themselves feminists, or think of themselves as “profeminist”, or simply as supportive of women who are feminists, men can never escape the fact that, however much they may empathize with the women’s movement they can never truly walk in a women’s shoes. Perhaps one doesn’t have to be a women in order to be a feminist, but how can anyone who hasn’t felt the sting of prejudice understand what it is to be discriminated against? How can men know what it’s like to a woman?

As I said, I don’t know. But I do know that any man who claims to be a feminist would do well to know that he can only make that claim humbly and with deference to those who have lived with and struggled against an oppression that he can only think about. He will not pretend to know more than women know, he will not use the very power and privilege of patriarchy to perpetuate that which he claims to be against.

Who decides who is a feminist? Perhaps no one does, and we only know one when we see one.

Linky.

1. If you are a man, we don't care what your opinion on having children is.

2. If you are a man and you don't have children and have not adopted yourself, please spare us your preaching on the how, when, why, and who of raising children.

3. Women's bodies are women's bodies; it is women's business. A vegan uterus is still a uterus, and therefore not of men's concern.

4. Privileged white vegan Western men's insistence on speaking for and about women is indicative of their sense of entitlement to be the end-all-be-all voice on every single topic (even when it is completely out of their jurisdiction) in a movement comprised of 80% women.

5. The hooplah about vegan baby-making boils down to blaming women, blaming poor people, and imposing white, male, Western control on vulnerable populations. Rich nations are actually experiencing stagnating or decreasing birth rates. Population growth is happening in areas of the world where women have few rights and limited access to education and health services. This isn't an issue of loose women and irrational child-bearing, it's an issue of global inequality created by and exacerbated by rich nations that have been exploiting the third world for centuries.

6. Individualizing child-bearing reflects a neoliberal perspective. This isn't about me, you, or any other one person/couple/family having children, this is about the profit-driven systems of inequality and exploitation. When we compress huge systemic problems into the jurisdiction of the individual, we deflect attention from those systems that are to blame, and put all responsibility on the individual. Just like feminism isn't about individual "choice" to be "sexy" or not and veganism isn't about individual "choice" to eat animal products or not, global inequality isn't about individual "choice" to have children or not. It's about recognizing systemic oppression and mobilizing a political movement to dismantle it.

6. Adoption is a privilege. It is not something that is accessible to everyone equally. If you have the means to adopt children (and Nonhuman Animals for that matter), wonderful, do so. But, children will cost over 100,000 each to raise. They also take a lot of physical and mental work, something not everyone is capable of providing. So, again, we're not really interested in what well-to-do privileged able-bodied white men have to say on the matter.

Linky.

Six Things Vegan Men Need to Stop Talking About
1. What vegan feminism is. You are a man, you don't know, and we don't care what you think you know. By all means, keep learning, but stop trying to define it for women. Let women speak for once.

2. Pregnancy, adoption, and "over population." You are a man, you don't have a uterus, patriarchy has a long history of oppressing women by controlling women's reproduction: we don't care how you think women's bodies should be controlled. Also, you don't know what you're talking about. Let women speak for once.

3. Sexism in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement (unless you are acting as an ally). Please, spare us your explanations as to why sexism isn't an issue, or that sexism is okay, or that critical vegan feminists are misandrists, or bigots, or misanthropes, or whatever. Let women speak for once.

4. Vegan dating. Women don't care who you think we should be dating, marrying, cohabiting with . . . or befriending at all for that matter. Let women speak for once.

5. Victim-blaming. Stop protecting your bros and man-idols and recognize that society, for the most part, hates women and seeks to enact violence against them. The Nonhuman Animal rights movement is no different. Stop accusing women of being "gossipers" with an "agenda," or whatever. First off, you are gross. Second, stop talking. Let women speak for once.

6. Rape. Not your area, sorry buddy. Yes, men are raped in distressingly large numbers, but rape is, for the most part, an institutionalized act of male violence on the feminine body (which is why men who are raped tend to be under the age of 13, gay, or in prison: these are "emasculated" and feminized vulnerable groups who have little social power). Anyway, it's not male-on-male rape that vegan men are talking about, they're talking about the epidemic of rape against women. Stop using our collective victimhood for your analogies and arguments. Especially when you throw us under the bus when it comes to creating a community of accountability. The men who harp about rape are the same men who are victimizing women. You're tokenizing us and it's annoying. Furthermore, lots of vegan women have already been writing about this for years. Let women speak for once.

