Tuesday, 28 August 2012

This means war!


I just read an interesting article over at thunderf00t's blog on Atheism+ and the divisive and polarizing tactics they're now using to gain support for their splinter movement. The conflict that began with Elevatorgate has now overtly become "us vs them", with battle lines drawn by righteous feminists and vilification and exclusion of any who voice the slightest dissent. The "Four Horsemen" of atheism have been recast as the perpetually evil "old white patriarchs", an identifiable group which according to feminist agitprop should be dismissed out of hand. If a powerful, educated old white man said it, you can be sure it's garbage, right? Why? Because we say so! We're just trying to be inclusive!

The tone of the article was one of bemusement, which only tells me thunderf00t has not descended remotely as far down the rabbit-hole as he needs to to get a clear picture of what exactly is going on in his community. I know that someone posted my video on female hypoagency by way of explanation, and I've picked up a lot of new subscribers from the atheist/skeptic/rationalist community as a result of his attention. At the same time, he seems hopeful that all of this brouhaha will reach some impervious barrier of rationality, at which point, Atheism+ will fizzle, and I find I can't share his optimism.

He writes in conclusion:

I expect that they will now start trying to weasel their way out of this by any and all means necessary as long as the conclusion is ‘no, it’s okay for ME to attend mere atheist conferences, its just everyone else who should shun and marginalize these mere inferior atheists’

I'm sorry to break it to you, thunderf00t, but I don't foresee any "weaselling out" occurring anytime soon--only more "weaselling in". My prediction is that the conflict in your community will escalate, with the Skepchicks and other feminist "atheists", and Atheists+ pushing their dogmatic agenda ever harder in every single arena, and continuing to pit the men in the community against each other. Give it a few more months, and American Atheist will have a shiny new "plus" sign on their letterhead.

It's amazing how closely this collective aggression and irrationality mirrors what's known in the pick-up artist community as the "shit test". A shit test is basically an irrational, manufactured conflict, attack or complaint on the part of a female partner against her male partner. This is not a "real" complaint, though it may be based on actual annoyances (like leaving the toilet seat up), and though usually interpreted by a man as a sincere concern or upset on the part of the woman, the underlying goal of the shit test is to compel the man into setting reasonable boundaries and maintaining his autonomy--that is, a demand to have the man put his foot down and not be bullied. This has been posited as a subconscious psychological strategy on the part of women to test the mettle of their mates--"if he can't stand up to ME when I'm bullying him, then how's he going to fend off those sabre-toothed tigers?"

The more the man tries to appease the shit-testing woman, the more she will escalate the conflict. The only way to pass the shit test is to put one's foot down. A relationship where a man is easily bullied (by anyone) is one in which a woman will feel more insecure, not less. The more insecure she feels, the bigger and more overt the shit tests will become.

And the horrible thing about shit tests is that they are a subconscious behavior--the woman sincerely believes that what's bothering her is that her man keeps leaving the toilet seat up, and not that she needs reassurance that he's an adequate protector and therefore worthy of respect.

I mean, look at how the conflict in the atheist/skeptic community began--with Elevatorgate. For those not in the know, Elevatorgate was what ensued after a man politely asked Rebecca Watson up to his hotel room for coffee, and then politely took "no" for an answer. It culminated with a call from feminists to boycot Richard Dawkins' books, when he had the temerity to call bullshit on the whole debacle.

You now have Surly Amy, in a recent interview with Amanda Marcotte, explaining what a sexual harassment policy at TAM should look like. At one point, she claims that no one is saying people can't hook up at conferences, and describes "the appropriate way to hook up"--basically, to introduce yourself, to flirt a little, talk a little, and invite someone to have sex with you if they wish. What she's describing as "the appropriate way" is exactly what sparked Elevatorgate--a polite invitation. So what the hell was Elevatorgate all about, then? A months-long screaming match among atheists over a man who behaved appropriately?

Surly Amy goes on to say that the kind of inappropriate behavior she wants covered by the sexual harassment policy is, for example, walking up to someone and starting to have sex with them without asking. So basically, the sexual harassment policy at TAM must include the phrase, "No raping, please"? Seriously?

