"Hitchens, the best-selling author of God Is Not Great, who died in 2011, wrote a notorious Vanity Fair article called “Why Women Aren’t Funny.” Richard Dawkins, another author whose books have brought atheism to the masses, has alienated many women — and men — by belittling accusations of sexism in the movement; he seems to go out of his way to antagonize feminists generally, and just this past July 29 he tweeted, “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.” And Penn Jillette, the talking half of the Penn and Teller duo, famously revels in using words like “cunt.”"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-ath...
There is a pervasive misogyny in the free-thought society. It's time we talked about it.
What is the impact of a gender discrimination in the atheist community? This forum?
For the female forum contributors: Do you have a personal experience of gender discrimination, and would you share it? How has your experience changed how you view the free-thinking movement?
For the male: Have you ever asked for feedback? Have you ever been called out on gender-discriminatory behavior? If so, what did you do, and how did you change (if you did)?
Through these conversations, we have a chance to grow, and I thank anyone who dares to have meaningful, personal input of their experience.
***** NOTE: Refrain from personal attacks. Safety can not be maintained, where a person is not respected - regardless of their opinion.*****
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
As to your topic title question, no, I don't think it will. I think these two things are not inextricable linked.
I also think there's a big difference between misogyny (hatred of women) and the more predominant yet insidious forms of discrimanatory behaviors. The latter is far more difficult to address since it is more subtle and ingrained. And men certainly aren't the only ones to add to it or inattentive of it.
Example: simply do a comparison of how men and women are dressed on Vanity Fair covers. It could indicate a subtle (or not so subtle to some) difference in the way we perceive women and men in our culture.
Another example, albeit fairly old, is the movie title "Mr. Mom". Oy. But it is a good example of how subtle it can be.
A lot of folks may say about these things, "don't sweat the small stuff." However, these is absolutely no hope of eliminating descrimination without doing so.
Personal examples? I worked in law enforcement, a profession predominated by males. I'm sure you can imagine...
Thanks for your input, Cyber.
With regards to the headline of the article: You're right, the two are not inextricably linked. However, if misogyny in the movement is not addressed, then that glaring example of discrimination will become what the movement is known for. Eg: Free-Thought movement, becomes the Misogynist Movement. Or some other catchy name. Point is, the movement could be hijacked by this reputation, and then be rendered irrelevant.
And yeah, the latter is more difficult to address. All hands will need to be on deck, if it is to change. This stuff is not small, by any stretch, and discrimination is so casually accepted in our society.
"Small stuff, as it's know, can be what is often referred to as microagression. Lets define the "small stuff" problem we're facing:
Microaggressions:
• are verbal and nonverbal behaviors
• communicate negative, hostile, and derogatory messages to
people rooted in their marginalized group membership (based
on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.)
• occur in everyday interactions
• can be intentional or unintentional
• are often unacknowledged
Here's an example:
"During a meeting of the faculty search committee on which you
are serving, almost every time a female colleague tries to speak,
she is interrupted by a male colleague. No one says anything
when this happens. Finally, your female colleague stops trying
to offer contributions to the discussion. You wonder what she
wanted to say."
here's the source:
http://www.unh.edu/sites/www.unh.edu/files/departments/affirmative_actio...
@Mitch:
"Here's an example:
"During a meeting of the faculty search committee on which you
are serving, almost every time a female colleague tries to speak,
she is interrupted by a male colleague. No one says anything
when this happens. Finally, your female colleague stops trying
to offer contributions to the discussion. You wonder what she
wanted to say."
If anybody is interrupted(woman or man) the interrupt-or is rude and if I was in charge i would humiliate the rude person(man or woman) and let the original speaker speak.
I do think that in a mature committee everybody should be allowed to finish his speech regardless of sex.
I do not believe this is a true claim at all.
Provide the evidence for this, because where i live if you dare to interrupt someone you are considered rude.
About your source:
It should be noted that there was no debate or agreement about those claims. One sided arguments not supported by evidence again mitch.
example:
"A search committee hiring a department chair in environmental
science is meeting to discuss the final list of candidates, which
includes two men and one women. During the discussion, a
South Asian male committee member says, “I think we should
hire one of the men. I won’t work for a woman."
I my self would not want to work with/for a woman depending on what job it is in the same exact manner that I would not want to work, with a kid,old guy or a too different person then me.
Basically it has nothing to do with with woman but because if i had to choose between a colleague/boss I think that someone that could have my mentality is better for efficient work.(it could be that my instinct is wrong and a woman would make a better fit, our instincts are not always right)
Why when you are at school we choose SOME close friends more then others?