The take home message? In the Nonhuman Animal rights movement, which is 80% female, men are doing all the talking . . . about stuff they have no business talking about. Why? Because men are used to dominating the conversation, why should the vegan movement be any different? Stop talking please, scoot over, and give us a chance.

Alternatively, here are some gendered things you can talk about and it won't bother us one bit:

Veganism and masculinity
Veganism and male rape/sexual violence
Male aggression in the Nonhuman Animal rights community
Veganism and testosterone/erectile function/sterilization
Veganism and fathering
Veganism and hair loss/hair gain
Veganism and football

Linky.

Francione essentially rebuts everything with a tweet:

FEATURED TWEET

Meta-Mansplaining: Informing a woman that she is being "sexist against men" for using the word Mansplaining
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) May 4, 2013
Example of meta-mansplaining:

For those who cannot read the image, Francione (April 27, 2013) states:
I have been accused of '"mansplaining," which, as far as I can tell, means "speaking from a perspective that refuses to acknowledge the sacred truth of biological determinism, or the notion that Margaret Thatcher or Sarah Palin has more to say about feminist values than anyone who has a penis." It's just silly and it represents hateful thinking.

Linky.

Onto post-modernism and why she is an Academic. Sociology tells her that rationalism, objectivism, rights, etc. are patriarchy. Also, a history of A+:

You are exponsing an awful argument. Of course, men can be feminists.
I've long had problems with some Francione's views, but Corey's jumped off the deep end of academia, and no longer represents feminism. She's been knee deep in post-modern thinking for years, and has let it entirely influence her views.
She no longer argues rationally, and instead utilises calls to authority or experience. If she disagrees with another female, the female is wrong for not being a gender professor. If she disagrees with a male, the male is wrong for not being female. It's really pathetic. She's become everything she used to hate, and her articles are really very badly informed. Post-modernism opposes rational discourse, and it shows.
Feminism is a very simple, rational concept, and post modernists like Corey do nothing but isolate and confuse the issue, making men and women alike think it is irrelevant. Post modernists do feminism a great disservice by making it about 'their' experience, and 'their' authority, rather than a rational cause.
There is zero evidence that men can't be feminists, unless we define feminism as some sort of badge of honour instead of a social movement for equality. Thus it is an irrational statement.
Your insults ("troll") only show that you have no arguments, only ad-hominem attacks. That´s all.

"Of course, men can be feminists," says the angry, belligerent man who makes a habit of harassing women online. Really, the statement, "There is zero evidence that men can't be feminists...," is my favorite, as the evidence is so obviously manifested as his comment.

First off, let's be clear: the definition of trolling is to stalk and harass someone on the internet and barage them with unhelpful, mean-spirited, ugly messages intended to detract from the victim's argument...or, in another definition, basically Luis's behavior in the entire time I've been familiar with his internet presence. Thanks, Luis, for calling me pathetic, badly informed, and irrational--totally lends weight to the fact that you should be considered a feminist...or anyone worth listening to in the least.

Furthermore, I'd like to know how he's aware I've been "knee-deep in postmodern thinking for years," given that he hasn't known me for years. Does he mean my sociologically-influenced Examiner articles? You know, sociology, one of several scientific disciplines that rejects the reality of post-feminism and post-racism and recognizes that true objectivity in scientific endeavors is a human impossibility. My research is informed by my female experience, just like Luis & Company's analyses are influenced by their obvious sexism (and potential misogyny).

And how does feminism equate to postmodernism? I am combating unwarranted, unwanted, ill-fitted male control over our movement. I am insisting that men (who fantasize over the myth of true objectivity) can never be the best spokespersons for women. I am saying, hey, I am a woman, and as a woman my experiences are unique, my experiences are unfairly burdened by discrimination, and I find what I experience problematic--is that so postmodern of me? Is it so postmodern of me to be sickened by the level of male backlash and harassment I have received for sharing a valid (and widely-shared) opinion? Gosh, what have they been teaching me in my
department anyway? Should I demand a refund?