This entire fiasco is a classic irrational, manufactured complaint on the part of feminist "atheists". And though it may seem as if it's the "no-bullshit" response of rationals like Justin Vacula, integralmath, Richard Dawkins and you, thunderf00t, that is what's causing this splinter-group to escalate the conflict, it's actually the appeasement and supplication of men like PZ Myers that's driving the female psychology underlying this collective shit test to a fever pitch. Validation of the insecurity that lies at the heart of this conflict only generates more of the same.

Meanwhile, true to the tactics of the shit-testing woman, the Skepchicks' own conferences now include a panel discussion of how the male brain is a female brain that's been "damaged by testosterone" and that men are "defective women". Rebecca Watson's platform as a skeptic speaker has transmogrified from actual discussion of atheism/skepticism into a sermon railing against the misogyny in the atheist/skeptic community, an airing of grievances concerning the "thousands of rape threats" she's received from "hundreds of atheists", described in detail but never backed up with screencaps. Demands for evidence of the existence of these threats, and, further, evidence that if they exist they come from within the atheist community, are met with accusations of misogyny and rape apologia.

The women driving all of this are supported and validated in their efforts by supplicating men, men desperate to tell them, "We're the good men, we're not like those bad men over there. We understand why you're so terrified of this HUGE problem of sexual harassment and misogyny in our community, and it's all down to male badness. But not me, because I'm a good man, not like those guys over there, the bad ones..."

They're doing the equivalent of telling a child that the monster in the closet is real, and it's particularly interested in eating small children, and they aren't even doing it to protect the women in the atheist/skeptic community from that monster. They're doing it to distinguish themselves from the "defective male" rabble in the group--you know, the thunderf00ts and the Justin Vaculas--and they'll happily cast you all as monsters just for the opportunity to portray themselves as monster-slayers. They're quite prepared to burn the entire house to the ground to do it, even though the closet monster doesn't exist, and even though they aren't even conscious of why they're behaving in this way.

The people behind this schism are not behaving or thinking rationally. Look at this hypocrisy from FTB over one of hundreds of comments I've made over the last two years concerning domestic violence:

I used to live under a young couple with a baby. I’d listen as she followed him from room to room upstairs, stomping, slamming things, throwing things, screaming. After about an hour, he’d eventually hit her, and everything would go quiet. An hour after that, they’d be out with the baby in the stroller, looking perfectly content with each other.

Here is the response from FTB (complete with photo of man's head exploding) to such a comment made by an "enemy":

So, if you’re annoyed at a woman, that justifies hitting her?  In fact, you should hit her early in your annoyance, lest you beat the living shit out of her later when you’re reallymad?  Of course, the fault will be hers for annoying you, not yours for having the physicality of a grown man but an infant’s mastery of your emotions.
And here, from the comments:

I wonder if she has ever say gone out to lunch with that couple? If she has, I wondered if she noticed that the wife cowered like a fucking sheep when her husband spoke. I wonder if she just so happened to notice that the poor woman’s husband spoke for her, talked down to her, criticized her, all while she sat there and took it. Did she react when he made a swift movement? Does she carefully and painfully choose her words to avoid his wrath?
Okayyyy.... so a woman chasing her boyfriend from room to room, screaming insults and profanity, throwing heavy objects at him (in front of their infant, no less) while refusing to allow him to exit the situation is a clear sign that she's living in terror of him. Huh.

But it was the response to THIS comment that really told me who we're dealing with:


Normally I would say that violence towards women is never justified, however, I did see my dad hit my mom twice. He stayed and put up with her because of me, and every few years she would get in one of these moods where she would ride his ass and tell him what a loser he was for not making enough money, losing his hair, or whatever, put her finger in his face, scream at him, shove him, etc. This would go on nightly for weeks until he would beg her to stop because he was about to snap, which only encouraged her. She got off on it. He would try to go for a walk to get away from her before he lost it, and she would grab him and keep on and on, until he would start shaking and crying uncontrollably, and then he would snap. He said he would literally see red, then have no memory of what happened. I have snapped like this once after having been bullied for years and years, and I couldn’t remember, either. He felt cornered and tried to do the right thing and take a walk, but she wouldn’t let him. I can’t fault him for that. If anyone deserved a backhanding, it would have been her.
Go ahead and tell me I’m evil. I can take it. I think violence against women is deplorable, and I wouldn’t put up with it myself, and would tell anyone who is in an abusive relationship to get out. But I can also understand why someone would snap if they were incessantly poked and prodded and then reacted accordingly.

