Friday, February 20, 2015

Feminism And Atheism: You Can Change The Label, But It Won't Change Me

I find it utterly ridiculous when other people try to tell me what I am, when they try to redefine or vilify the words I have chosen to describe myself.
I am an atheist, and I think of the time that atheist speaker Matt Dillahunty was interviewed for a Christian radio show. The host said that Dillahunty "denied Christ" and stated that he (the host) thought that atheism was the belief that there was no god, in spite of what Dillahunty says on his own show, The Atheist Experience: that atheism is a lack of belief in a god.
It made me wonder, what was he trying to say about Dillahunty? Was he trying to say that Dillahunty didn't even know what he was, or was he actually trying to put words in his guest's mouth? Was he trying to change what Dillahunty believes or claims, by changing the definition of the word "atheist?"
Or did he claim to know better than Dillahunty what Dillahunty actually believed?

There is a video on Youtube, that I have been unable to find since seeing it the first time, in which a preacher talks to his congregation about his experiences giving speeches at colleges. I paraphrase him here:
"I told them, 'You're not an atheist, because an atheist believes that there is no god, so you're an agnostic...But you're not an agnostic either, because an agnostic believes that the question of God's existence is unknowable...'" (I had never heard of this one! Apparently, he had already proved that this subject was knowable, somehow?) "'...So if you're not an atheist, and you're not an agnostic, what are you? Well, then, you're a seeker, and that's why I'm here today.'"
He got thunderous applause from his church congregation, yet I failed to see how calling someone a "seeker" would make them more open to his arguments for God's existence. He was trying to redefine their identities in such a way that changed their belief systems, or even their thought processes. It almost seemed as if he was trying to deceive people into thinking that they were "seeking" God when they weren't.

Atheists are subject to this kind of label-changing from Christians and other theists, this kind of vilifying, and also often judged by a radical fringe of their movement. And yet, many prominent atheists do these very same things to another vilified group: feminists.

For example, on Youtube alone*:
Jaclyn Glenn, when asked in an interview at the University of Southern California whether she considered herself a feminist, replied that she considered herself "more of a humanist," because she was for everyone's rights, not just women's rights (because she apparently thinks that one can't be for more than one cause at a time, or take more than one label at a time).
The Amazing Atheist thinks that it's okay to call a random woman a "stick with tits" (a Drunken Peasants Podcast reply to a video by Laci Green) because he considered her stupid (and no, I don't agree with reducing a "stupid" man to his genitals, either).
And Mr. Repzion thinks that feminists think it hilarious to see a woman beating up a man for ruining her clothes in a commercial, totally dismisses the idea of the gender wage gap (without at least providing evidence to explain it away, on "Re: Potty Mouthed Baby Feminists"), and reads tweets from radical feminists (for example, one promoting the idea that all men should be castrated) thinking that they represent many or most feminists.
*(I wanted to provide links to all of these videos, but unfortunately can't stand to see them again. They are readily available on Youtube with a simple search.)

Feminism, as feminist, atheist and sex guru Laci Green so perfectly explains here, is the belief that women deserve equal rights and privileges under the law. That is all that it is. Some feminists carry the idea further than that, as some atheists carry their unbelief to extremes and say that all theists are stupid, etc.
But that does not change the underlying idea, the actual definition, of either feminism or atheism, any more than the existence of fundamentalist Christians makes all Christians fundamentalists.
(I say more about feminism, what it means to me, and what I believe it is, or at least could be, in this previous article, The Reason I'm A Feminist (Is Not What You Think))
This is actually the No True Scotsman Fallacy, turned around to apply to the other person.
"A 'true' atheist says that there is no god--just like Psalm 14, isn't that convenient? You're a fool!" (I actually rebut this point here.)
"A 'true' feminist wants to subjugate and castrate all men, therefore feminism is dangerous and isn't necessary."
But the behavior of radicals does not make me radical. I may not be a feminist by some people's definitions, but that does not change anything about what I believe or what I stand for.
I stand for equality. I stand for women's rights. I believe in encouraging women and girls to dream big and reach their highest potential, and I find inspiration in the idea of being a good feminist role model. Beyond that, I can't guarantee that I will agree with every other feminist. I do not believe, for example, that all men should be forcibly castrated (though I do sympathize with the underlying desire to feel safer in a world where men are the stronger sex).
I find it amazing that atheists are an often vilified group, judged for the behavior of a few radicals, but many atheists don't want to be associated with feminism--because of the behavior of a few radicals! Since when have atheists let people's judgements of them interfere with being honest, and applying what they believe is an accurate label to themselves?
Perhaps they don't know or care what feminism actually is? Or perhaps they are okay with being judged for one thing but not another? They will stand with the godless, with the apostates, with the sinners...but not with the women, because that would be too aggressive. (And if you do stand with women, and are for women's rights, then I would daresay that, at least to a degree, you are a feminist yourself!)
I believe that the backlash against feminism, though fueled by the behavior of radicals, is originally caused by three things: guilt, fear, and sexism. Some would dismiss women's problems as simply ridiculous, or think that they would know better than women (or other women) how big or small their problems are. I also believe that, deep down, many people (not just men, as I know that women aren't all good, and men aren't all bad) know that women have gotten a raw deal, especially those women who wished to step outside of their traditional gender roles (e.g., feminists), and some people are afraid of the backlash from such treatment.
This is why I believe, for example, many white people are often uncomfortable talking about racism (guilt, if not for themselves, then for what their "group" has done) and those who do not think of themselves as feminists (and I'm not referring only to men here) are often uncomfortable talking about sexism. In either case, there is sometimes a tendency to pretend that the problem does not exist anymore.