Linky.

You see, the utopian dream of rationality is achieving 100% objectivity. But this dream of pure objectivity completely obscures the fact that human beings are themselves tools of measurement. Humans are products of socialization, they are prone to error and bias. The scientific method works to reduce bias, but it cannot account for how one's identity shapes the very questions we choose to ask. Neither can it assure that how we choose to research the question and how we interpret the results is done with complete objectivity. So long as the human factor is involved, there will always be bias. Feminists argue that recognizing differential socialization and privilege is a more honest approach to a scientific inquiry into social inequality. Social beings studying the social are never divorced from the social. If you can't get rid of bias, the next best thing to do is own up to it. If your tool is imperfect, you will have imperfect results. Pretending the imperfection isn't there is unprofessional, dishonest, and often dangerous.
In advocating this position, a position widely accepted within the scientific community, taught to students of science, and often required in scientific publications, I was ridiculed as "unscientific" by individuals in the group with zero scientific training themselves. Apparently being a male atheist skeptic with a few pop-science books on their shelf makes them experts on science. I disagree. I think their claim to expertise (with zero qualifications to support it) is a prop for patriarchal oppression: A means to sound important, authoritative, and wise to protect the white male position and delegitimize marginalized voices.

I will not rehash the illogical and often hateful "rationalist" arguments some vegan men are using to adulterate feminist theory, I don't think they warrant any further platform. The atheist movement itself, where much of this anti-feminist rhetoric originates, is rife with sexist claimsmaking and abusive treatment of women. A few years ago, feminists in the atheist (rational/skeptic/humanist/free-thinker) community began to speak out against the harassment they'd been enduring online and at conventions. Prominent male leaders either ignored or mocked their complaints. In response, many women and their allies created "Atheism+", where intersectionality is encouraged and social inequalities are explored through a rationalist lens.

It was not enough to dissect the role of religion in oppressing humans in general. When we operate according to generics (i.e. "humans," "humanity," or "mankind"), we more often than not default to the experience of privileged, white, heterosexual men. We need a more nuanced approach that recognizes how the white male experience is not the universal experience. Atheism+ proponents argue that the unique circumstances of marginalized experiences are largely ignored in atheist activism. As the popularity of Atheism+ increased, atheism was no longer seen as a space for men to reassert their white male superiority and mock religious people (who, by the way, are often from vulnerable non-white, non-male demographics). Atheism was now about inclusivity and compassion for at-risk populations. Needless to say, the boy's club wasn't too happy about this.

The rift in the atheist community remains. Female free-thinkers have launched new web spaces and an annual women's conference, but many men in the movement continue to belittle feminists and harass them. At this year's Women in Secularism conference, the Center for Inquiry's CEO Ron Lindsay opened the event with a speech bemoaning how feminist critique was nothing more than a means to silence men. The realities of patriarchy are completely lost on even those men supposedly in support of the feminist approach to free-thought.

The rational approach, more often than not, hides behind masculine ideology and the rhetoric of rationality to bully, intimidate, and ultimately silence women, people of color, and other vulnerable persons. As often as rationality is used to liberate, it is used to oppress and maintain inequality. Rather than prioritizing criticism and discourse, it becomes a legitimized means of stifling marginalized voices to the benefit of privileged white males.

Linky.

Here's the truth of the matter: Free speech is generally a principle reserved for persons in power to maintain their power. Straight, white, able-bodied men have free speech. Heck, censor them on the Republic of Facebook, their speech will continue on in movies, television shows, music, radio, legislative floors, courtrooms, churches, and every other public space where speech takes place. Free speech is on the books, but in actual practice, not everyone enjoys that right equally.

Patriarchy has legalized child pornography. Patriarchy has legalized adult pornography (which involves the actual rape and abuse of women). Men's right to "free speech" trumps the actual, real life crimes against children and women, as though the violence they endure is somehow abstract. The whole basis of rights is to protect your freedom, so long as it does not impose on the freedom of others, because then their rights have been impeded. I suppose that if pornography targeted men to the benefit of women, we would suddenly take issue with the pornographer's right to "free speech" trumping the victim's right to bodily integrity and safety.