Because we have the instinct to choose the people we think have the same hobbies, mentality, etc...
Woman just are different from man and it just happens that groups of man prefer man.
This applies even for woman, woman would also prefer woman as part of their group by instinct.(eg gossip group)
We grow up and see that those instincts are distilled/diffused with maturity on the place of work.
Though this has nothing to do with woman discrimination at all, it is just human psychology at work.
"For the female forum contributors: Do you have a personal experience of gender discrimination, and would you share it? How has your experience changed how you view the free-thinking movement?"
It is nice of you to ask about this, unfortunately i do not form part of this gender group.
"For the male: Have you ever asked for feedback? Have you ever been called out on gender-discriminatory behavior? If so, what did you do, and how did you change (if you did)?"
What?, you do not ask if I was discriminated for being a man?
Clear example why you are biased even in your questions.
Why can woman be discriminated and not man?
Why do you ask the woman and not man?
Are man inferior in your eyes, they do not deserve to be heard if they were discriminated?
I am discriminated on my place of work.
Woman can take leave when they want, can take sick practically every time they want, and I have to suck it up and fill in the gaps because I am a man and do not have period's and things.
What happens is, that woman just abuse the natural disability to get what they want on my place of work.
Every days one of the house keeping maids HAS to take a sick, they take turns too.(every day, not exaggerating)
If any man does this he would be fired, but woman get away with it.
How about when a judge always decides to give the children to the mother in case of divorce?
As if a man cannot take care of children after a certain age?
Discrimination against man is very much real and worst of all, it is LEGAL.
Yes there are man who abuse and discriminate woman, and that is an abuse, but if reported, action is taken, when the other way round happens, a man gets shamed for not being a gentleman or for not being more understanding, thus no action is taken on most things.
If that is not discrimination, then I do not know what is.
EG, a man being harassed by a woman or even raped, is less likely to report it because of shame then a woman would simply because it is far worse if people know about it for the man's pride.
Woman get the victim card while man get the humiliation card for the same crime.
The truth is that some woman have been used to the gentleman act towards them and from the finger they want the entire arm.
Those people are called feminists that invent excuses and lies to try to validate their existence.
Mitch I am still waiting for your HONEST reply in the other topic.
"Have you ever asked for feedback?"
I do not discriminate against woman except maybe point out at statistics that woman are usually worse drivers then man.
I think of myself as a true gentleman with decent woman.
I let them always have first things in everything and try to make them happy, because if they are happy, i am usually happy as a result.
"Have you ever been called out on gender-discriminatory behavior?"
yes, I try to reason with them, but in some cases reasoning is not their strongest suit.
"If so, what did you do, and how did you change (if you did)?"
Sometimes I change my usually fairness above all attitude to use the "Woman are always right" attitude to keep the peace.
Also i find it VERY insulting to mention Hitchens and Dawkins as if they were wrong in their claims, without even mentioning what the argument was about.
In Dawkins case(which I followed closely since I'm not a Dawkins fan and disagree with him on many points) a feminist claimed that a man harassed her in an elevator just because he complimented her on her beauty and asked her for a cup of coffee.
This feminist is just insane and Dawkins was just pointing it out.
About Hitchens case I need further info to talk about it but if you insist on this point I will research it.
"Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?"
The only thing that could bring Down "The Atheist Movement" are biased people like feminists, there is no Misogyny in "the atheist movement".
To address your first line: it's not permissible to discriminate against anyone based on gender.
For me to talk about fairness and equality for women does not diminish men in any way, and it does not invalidate your personal experiences. And with regards to your experiences at work, it sounds as though someone could be abusing sick leave, and then they get to have time off. You want time off as well it seems, though you apparently continue to work, and choose to resent your co-worker for having "women problems" instead of affecting change; what stops you from pointing out how they abuse their sick leave? What do you allude to, with your sentence "yes, I try to reason with them, but in some cases reasoning is not their strongest suit"?
Out of this resentment - and emotional stuffing - grows all sorts of erroneous generalisations; men simply being more capable and ready to work, that women do not choose to advance their careers, that all feminist are irrational, that women are bad drivers, etc. Ego defense mechanisms. Until a person reaches their eventual conclusion: 'there are no need for feminist, because there is no discrimination' - wholesale denial, that the person's own behavior could be part of the problem.