And a lot of people get very upset if someone else uses the "wrong" term to describe themselves. That is true with both feminism and atheism. Certain Christians and theists get mad or correct people if "atheists" say that they simply lack a belief in God, and people who are against "feminism" especially become upset if a "feminist" states that s/he is merely for gender equality.
But why? Why does it matter so much how someone describes themselves? Is it not more important to focus on what people actually believe and stand for? By some people's definitions, I am not a feminist, because I don't believe that women are superior and that we should have "more" rights (though even feminists often don't agree on what exactly equality looks like). Likewise, by some people's definitions, I am not an atheist, because I don't claim to know for a fact that God doesn't exist.
And yet if I use the "wrong" term to describe myself, why is it a big deal? Why are some people offended? If we both stand for the same things, why does it matter? And if we don't, shouldn't we be focused on the issues instead of labels?

See also:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/ (Anything by author Libbey Ann regarding feminism is probably pretty good.)
http://www.secularwoman.org/bias_against_feminists

*(I wanted to provide links to all of these videos, but unfortunately can't stand to see them again. They are readily available on Youtube with a simple search.)

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourney

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Why Am I Explaining Myself?

I was reading the comments on a recent post by Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, when I found myself in a rather interesting exchange with a creationist.
In keeping with the Ken Ham/creationist theme, other commenters talked of ribs, bacculums (penis bones, which animals have and humans don't, and which some people believe was Adam's actual "rib"), and the creation story. This talk of penises reminded me of something:

A.J.
 "I've always wondered, if God only wanted to make Eve because Adam was lonely, why did he have a penis? And if he didn't, how did they have babies? And why do men have them, if they could have babies some other way?"
I was answered with this, by a person who, for privacy's sake, I will refer to as Creationist Lady (C.L.):
C.L.
 "Of course he had a penis, and how else do you think men would have a baby?"

 (I will quote some of her comments here, as well as my own, though for the sake of brevity and relevance, not all of them, and for those same reasons I'm afraid I cannot include a lot of context.)

C.L. (to someone else, who asked about, er, "heavenly bliss")
 "There will be no need for sex in Heaven."
A.J.
 "Will there be other activities that are just as pleasurable? Will we have a Praise-gasm? (I'm semi-serious here, as to your thoughts)."
C.L.
 "The Bible is silent on that matter."

 Someone asked if Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Creationist Lady had the answer:

C.L.
 "I don't believe that Adam or Eve either one had a belly button, why would they need one?...I don't know why it is so difficult for you all to fail to believe there is a real God. You believe in science and it is just the study of what is, likewise faith is also a journey into the realm of what is, what was, and what is to come, Is that so hard? You get excited at what science comes up with, but why do you not get just as excited with what the anthropologist comes up with concerning the diff. civilizations they are continually coming up with, or the many items that prove the bible is true, including, but not limited to the Dead Sea Scrolls?"
 A.J.
 "I can't speak for anyone else, but after praying and trying to get close to God for many years, I began to doubt that there was anyone there at all. When you talk about faith or the bible, I have doubts about them, because I think that, just from my own evidence and experience, there's likely nothing there. Hope that answers your question."
C.L.
 "I am very sorry that your efforts failed, I wish I had an answer for you, but I don't, but God is real, and maybe one day you will know of a surety that He is."
C.L.
 "I can't say anything about anyone else's experience but my own, but I believe with all my heart that if you seek God with a pure heart, meaning without guile and without doubt, you will surely find God. I wish you the very best and I will be praying for you."
A.J.
 "Thank you. Thanks for your patience with all of my questions too. I found your responses pretty interesting. About God, I do know two things: That I was sincere, and that if there is a God, and he/she is good, that I won't die without knowing the truth. I know you were getting mocked tonight, but I hope you know I was trying to be friendly. :)"
C.L.
 "Thank you so very much for your comment and for your being friendly (like the blog says). God judges the intents of the heart, and I am sure that your sincerity will get you where you want to go, God Bless and see you on the other side. :)"