…

Under a patriarchy, men have the right to violently rape women on camera, mass produce the images, profit from them, and masturbate to them. Violating these women is considered "free speech," but I cannot walk into the woods behind my house and scream, or sing, or even talk loudly . . . if men should interpret that as my attempt to "harass them." Please don't harass the hunters, but by all means, rape children on camera. Free speech is upheld when it protects male supremacy and patriarchal oppression, otherwise it is liable to get lost in a loophole.

Vegans for Reason and Science sit back and gleefully provoke bigotry on their page, defend disableist comments, and then declare "free speech" as though free speech means free from criticism. I don't think so, buddy. It doesn't work that way. "Rights" are a patriarchal creation, just as science: They are institutions designed to uphold male supremacy and legitimize oppression. Surely, if used appropriately and fairly, free speech and science can liberate. More often, the people of privilege who dominate the fields of "rationality" forget that not everyone is equally bestowed with the same privileges. Women, people of color, Nonhuman Animals, disabled persons, homosexual persons, transgender persons, etc. are at a distinct disadvantage.

…

Last week I updated the community guidelines of this blog to reflect my commitment to creating a community of accountability. In this white-centric, sexist, and often misogynist movement, I believe it is vital to create safe spaces where activists can collaborate, share opinions, and actually be heard. The rest of the movement silences and bullies us, but at least here and on our sister website Vegan Feminist Network, people with good intentions can come to discuss, debate, write, laugh, and just be safe and comfortable. Yes, we love a good debate as well, but we want to maintain respect for one another. In myRepublic of Facebook, anyone who intentionally uses disableist, misogynistic, derogatory, or oppressive language gets banned. Go spread your "free speech" elsewhere.

Linky.

Yesterday, I posted a brief review of Adams' and Donovan's 1995 Animals and Women. On closer inspection I realized that one chapter was so intriguing and challenging, it deserved its own discussion. Luke argues that animal rights theory is constructed within a patriarchal paradigm. That is, it assumes that humans are inherently violent against other animals and must be controlled. Animal rights theory is a theory of social control, and social control is a very patriarchal value. Rights-based theory also rejects the importance of positive human/nonhuman relationships, focusing instead on protecting the individual from others. Instead of a community, we have a bunch of individuals who are out for themselves.

Theories are also pitted against one another in competition, rather than applied cooperatively. In favoring rationality, we also devalue that which is "irrational," meaning that what is constructed as "irrational" is perceived as unworthy of attention. Of course, academia and the sciences are extremely privileged spaces, meaning that white, Western men generally get to decide what is rational and what is not.

There is also a focus on reason to the detriment of emotion. Reason and emotion are highly gendered, and it is surprising that feminized emotional approaches are rejected in favor of masculinized reasoned approaches in a movement comprised mostly of women. Of course, in practice, reason and emotion work cooperatively. Indeed, many of us are motivated to help animals because of our emotional connection to them.

Linky.

If you caught a whiff of misandry above when she said that men could talk about football, there is more:

In an article for The Examiner, I suggested that the Animal Liberation Front engages misogyny in denouncing "pacifism" (non-violence) as a weakness that aids exploitation.

…

Violent advocacy is undeniably a male space. Women are seen as the enemy (in promoting nonviolence), as the lovestruck woman who can't help but go gaga for the guy blowing up a researcher facility, or as a straight up sex object.

Linky.

I can't keep count of how many times I've cited this book. The Nonhuman Animal rights movement has a penchant for violence. This is for two reasons: 1. The movement is male-led, thus valuing male approaches to social change and interactions; 2. Speciesism is such a massive social problem, many of us get frustrated and turn to violence in desperation. Unfortunately, the history of social movements does not support the success of violent tactics (or, in some cases, the lasting success of violent tactics). The movement for other animals has been defined by it's violence, though violence is only one of many other tactics in our repitoire. This stereotype has been used to reinforce sanctions against Nonhuman Animal rights activism and gives the public one more reason to dismiss us. Steve Best of the Animal Liberation Front is of the persuasion that seeing media coverage of violent advocacy will inspire others to join our cause. I agree with Chenoweth and Stephan in disagreeing with Best's predictions. Violent movements are not so successful at attracting more activists, in fact, they repel them. For those who are attracted, we have to consider what types of people we are attracting. In our case, it tends to be young, white males who have internalized masculine notions of dominance, power, control, and entitlement. In other words, we are seeking to build a movement that mirrors the society we wish to restructure.

Linky.

And finally, for what I got in trouble for on A+. She posts a supposedly "cheap" vegan recipe that reads like a parody of what a San Francisco gay hipster might eat. It is incredibly silly,

The truth is that being vegan is not always easy or presented as affordable for some disadvantaged groups who are poor, living in food deserts, and/or living with a legacy of institutionalized discrimination and colonization. This does not mean veganism is off limits to those people or that they are excused from participating, it simply means that there are some added challenges to address. Indeed, the human/nonhuman rights issues linked to veganism makes it an imperative for all, but perhaps even more so for these at-risk groups who stand to gain the most. It's time for a real talk in our advocacy efforts, one that recognizes rather than rejects real social differences. I don't even live in a food desert and I can't find tempeh. How many of us can afford the cost of making this promoted recipe? This movement will stay middle class and white forever at this rate. Suggesting that people who take issue with the "ease" and "affordability" of white, middle class veganism are somehow "stupid" reflects the unchecked privilege of many vegan advocates. Absolutely, veganism can be done cheaply and safely, but it must be presented in a way that is accessible to everyone, not just people of privilege.

The white experience may represent the experience of many in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement (as it is a mostly white movement), but the white experience does not represent the experience of everyone else. For one, if you are white, in all likelihood, you neither live in a food desert nor have any inkling whatsoever of what the implications of living in a food desert are. The white experience is not the default experience. Until we come to grips with this reality, rattle up our privileged world view, and knock off our white people blinders, we are never going to make any headway. Veganism will continue to be a rich white thing that benefits rich white people. Vulnerable populations who are suffering from malnutrition and diet-related diseases will continue to be overlooked and blamed for their misfortune. Instead of recognizing structural inequalities and systematic racism and classism, we blame the individual for being lazy, callous, or "stupid." Humans and Nonhumans are dying--they don't have time for this nonsense. If we want to reduce suffering, we need to recognize difference and accommodate.

Linky.

[Emphasis mine]

So the problem is just presentation? The people on A+ will take issue with that.

 

[Meed]

I think you need to see the thread they started in November at A+. The "don't erase me" drama llama is in there sounding reasonable. No wild accusations and no threats of banning. A year ago, they ran a vegan out of town on a rail. And, as I mentioned, this was prior to PZ's blog on the subject, but I believe it was after Ste. Greta's blog on her one-month trial, so I think it has to do with what their "leaders" espouse.

Can I get a link to the November thread?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The newest vegetarian thread is here. A lot of the "mysterious and medically not investigated meat requirements" that were there before. The OP brings up environmental reasons and ethical ones, and everyone focuses on the former. There is some healthy but boring debate on that.

Lol turns out I get sick as hell without absurd amounts of protein and fat and am unable to eat soy without hating life itself. Oopsies. So much for that.

If I could meet my nutritional needs on a plant based diet, I probably would. I like creatively prepared meatless dishes (there's this kale and butternut squash and cranberry salad that I just love) but I cannot live on them. I don't find people's diets to be morally superior or inferior to mine or each other's. Some people can and do consider global impact or animal suffering and have the means & inclination to change their behavior. Good for them. Other people cannot for health or money or other reasons, and that's legitimate too.

(help I am about to start on my anti food as religion rant and no one wants that)

This is what I like to call "super morality" or "Ned Flanders morality". Things are morally relevant only if you go the extra mile and choose them to be. Violating then is a-okay for us average, Homer Simpson slobs.

Like K, I can't for health reasons. Mine are GI related. Props to those who can though. Where I can, I substitute other alternatives in.

Like K, ischemgeek won't explain what doctor or nutritionist didn't tell her about GI specific veg diets.

Not that I don't believe there are such cases, but there has been so much misinformation on this topic that any claim you read about it will likely be wrong. But being skeptical or rational about these claims is "erasing their personal experience".

For some of us there are mental/emotional health issues as well. We were dirt poor growing up, and meat meant security. I am extremely stressed without a packet of meat or fish or a chicken in the freezer and a bit of jerkey in the cabinet, to the point where I can't function on many levels because I am so worried if there's going to be "enough" to eat, even though I know that there is. Part of the reason that I went vegan in the first place (I think it must have been nine or ten years ago now) was to try and break myself of that, and instead I ended up just nearly breaking myself.

...

I know there are many people who feel that animal welfare and the environment trump the expression of culture. To me, it just doesn't.

I consider this from time to time, whether culture trumps ethics. There's way more to it than that, I realize, but at the end of the day any cultural change toward a more ethical expression must come from within. When a culture wants to change, how they choose to do so is their call.

was told by some relatives that to eat an animal honors it, especially when it's past prime reprodudctive/milk/egg/riding years. Obviously this is more animals that have been raised by a family or whatever, but it is a thing. Useful from beginning to end and such

FGM, burqas, and other forms of patriarchy tell similar nonsense stories about how harming a being is honoring them. I wonder if A+ respects those expressions of culture over ethics.

I tried not eating meat when I was in my 20s. I was miserable! I was never satiated. I had bad, bad, BAD bloat. I had intense cravings for beef. I also developed the temperament of a barracuda. I lasted about a month before I busted down, went to a restaurant and devoured a big arse steak. My husband swears that I get just flat mean if I don't eat enough beef during the week. He makes sure (since he's the cook) that I get a good cut of beef at least twice a week.

I don't know if the sheer implausibility of it all or the sexist undertone is what makes me laugh the most.

Interesting that the "can't stand the taste of tofu" crowd is gone... Just to reiterate, no one explore the ethical side of the issue, except to note that it doesn't apply to them. Because reasons.

 

[devnull]

I understand the medical (GI) issues.

I have crohn's disease, and can only really function when my diet consists of maybe 70% animal protein. I also have to be careful with what vegetables I eat.

Meh, I have no dog in this race - I think you're all batcrap crazy

 

[Mr. Scott]

On the matter of whether men can be feminists:

Linky.

These are the old A+ rules that we are familiar with, and we all know how absurd conversations can get when trying to follow them (Francione has a hilarious quip further down). Number 7 finally gives a definition of “gaslighting”, and it is basically that you literally can’t disagree when someone interprets something as sexist, racist, etc.

The thing that will spark further debate is the very first claim, that men can’t be feminists.



Linky.



Linky.



Linky.



Linky.



Linky.



Linky.



Linky.



Linky.



Linky.

That long-winded "why men can't be feminists" rationalization can be distilled as "us verses them." Men can't be feminists because men are the "other." Any good scientific atheist should be able to see it as the tribal instinct in action. We know it's instinctual (genetic) because we have good scientific experiments (see below) that demonstrate it in infants only a few months old. It evolved because it was helpful for the survival of the tribalism gene. Today, it's tearing the world apart by dehumanizing the "other" to, at times, genocidal extent. It's manifested as nationalism, racism, sexism, classism, sports team affiliation, you name it. Prejudiced against a historically privileged "other" is still prejudice and is still unjust. Real social justice means recognizing all humans as human. Not just those in your tribe.

Study: Babies Like Watching Puppets Who Are Different From Them Get Hurt

 

[Dissolution]

Men advocating for women's rights is patriarchy? Is there anything that men can do that's not classed in that fashion on the A+ forum?

 

[Joe Random]

Men advocating for women's rights is patriarchy? Is there anything that men can do that's not classed in that fashion on the A+ forum?

I'm thinking something like ...

 

[Kochanski]

Men advocating for women's rights is patriarchy? Is there anything that men can do that's not classed in that fashion on the A+ forum?

Nope. If you are male you are wrong, if you are white and male you are wronger, if you are white, male and old you are wrongest. There can be no other answer

 

[Dissolution]

Nope. If you are male you are wrong, if you are white and male you are wronger, if you are white, male and old you are wrongest. There can be no other answer

Myers? He must be the wrongest of all!
Hey, maybe they're onto something...

 

[Kochanski]

Myers? He must be the wrongest of all!
Hey, maybe they're onto something...

It could explain all his attempts to pander to the A+ crowd That and he likes the gravy train of appearances and speaking engagements.

 

[Meed]

Men advocating for women's rights is patriarchy? Is there anything that men can do that's not classed in that fashion on the A+ forum?

Nope. If you are male you are wrong, if you are white and male you are wronger, if you are white, male and old you are wrongest. There can be no other answer

Not really. The majority of A+/SJW by far seem to be white and many of the loudest are often male. Maleness and whiteness are usually only used as weapons against people they disagree with, even if they are white and/or male theirselves.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Not really. The majority of A+/SJW by far seem to be white and many of the loudest are often male. Maleness and whiteness are usually only used as weapons against people they disagree with, even if they are white and/or male theirselves.

That has to be the strangest attribute of the typical SJW. Is it because of their out of control compassion and guilt?

 

[Kochanski]

Not really. The majority of A+/SJW by far seem to be white and many of the loudest are often male. Maleness and whiteness are usually only used as weapons against people they disagree with, even if they are white and/or male theirselves.

You took my comment seriously? Nothing serious about my comment at all

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Kate From Iowa said:
For some of us there are mental/emotional health issues as well. We were dirt poor growing up, and meat meant security. I am extremely stressed without a packet of meat or fish or a chicken in the freezer and a bit of jerkey in the cabinet, to the point where I can't function on many levels because I am so worried if there's going to be "enough" to eat, even though I know that there is.

I was adopted as a child by two black transgender lesbians. They were abusive throughout my entire childhood. Since being an adult I've tried not being abusive towards people of a different race, gender, gender identity and sexuality to myself, but I find myself panicking if I, for example, see a black person and don't shout the n-word at them. The nights I go out gay-bashing are therapy for me. I can't function unless I do it at least once a week, preferably twice.

I wonder how many A+ers would accept that logic?

And please note, I'm not drawing an equivalence between vegetarianism and anything else in my post, I'm just applying the same logic Kate is using to a different situation.

Still, if she did want to become a vegan again, there's nothing to stop her buying 1 pack of mince and leaving it in the freezer without using it, is there? She could then eat no meat whatsoever, and she'd only have to buy one every 3 months or so, depending on how long the sell-by date is on a bag of meat.

 

[tsig]

I was adopted as a child by two black transgender lesbians. They were abusive throughout my entire childhood. Since being an adult I've tried not being abusive towards people of a different race, gender, gender identity and sexuality to myself, but I find myself panicking if I, for example, see a black person and don't shout the n-word at them. The nights I go out gay-bashing are therapy for me. I can't function unless I do it at least once a week, preferably twice.

I wonder how many A+ers would accept that logic?

And please note, I'm not drawing an equivalence between vegetarianism and anything else in my post, I'm just applying the same logic Kate is using to a different situation.

Still, if she did want to become a vegan again, there's nothing to stop her buying 1 pack of mince and leaving it in the freezer without using it, is there? She could then eat no meat whatsoever, and she'd only have to buy one every 3 months or so, depending on how long the sell-by date is on a bag of meat.

The meat in being solution. Able to control the hunger without ever leaving the freezer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

She didn't say she felt hungry without meat, she said that not having some meat of any type stored at home made her anxious that there might not be enough to eat. If she's got meat stored, then that'll take care of her anxiety. She doesn't have to eat it. That way she can have a vegetarian diet and not feel anxious about it. Problem solved.

Unless, that is, that isn't her actual reason for not being a vegetarian.

 

[qwints]

I wonder how many A+ers would accept that logic?

What logic? I can certainly imagine a human who 'needs' to harm other humans, and there are a depressingly large number of example of people who have intentionally and repeatedly inflicted suffering on others. I don't think that person's psychological need/desire to inflict harm justifies doing so. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of human needs/desires that justify killing and eating animals.