And when someone suggests there IS a problem - like Anita Sarkeesian - the whole tenuous mass quivers with fear, and lashes out. I will endeavor to show you how you have been perpetuating gender discrimination, Jeff. My hope is not that you're ashamed, or that you reject yourself - my hope is that I can show you how it could be different, and how we can live equality, instead of simply endorsing it.
"To address your first line: it's not permissible to discriminate against anyone based on gender."
Exactly, you just did discriminate unconsciously in your own question, Since you did not care to be fair and ask both man and woman about discrimination.
You assumed that discrimination is about woman discrimination.
You want to deny this?
"fairness and equality for women does not diminish men in any way"
It does if you are not being fair in your arguments and questions.
"it sounds as though someone could be abusing sick leave and then they get to have time off."
yes
"You want time off as well"
yes, Who doesn't ?
"choose to resent your co-worker for having "women problems" instead of affecting change"
No, I am fine with it, it is their problem, not mine, I know what I signed for when I got the job,
"instead of affecting change; what stops you from pointing out how they abuse their sick leave? "
Everybody knows that they are doing it, but says nothing because they are woman, including me.
What I resent is that some one claims that woman are discriminated on the place of work when the evidence shows that it is quite the opposite. They are favored more in most cases, more patience is placed towards them in general.
"What do you allude to, with your sentence "yes, I try to reason with them, but in some cases reasoning is not their strongest suit"?"
Sometimes reasoning with some woman is impossible, they think they are always right. I am not saying all woman but some are just unreasonable.
"Out of this resentment - and emotional stuffing - grows all sorts of erroneous generalisations"
Yes Femminists are a group that grows from "this resentment - and emotional stuffing".
I have no resentment against woman in general, i like woman and like being unfair to woman(meaning making them like me and being nice to woman more then I would be to men).
My position comes from a fair assessment of the facts, yours come from a biased interpretation of "all sorts of erroneous generalisations".
Feminists just hinder woman with their stupid arguments, some valid points might be missed because they present it in the wrong way, with the wrong method.
"And when someone suggests there IS a problem"
First I check if the problem is real, as of now you have not presented a decent case for a problem Mitch, only 1 sided claims.
Like man having the ability to pee upright arguments.
Present something that actually makes sens, then and only then you might have a point and have the right to call me biased like you are doing.
You are trying to put your problem of bias on me to justify your incredibly stupid 1 sided claims Mitch.
"Jeff. My hope is not that you're ashamed, or that you reject yourself - my hope is that I can show you how it could be different, and how we can live equality, instead of simply endorsing it."
My hope is that you see reason, and stop starting from the answer when doing your research.
"and how we can live equality"
What you are suggesting is not fair Mitch, you keep using the equality card but you are not endorsing it when you claim that woman are discriminated on those claims.
You are favoring woman more then man in most of those claims you came up with.
There is no equality in your claims Mitch.
Start defending those claims of yours first instead of sending personal attacks against me.
There is discrimination in this world and humanists help to reduce it, but what feminists suggest is just plain stupid(most of the time) and hinders the good work humanist do(most of the time) for both woman and man alike.
"What happens is, that woman just abuse the natural disability to get what they want on my place of work."
Wow. Menstruation is a "natural disability"? Wow.
Hold on a moment......
There is an "Atheist movement" ...????
Since when ?
I must have missed the memo....
Who is in charge ...?
Is there a uniform ?
Where is the HQ?
Who is doing the recruiting ?
or perhaps the question should be....
Who says there is an Atheist Movement ?
So what you're saying is, that there is recognised "atheist movement" - such as a registered group, with guidelines and expectations.
Lets define "atheist movement". Permit me to try. Atheist Movement meaning the those who have in common disbelief, and the agency to express it. Particularly, but not exclusively, pertaining to the fans of the "Four Horsemen": Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett.
Feel free to add, or otherwise amend.
yep you are right there is no atheist movement as a whole.
Though i assumed that they are referring to the atheist label.
As if being an atheist is going to become associated with Misogyny or something.
Feminists come up with the most stupid of ideas.
Mitch
"So what you're saying is, that there is recognised "atheist movement" ....
No not actually....
What I AM saying is there is NO Atheist Movement...
It seems to be figment conjured by certain theists who deem Dawkins to be some sort of Atheist Pope.
The reality is that we are disparate individuals/groups ,bound together (or sometimes kept apart) only by a lack of belief in any god/gods.
There is no homogeneous grouping there are ,occasionally ,temporary alliances leading to the appearance of conformity...... but a quick look through some of the subjects debated on these forums will reveal a varied and faceted list of causes , interests and ends being pursued.