This exchange, though, made me wonder: Why did I have to explain myself? Over and over again in my discussions with theists, I find myself using the same line, "I know I was sincere, and I trust that God wouldn't let me die without knowing the truth." They always seem to respond to that positively, and yet, I still feel I have to say it in order to be understood. In other words, the default assumption seems to be something different.
Why did this person quoted above not give the atheists who disagreed with her the benefit of the doubt, or at least those who didn't say things like, "Lady, get your ignorant ass back in school" (a real comment she received)? She was very friendly to me towards the end, which I loved, but she also called those who mocked her liars, fools, Marxists, and socialists (though they may have deserved to be told off, I'm not sure that this is the most accurate or productive way to do it). Why, on a blog called The Friendly Atheist, were we all (according to her) mocking God and trying to deceive people?

C.L. (not specifically to me):
 "All of you mocking God, and trying to deceive people, by all your lies and propaganda"
  It is rather discouraging to me to feel as if I am not given the benefit of the doubt.
I want to find common ground with theists as much as possible, except in cases where their bigotry, condescension or intolerance becomes so much that I just want to avoid them. But I still feel as though I shouldn't have to explain that my intentions are good, or that I don't hate God or them.
 There are many theists who have been more than friendly to me, but there are just enough of this kind to occasionally discourage me. I am beginning to think that I should stop trying to explain myself to these people.

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

The Free Market Will NOT Magically Put Bigots Out Of Business

I once heard some of my classmates arguing about discrimination in hiring practices. One of them, John, stated: "If a business doesn't hire women or minorities, people are going to hear about it and it's going to go out of business. But the government doesn't have to step in."
It took me a day or so before I figured out what exactly bothered me about that statement. It was this: That tactic does not work. If it did, then why are we even having this discussion?
The free (often black) market can do some good things (other than create drug addicts and give guns to gangsters), including provide power to those in countries where it is unavailable or prohibitively expensive. But there are some things that it cannot do, and one of these is punishing those who take advantage of or discriminate against others.

I have been reading a lot lately about the many battles of same-sex couples seeking wedding cakes from bakers who turn out to be against their marriages. In some of the comments on these articles, I have seen the occasional appeal to the Free Market as the righter of wrongs. In an ideal world, perhaps it would be. Yet the fact that discrimination is an issue at all is enough to convince me that it cannot do it alone.

The Free Market:

The free market alone is not going to put bigots out of business. Otherwise, why didn't the Greensboro Woolworth's go out of business as soon as it was rumored that they refused to serve racial minorities at their lunch counter? If the Free Market and word-of-mouth was enough to put Woolworth's out of business, there would have been no need for sit-ins and protests, and it would not have taken six months of such protests for the lunch counter to finally serve non-whites.
It's not a billy club of government to make people be basically decent to others. Would those who think the Free Market is a moral agent have people who are discriminated against just wait around for their rights, until others stop discriminating against them?

The Law:

In practical terms, I actually believe that any proposed anti-discrimination laws will only change things for bakers and other providers of products, who have a storefront. A provider of a service or someone who fills orders from home or by mail can always hide behind the excuse of being too busy.
I still am in favor of these laws 100%, however, because no one should have to be preached to, and by, of all people, someone they were ready give hard-earned money to. Like with sexist or discriminatory hiring policies, the providers of these products and services will have to find a legal, credible excuse. 
It might be uncomfortable for some people to cater, plan or photograph a gay wedding, just as it was uncomfortable for some white people, at one time, to have minority families move to their neighborhoods. They were then forced to see them and treat them as people, as equals to their white friends. They did not have a "safe space" in their neighborhoods to voice racist or segregationist opinions and assumptions. Yes, there are still problems for people of color even today, sometimes significant ones, but it was a huge step in the right direction.
I hope that the day comes, in my lifetime, that a similar thing happens for LGBTQ people.
When an anti-gay wedding photographer understands that she is merely doing a job, and that her work does not necessarily mean that she approves of the couple for any reason (she may not approve of a younger woman marrying an older man, or a mixed-faith couple being "unequally yoked," for example, yet probably would still take the photographs), that would be a huge step in the right direction. When an anti-gay wedding planner understands that it is unprofessional and illegal for him to comment on the nature of the couple's (or even polyamorous group's) relationship, that will be a huge step in the right direction. And when an anti-gay landlord or hiring business owner understands that she must at least provide a plausible excuse, and that her real reasons are hideously unprofessional and oppressive (or, in her mind, at least seen as such), that is not ideal, no, but at least it would spare someone a self-righteous sermon from a stranger who knows nothing about them or what kind of person they really are.