Wow, an almost identical (if more embellished) situation to the one I described, so you'd expect a TON of exploding heads, right? Oh wait, but that comment came from a "friendly", and is therefore "different":


Your mother was the one being abusive. Men are victims of domestic violence too, not as often, but it still happens. I do not know often women act like this in the US or around the world, but reported domestic violence case statistics say that men are more likely to be a the abuser.
I don’t think it was right of your father to hit her, because I don’t think that hurting anyone is okay. But I think he was justified to fight back.
That kind of situation is not what GWW is advocating though. And even if that’s -all- she was advocating I’d still encourage her to change her stance and encourage the men to get help instead of hurting the women they are with.


Um, wow. And this guy's mom didn't even throw anything at his dad, but somehow the commenters at FTB are prepared to accept that she was the abusive one! Couldn't they tell she was terrorized and cowed, living in such fear of his wrath that she barely spoke without permission?

And if we're to apply the same rules here as were applied to me, relating a situation you've observed means you advocate for it. This must be the case, since me attempting to have a frank, meaningful, grown-up discussion of the complexities of domestic violence--you know, how it goes down in the real world among real people, as opposed to how it goes down in Feminist Theory--is the same as me advocating beating women.

Therefore I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you, about how absolutely no heads exploded over this guy's domestic violence apologia! Look, here's another understanding comment:

Your mother was the abuser in this situation. Hitting her was probably not the *best* solution, but I certainly am not going to fault your father for it in this case.
I can't believe these three commenters at FTB are advocating for men being allowed to beat their wives! Where are the bits of brain and skull all over the place from everyone's heads exploding? Nary a fragment to be seen, which means they must not only be excusing violence against women, but actively supporting and encouraging it! Where is the outrage? If there's no outrage, that's exactly the same as endorsement!

So from what I gather, what is considered an abhorrent thought when it comes from an enemy is permissible and even apt when voiced by a friendly. For a community that supposedly prides itself on empiricism, universality, evidence and logic, rather than hyperbole, emotionality, and kneejerking, that's really all you need to know to understand how far gone these people are.

I'm sorry, thunderf00t, but your community is in huge trouble. There will be no retreats, tactical or otherwise, not at the American Atheist convention or anywhere else. Only an ever-widening circle of conversion into this new religion where the devil has been usurped by Patriarchy, and god by "women's feelings".

They are the "us" and you and any other rational person who attacks arguments rather than the people speaking them... you are the "them".

And as long as there are men--and yes, I mean men, not just people, but men--in your community who are prepared to preen as heroes by validating and reinforcing the irrational beliefs and closet monster fears of a few hysterical (yes, I said it, hysterical) women, the conflict will only continue to escalate until the entire house goes up in flames.

I'd advise you to call the fire department if I thought for a second that it would help.



39 comments:

  1. Oh wow, you sure know how to be inflammatory, Karen! This one is definitely going to make heads explode in rage, and they are certainly going to make good use of the reference to PUA theory (‘See! MRAs are just scumbag players!) and the word ‘hysterical’.

    As usual, though, all your points are rock-solid. Calling them up on their tribal nature (allowing members to say things that outsiders are forbidden to say) is particularly good. I myself was recently banned from a forum for saying things that established members were saying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hard to type while I'm applauding your usual common sense, Karen. High five!

    Your insights in this post sure opened my eyes to my ex's behavior. Too bad I was so naïve back then. Sigh....

    Did I ever share with you my take on "Elevatorgate"? Can't remember, so here 'tis: http://bit.ly/q68wAM

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're right on. I've never been so angry at anything online. When this whole thing started, I thought I was crazy for speaking out about it. I thought I was a "bad" person for calling them out on their horseshit. Yet the reasonable part of my brain kept screaming "THEY'RE CRAZY. YOU'RE RIGHT". The skeptic/atheist community was what most would call a "male friendly space". Sure, there were plenty of women, but what mattered was ideas, not who had them. Arguments, not "feelings". There was no quarter given for stupid people or ideas. Now look at it. Before this, I didn't even know the MRM existed (call me naive). Now it's the only place where I can find others who see this horseshit for what it is. Well, that and what's left of the atheist/skeptic community.

    I realize the reason I was so mad was because I saw the threat for what it was. I think you're right on. I think the community has already been destroyed; some of us just don't know it yet. It'll never be gone, but it will never be the same again. Soon we won't even be able to call ourselves atheists without having to spend five minutes prefacing the word with how we don't agree with those terrorists. And that's what they are, terrorists.

    Thanks for the great post.

    Jeff
    PwnySlaystation01

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Atheism+ website is changing as they bring it up. Last night's was a bit more ridiculous, and I am sorry to say, in a moment of sleeplessness, I was contemplating responses to it.

    Here's what it says now: "Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime."

    So last night it was essentially a triangle (I hope I am not misrepresenting them) of skepticism, atheism, and feminism.

    One of the issues I have with Atheism+ is they need to make clear the priority of what makes up Atheism+. Are all their foundational pillars equal?

    Is skepticism more important than atheism or atheism more important than skepticism?

    Is sexism / feminism more important that skepticism or atheism?

    Can a member be skeptical of atheism? Skeptical of feminism?

    Can a member only be skeptical of feminism within certain boundaries?

    If a member can't be freely skeptical of certain topics, can Atheism+ really be said to be supportive of Skepticism?

    And if a member can't be freely skeptical of certain topics, can Atheism+ really be said to be atheism?

    Other thoughts I had last night were what if our solar system was really just an atom?

    (Can someone tell me if what I have said here makes any sense?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of it does, but to be fair, you can`t really be an atheist who is skeptical of atheism.

      Atheism follows from skepticism usually, but not always. Atheism has nothing at all to do with feminism. Atheism has nothing to do with social justice, racism or whatever else they want to call it. Atheism simply is the lack of belief in deities. By necessity, virtually all atheists are skeptics. However, that apparently doesn`t apply when it comes to feminism, lol.

      Luckily, most `well known` atheists either haven`t commented on it, or have come out against atheism+. However, Zomgitscriss and Matt Dillahunty are the big surprises. As for PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Surly Amy, etc.. Nobody really gave much of a shit about them to begin with.

      Delete
    2. At the moment they are identifying themselves with the vague term of humanism, which many feminists will say is not at all the same thing as feminism. But what is it?

      My main point is that if skepticism cannot be applied to feminism in their world, doesn't that negate their pillars both of skepticism AND of atheism! A strong form of feministic beliefs seems counter to Skepticism. And if you can't be skeptical of feminism, I guess we just have to have faith and trust in feminism, and whoopsie, that doesn't really seem to be atheism either, or rather, it turns atheism into just another religion.

      And we can ask Dawkins and thunderf00t and many others if they are free to be skeptical of feminism....

      Delete
    3. Oh, yes, I fully agree. They silence dissent, have an us vs them mentality and are openly (even proud) of banning people for having dissenting opinions. This is what is most hypocritical about their group. For years, most of them scolded theists and apologists for using the exact same tactics.

      In other words, they`ve begun to use the tactics of their own adversaries. However, in the case of Surly Amy, Rebecca Watson, etc, I`m quite sure atheism or skepticism were never their focus. They just saw a group that was a male friendly space and decided that it was a space that would be conducive to their feminist agenda. They`re turning out to be at least partially right.

      Delete
    4. Indeed, it is false scepticism if one is not allowed to be sceptical about certain holy cows. Note, however, that although one can be sceptical of *atheists* and issues *surrounding* atheism, it is not possible to be sceptical of atheism, since atheism is not a claim, but a rejection of a claim (of theism).

      Delete
    5. Not trying to stir up shit, but had to respond to this: "By necessity, virtually all atheists are skeptics. However, that apparently doesn`t apply when it comes to feminism, lol."

      Nope. The world is utterly filled with atheists who lack much capacity for skeptical thought. Or who get strung up in an ideology. In this case, we're watching the ideology of radical feminism take root in a lot of their heads. Other examples? Ayn Rand, fierce atheist, and unable to tolerate the least bit of skepticism about her own (quite atheist) Objectivist philosophy. Marxists and Communists--while you found a few theistic or "Christian" Marxists, Marxism (and its black sheep child Communism) was and is very explicitly atheist, and also devoid of tolerance for skeptical inquiry addressed to Marxist philosophy. Lysenkoism is one of the classic examples: Lysenkoism was necessary according to Marxist theory, so Lysenkoism had to be true, right?

      There are I'm afraid a large contingent of atheists out there convinced that religion is the cause of many of not most of the world's evils, and I'm afraid they're just wrong about that. Dogmatism, intolerance, unwillingness to engage critical faculties... these things are in no way related to atheism. Furthermore, strong skeptical thinking in no way necessitates landing upon the "atheist" conclusion, although many intelligent rational skeptics have landed on atheism as their default position.

      The problem is with thinking atheism and skepticism go together. They really don't. Communists, explicit in their atheism, oppressed and murdered in the 10s of millions in the 20th Century. Stalin was an avowed atheist and has a MINIMUM of 20 million deaths directly on his hands, not in wars but in intentional purges, Gulag/concentration camp style. Not because of his atheism per se, but an atheist is what he was. So was Mao. So was Lenin. And so it goes.

      What this brouhaha should be doing for many atheists is making them more skeptical of the entire notion that religion is the root of the world's evils. It isn't. It's the darker side of human nature that's the problem, and it doesn't make that much difference what God or Gods you believe or don't believe in.

      Delete
    6. Too true. Atheism may not be a religion but it IS an ideology, or at least it is for the great majority within it, & the 'Us vs Them' attitude of many atheists I've encountered would rival that of just about any fundamentalist christian.

      Delete
  5. Oh, and for everyone playing the home game, the atheismplus website is at:

    http://atheismplus.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know this whole situation is bullshit, but I just love the smell of the hypocrisy and nowadays I just laugh when they are just blind to that.

    That is today's feminist stance, if they ever admit they are wrong it all crumbles down, that is why they only make concessions to "friends" of their ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I only became aware of the A+ after TF posted his blog and I only found out about him over the tussle with FTB.

    I still think A+ is typical "North American" or rather "US centric" in the sense that what they clamor for (at least the ideals) are unique to North America and it's sense of "fairness". What gives me a bit of hope is that the majority of tweets I see about it seem to be more of the "WTF? No WAY!" variety than the "You go girl".

    Having said that I think you're right, it won't go away. The people behind have raked in big $$$ with Elevator Gate and A+ is just version 2 of this. Once that has run it's course they will escalate it further. Eventually they will burn themselves but I don't think it will be as quickly as would be good.

    Interesting times ahead (especially as I am not part of the "community" and can watch this with bemusement from the sidelines).

    Oh, and as a side note: South Park called it a few years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, you're lucky. It was one of the only "communities" I ever invested a significant amount of time/effort in. It's a noble purpose, elevating logic and reason to the forefront. To have it become perverted to the point of hilarity is hard to stomach.

      You're right though, the response has not been positive. To be honest, I felt so much happier when they started calling themselves A+. Before, you had to be grouped on with them if you were part of the community. Now you don't. I'm glad they're labeling themselves something different rather than trying to pretend they're the same.

      On a side note, I honestly can't read 90% of the capchas google wants me to answer before posting. I have to keep clicking for a new one over and over. They are the worst captchas I've ever seen by far.

      Delete
    2. I think the reason why I look at this differently is that I didn't grow up in NA. Europe is much less religious and splintered than the US is.

      On the same note I noticed a markable difference between Feminism in Europe and the US and I think it's historically.

      In Europe feminism was part of a generational change in the 1960s. The younger generation going up against the "old guard" that had brought WWII about and as such the dividing line flowed between generations, not between groups within a generation. That gave much more sense of a "together" than in the US.

      In the US in comparison it seems to have been part of the whole Civil Rights movement and those dividing lines run vertically through society. Black vs. White. Men vs. Women etc. and this seems to have carried forward to this day and I think also lies in the root cause of this A+ BS now.

      It's interesting to note that in my European circles this doesn't really have seemed to echo much, compared to what I see in the North American ones.

      As I said, to me this is amusing to watch.

      Delete
    3. I'm in Canada, and have lived here all my life. Canada is much more secular as well, although not as much as the UK I don't think. We certainly don't have the type of radical groups and openly fundamentalist political leaders that they do.

      You know what's really disgusting? Have you followed feminism in India? I think honestly it's probably the most blatant and disgusting there than anywhere else in the world. At least from what I've seen so far.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, I do live in Canada now too and it is less religious though that seems to change with the new guy in Ottawa for the last six year. I clearly noticed a change of tone / public discourse and his background is anything but..... "enlightening" so to speak.

      I have not followed feminism in India, in general I try to stay away from it because the strongest advocates for it seem to be also the looniest. My attitude has always been that I am an equalitist. I reserve the right to piss of everybody equally.

      Delete
  8. The reason I find feminism to be a form of faith is because of two basic precepts:
    1. That all gender differences are mere social constructs. (medical and scientific research has disproved this)
    2. That all economic differences between men and women can be eliminated. (this ignores differences in strength and risk avoidance, and also ignores the frequency with which women choose part-time labor for child care reasons, or retreat from working life altogether)

    This doesn't even go into the radfem position that women are superior. Because of these "faith" positions, it seems that feminism is counter to atheism, not a logical off-shoot from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact they use patriarchy to explain everything is incredibly "religious" as well. Talk to a religious apologist: "How was the world created?" God did it. Everything is "god did it".

      Ask a feminist about any group where women are "under-represented". Patriarchy. What about over-represented? Patriarchy. The same explanation for two opposing things.

      Delete
  9. Oh man.

    So I was skimming through the comments on this post:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/richard-dawkins-disappoints-me-yet-again/#comment-99572

    Let's ignore the post itself which is pretty much much another "fainting couch incident", the comments are enlightening. Apparently what Dawkins did there was "violent" and "revolting" and "passive aggressive".

    Even more amusing to me is that all the attributes they ascribe to Dawkins summarizes most of their behaviour. It seems they're looking in the mirror and then their mind superimposes Dawkins' face on their own.

    My hope for the human species just dropped another few notches.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rationality and skepticism are not compatible with radical feminism; the attempt to merge them is doomed to fail.

    Can you imagine posting rules like this for your 'fellow skeptics'?

    "Important Rules for Skeptics

    Skepticism is normally a fine and productive thing for analyzing a wide range of issues. Gender-related issues, however, are different. Any time a woman complains that something bothers her, the following rules apply:

    1. She’s automatically correct.
    2. Disagreeing with her is wrong.
    3. Questioning her is wrong.
    4. Asking for evidence is proof of cluelessness, privilege, and misogyny.
    5. Anecdotes are data. If it happened once, it’s obviously a pervasive problem, if not an outright crisis.

    Remember: ANY time any woman says there’s a problem, there’s definitely a problem, and it must be addressed in the manner the woman requires. Failure to do so is further proof of cluelessness, privilege, and misogyny.

    If you break or even question any of these rules, you “just don’t get it.” Skepticism is fine for religion, but it’s off-limits for gender issues."

    ReplyDelete
  11. A shit test is basically an irrational, manufactured conflict, attack or complaint on the part of a female partner against her male partner.

    You might find this interesting -

    http://greylining.com/2011/09/22/the-conjoined-twins-of-gender-feminism-and-islamism/

    Specifically, "Muslim outrage — as with all human outrage — is predicated on how well it is tolerated. Continuously appeased, it becomes engorged and insistent on more concessions; ignored, it deflates and, ashamed of itself, withers away."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Greta Christina seems to view the world to be full of threatening penises around every corner lying in wait to rape her at any moment. I have two responses to this: 1. She needs to take some Prozac, and 2. she hasn't looked in a mirror lately.

    Okay, that second one was bad. couldn't resist.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Atheism+ sucks. I've started Atheism+1. It's PLUS ONE. That's better than a stupid "plus".

    Check it out:

    http://atheismplusone.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  14. This was funny and very original. I really enjoyed reading it.
    I wonder.... If the Skepchicks asked their feminist male followers to wear shoes on their head how many of them would go along with it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Looks like they have created a refuge for battered women. If they are going to continue with these shit tests, they will further marginalize themselves.

    The leading lights of the atheist movement are where they are because they are skeptics. Once any fight breaks out, they either have to go up against the feminists or leave their skepticism at the door, sullying their own reputation.

    The third way would be to attempt to distance themselves from the whole thing, but as we have seen, it will be the feminists pressuring them to sign declarations.

    This is a war, but as long a skepticism is kept alive, they should lose. Better still, it should sort the men out from the boys.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A "shit test" is precisely what is happening.

    Thank-you for an extremely well-written and perceptive opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rebecca Watson seems to be showing a real lack of maturity. She claims to be a liberated, self-sufficient woman but actually acts like a bratty little child. Far from rejecting patriarchal society she's still Daddy's little princess. She really ought to have been embarrassed when Richard Dawkins pointed out the triviality of her first world problems. Now I follow that some blinkered men who see only the damsel in distress signal, but why are there all these mature women rallying around her. However much these atheism+ people care about social justice, what practical change will they ever bring about when they're so easily diverted by the trivial manufactured needs of prima donnas.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry about removing this one. At 3:30 in the morning I tend to get a little fumble fingered.

      Delete
  19. I am a relative new comer to all of the drama that seems to have done nothing more than cause further divisions in a community that already has a bit of an identity problem. The Atheism movement has always been likened to herding cats so I must admit I was a little disheartened over all of this. Still, when I review the actions of the key players on the A+ side of the gap, I can't help but think of a group of folks that I am fairly intimate with.
    I'm a professional musician and am in contact with with the "Rock Star" mentality frequently. It's self serving, arrogant and is never wrong about anything. Even in the face of indisputable evidence, the context of the issue will be changed in so that the offending party is at worst an unwitting victim of a misunderstanding. Each major player in this game has become somewhat of an Internet Star and with this title comes all of the same attributes that fame bestows.
    Couple that with an army of groupies that consider themselves to be the biological incarnation of the words of the blogger they have chosen to ally themselves with and you have a recipe for Rockstardom.
    For me, the parallels are too numerous to ignore and sadly, there must be a Greek Tragedy before any of these folks ever return to Earth. Fame is the most addictive drug ever conceived and it takes a very strong personality to resist what it can turn you into. Consider this as you watch these people over the next couple of years. Oh and thanks for all of the videos and blogs you have created. I have sincerely enjoyed everything you have done and I guess that make me a new fan. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Fame is the most addictive drug ever conceived and it takes a very strong personality to resist what it can turn you into."

    That is profoundly true.

    "A shit test is basically an irrational, manufactured conflict, attack or complaint on the part of a female partner against her male partner."

    Thank you for that definition, which encompasses a lot of the male-female conflict I have witnessed in my lifetime. I have witnessed this many times in my personal life. if a man makes strident complaints about the appearance, sexual virtues or parenting competence of his woman partner, she shows him the door and everybody applauds. If she makes similar strident complaints about his performance in bed or his ability to bring in the bacon, that is understandable frustration.

    "...what is considered an abhorrent thought when it comes from an enemy is permissible and even apt when voiced by a friendly."

    That characterises a great deal of ideological politics, including Marxism in the first half of last century. If you genuflect in front of certain altars, in public, you can then molest the altar boys in a back room.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I would be careful of any woman testing me as her protecter/provider. If shes in it for a good or service what would be the point of the relationship in the first place? Sure isn't any love there just a whore and her trick.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sounds like my relationship with my mom. sad but true. scream scream dodge thrown object.take more abuse.try to exit.have exit blocked by screaming bitch. have to fight my way out of the house.get done for assault.oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  23.      Thunderf00t made a lot of valid points. He really has only one major problem. He is objecting to being on the receiving end, and had no problem with the tactics until then. I, myself, found that I was preemptively banned from posting comments on his videos. Ultimately, he is upset because his religion has labelled him a heretic.
         My own take is that you will not find very many skeptics and critical thinkers anywhere. There is no skeptical community. Members of any group calling itself such are either deluding themselves or lying. It is a comforting thought to believe that one has the right answers. Being a skeptic or a critical thinker means forever living without this comfort. You have to draw your conclusions from the best evidence available to you. That evidence is usually severely lacking.
         The thoughts on the "test" are rather interesting. To stand up to these women in the feminist movement is to abandon them. They have, unwittingly, created a situation in which they can never feel safe

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. " My own take is that you will not find very many skeptics and critical thinkers anywhere. There is no skeptical community. Members of any group calling itself such are either deluding themselves or lying. It is a comforting thought to believe that one has the right answers. Being a skeptic or a critical thinker means forever living without this comfort. You have to draw your conclusions from the best evidence available to you. That evidence is usually severely lacking."

    This is the truth ! A skeptic who doesn't go through life without any uncomfortable confusion is not a true skeptic he's a dogmatist. There are a helluva lot of things to be confused about in life ,the truth is usually buried under a lot of perceptions,that are almost impossible for most people to get rid off because of their pet biases

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!