Plus ,as any admin on any atheist forum will tell you .... getting a consensus amongst atheists is very like herding cats.
"What I AM saying is there is NO Atheist Movement..."
I apologise. That is what I mean to say, when I summarized you in my first post. I did not actually include the most important part - that being the "no" - in error.
I agree with your statement, that there is no homogenous atheist group. That said, authors and scientist such as Dawkins have become de facto representatives of free-thought, and are acknowledged accordingly - in that they are referenced, cited, deferred to, and held in high regard amongst their fans. Would you agree?
Establishing that Dawkins has influence matters, because that's the first step in recognising, that Dawkins is trendsetting. For example, if Dawkins dismisses sexual harassment, he sets a standard for all of his admirers to continue to do so.
Misogyny 'may' be a problem for some individuals who are Atheists; however, if misogyny has not brought down Catholicism, Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, then I don't see how it would even be considered being able to "Bring Down The Atheist Movement."
I don't think, for the most part, those religions are terribly interested in overcoming gender descrimination. On the contrary, I think they frequently support it.
Victims.
It's the new thing.
The best way to disguise special interest militancy is to fashion it into victimization. A litigious society is the perfect framework to hang it on. Without making further comment on it relative to atheism, which is a rather forced pairing, let's agree that mysogyny knows no favorite haunts. In that regard it's very flexible and has a readily available jaundiced eye for any opportunity. But, let's also agree to extend that to any special interest group that plays the victim for cash or free carriage. Finally, let's all agree that the cross section of dead beats (attorneys) who live on such blood lust not only champion special interest victims, they also create them for profit via the twisted sense of justice they purvey.
So, let's not get overly sensitized about mysogyny as an injustice. Much of that charade is agenda-driven and hardly the heart-felt truth of those we would be too quick to pin it on. Look elsewhere to source the blame for that.
And sometimes a victim has actually been victimized.
Don't forget rape accusations that were proven false: UVA rape story.
False accusations can be very damaging.
This is very misleading.
Rape is widely under-reported.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/rape-study-report-america-us_n_...
As are false rape allegations.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-false-accusations-destroy-lives/ar...
Either way, I think we can all agree that rape does indeed happen. I think we can probably all also agree that the word victim can be legitimately used then, eh?
Depends, you need to acknowledge in every case a possibility of false accusation exists. People's lives are at stake and such accusations must be approached in a balanced manner for justice to be possible.
Not sure in which country you reside. I'm in the U.S. Here, in criminal court, not guilty is presumed until guilty is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Depends how the police handle the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHLMfGz3VAI
Women need to be held accountable for false rape allegations but that is often not the case. They destroy the reputations and careers of men with impunity. When women’s accusations are proven false, not only should they be prosecuted but their names published and their reputations and careers destroyed - exactly the same as happened to the person they accused.
ImFree, as far as I can see you haven't even acknowledged yet, that discrimination against women is an issue.
Your continuous efforts to deflect onto a new topic suggests to me, that you're actively denying, that discrimination against women could even be possible. Many of your comments in this thread, to date, have been part of one over-arching effort, which seems to be to diminish the issue of discrimination against women.
I suggest you watch these videos and learn something outside the bubble you live in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2of7no
You refuse to consider a balanced view and admit feminists have gone too far in many areas.
"Women need to be held accountable for false rape allegations but that is often not the case."
You think women are the only people capable of making false rape allegations, it seems. If you had meant "people", you would have said so.
Are you seriously claiming that in most cases man make false rape accusations in court?
I have never seen or heard about any man falsely claiming that they were raped by a woman.
(unless in some comedy movie or something)
Certainly everybody is capable of making false rape allegations but decent, honest, unbiased, people would easily understand that we are talking about what happens in most cases.
Most cases shout to your face that Woman tend to do false rape allegations and not men.
So stop your dishonest behavior please. This is a well know fact.
Can't you see that your only method of discussing is constantly to accuse/discredit the person making the claim and not the claim itself by changing the claim into an absolute.(genetic fallacy)
Being capable was not the point, if we are talking about discrimination we are talking about what happens in most cases.
Face-palm moment...
The under reporting of rape is an enormous problem. While false rape accusations do happen, there is still an enormous problem around people simply not reporting rape.
https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
It's not being reported, because people don't get justice when they do.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1845136/why-dont-women-report-rape-because-mos...
And also, the link in your article is not backed by any statistical evidence, that I could see.
Pages