The Bigots: 

What bothers me most of all about those who wish to discriminate is not that they hold such (most often religious) views about others' lives, but that they don't seem to want LGBTQ people near them. The Christian business owner doesn't want to interact with a lesbian employee. The Muslim landlord doesn't want to interact with a gay couple as tenants. The anti-gay photographer doesn't want to take pictures of a same-sex couple, or look through her lens at two women or men kissing.
They don't want to look at these people, they don't want to see these people, and that is a very dehumanizing thing.
What they want is a form of segregation. They want LGBTQ people to live in the other part of town, or at least in another apartment building. They want them to find work in other companies (with which many of these bigots would not do business because of their owners or welcoming attitude towards gay employees), not theirs.
They don't want to "reward" or "support" any "lifestyle" with which they disagree (and instead of minding their own business, they often want everyone else to share their values, too). They don't want to deal with differences among people. Some of these discriminatory people (those who oppose gay marriage rights) even want being gay to be penalized by society. Being gay in America can be very difficult, in many ways, and they want to keep it difficult. They want people to lose privileges or have to jump through extra hoops to be able to "sin." They believe LGBTQ people are bound for hell, and yet they still try to make their lives hell on earth.
This is what breaks my heart about the issue of gay rights. This is why we cannot allow these bigots to make others' lives more difficult than they probably already are. Even if it would cause anti-gay people momentary discomfort, no one should have to be told that they are not good enough, morally, for one of "God's people" to make them a generic wedding cake.
When these same people try to hide behind the excuse, "Let the Free Market decide," it is really just code for "Let's maintain the status quo." I cannot honestly see the proponents of unbridled capitalism shopping according to social values of tolerance, acceptance, taking care of the environment, or human and animal rights, at least not when they can save money otherwise. (Anyone who feels differently, or is one these conscious shoppers, feel free to prove me wrong in the comment section.)
And why do they want to maintain the status quo? It is usually because they benefit in some way already, probably at the expense of others, and stand to lose their benefits or privileges, such as the "right" to discriminate against homosexual clients.
Or they are simply tired of hearing about other people's (very real and significant) problems, or they think that others are ridiculous for talking about their own experiences, because these Free Market cheerleaders cannot see discrimination if it does not apply to them. (Many will say that they are not homophobic, sexist, racist, ablist, etc, but their unwillingness to listen to or take action on other people's problems speaks volumes.)

 The Cakes:

Yes, some people might be uncomfortable "participating" in a same-sex marriage, but we are talking about a job; a wedding planner or photographer is not involved in the wedding in the same way that the family or bridesmaids are. If someone would not quit their job over having a gay boss, then they have no right to refuse a job for this reason. It is not "glorifying" something one disagrees with, to do one's job.
I remember reading once, in a book I have long forgotten the title of, about a Christian woman who once got up early and worked for hours to help her Muslim neighbor prepare a special dish for a Ramadan celebration. I imagine that the Christian woman herself partook in this special meal, as inviting her would naturally be the neighborly thing to do. I recall wondering at the time whether a Christian could help support the observance of a Muslim feast, and thinking that I "should" disagree with her actions. I knew, however, that they were motivated by love for her neighbors.
Cannot Christians follow the example of the apostle Peter, who partook in a religiously "unclean" meal with Gentiles, something forbidden by his own Jewish religion? Can they not pray over their cakes and food, that those who eat of it will find God? If it is, in fact, all right, according to the New Testament, for Christians, at least if their faith is strong, to eat food that has been sacrificed to idols, why is it not all right for food that has been dedicated to the Lord to take part in a ceremony with which Christians disagree?
In other words, if Christians, who do not worship Satan or idols, can eat the devil's food, why can't "sinners" eat Jesus' cake?

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys