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

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by tsig

ETA: wait, wait I see if someone isn't as macho as you they don't deserve a voice.

I know. It's sad the bloggers don't have a voice. Who will speak for them? It's too bad we don't have some kind of easily-accessible medium, which they could use in order to air their grievances publicly.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

And it is still stupid troll comments online, sticks and stones time.

If women in the 60s and 70s responded the way these babies do to comments, this current generation would have a whole lot more to worry about than just being called names on the internet. The current generation would NOT be able to pursue the careers they pursue now.

Again, they need to grow up.

Agreed. It's why all the gains their mothers made 30-40 years ago are under open attack now- abortion, single motherhood, women working, even women being educated. The women who should be fighting these things are distracted redefining terms and inventing new pronouns, feeling sorry for themselves, and spinning paranoid conspiracy theories to excuse their lack of action.

[Quinn]

Originally Posted by ShadowSot

If you say anything online, there are those that will attack you. It's not right that it's so, but it is so regardless.

And moreover, they will tend to attack you in the way they think will cause the most damage, at what they think are your most vulnerable points. For feminists, that means rape threats and appearance insults. For African-Americans, it's threats about lynching and being dragged behind a truck. For Jews it's gas chamber comments. For atheists it's general torture and hastening their inevitable eternal damnation. All of those things are of course despicable. But a collection of anecdotes doesn't convince me that women as a group are targeted more often than any other group that gives psychos something to be psycho at.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by tsig

There's no snark there, Axiom Blade's post perfectly demonstrated what I had said.

When anything you post is going to be misinterpreted, twisted and ridiculed as you are doing with your strawman and snark accusations,it's the better part of wisdom to keep it short.

Alright. My apologies, it was late and I was tired when posting that. In the light of day I realise that was obviously going to rub you the wrong way. It does come across to me like that though and I am a bit curious what's behind it.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by tsig

Right:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/he...pe-abuse-women

Interesting. I wonder if there's any research to confirm or deny the impression given there, that women bloggers receive more and worse abuse than men. Without that, it's interesting, but still just someone's impression.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

In what way? What do I do to change society?

To start with, SHUT UP AND LISTEN.
Then join Atheism plus.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by tsig

Thanks for proving you approve of insulting women.

Why should someone's gender determine whether it's ok to insult them?

Singling out women for protection from insult seems very traditional, almost say, patriarchal.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Quinn

And moreover, they will tend to attack you in the way they think will cause the most damage, at what they think are your most vulnerable points. For feminists, that means rape threats and appearance insults. For African-Americans, it's threats about lynching and being dragged behind a truck. For Jews it's gas chamber comments. For atheists it's general torture and hastening their inevitable eternal damnation. All of those things are of course despicable. But a collection of anecdotes doesn't convince me that women as a group are targeted more often any other group that gives psychos something to be psycho at.

Good point.

[Lorentz]

I've caught up on the Ron Lindsay speech now and oh boy, did he ever put his foot in it!

While there's much in his speech that I agree with (and some I don't), he committed the ultimate faux pas. He went into a space for women and said people shouldn't use "SHUT UP AND LISTEN".

Given that this phrase is mainly used BY women and directed AT men (what man would dare to say that to a woman nowadays?), he was in effect telling the women there that they were doing it wrong. Worse yet, he was at the same time guilty of being white, middle-aged and male.

It's the ultimate offense: a white middle-aged man telling feminists off in THEIR space, dedicated to THEM. I'm not surprised at the flack he's getting for this. If anything, it seems mild as yet.

p.s. I agree that "SHUT UP AND LISTEN" is a stupid phrase and I've only seen it used to mean: listen and shut up until you agree with me.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by theprestige

International A.N.S.W.E.R., the ALF, et al being iconic right wing nutcase organizations, of course.

Yes and in the UK groups like the BNP are classic left wing organisations because I said the bulk of the nutters there are left wingers.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

To start with, SHUT UP AND LISTEN.
Then join Atheism plus.

Comedy gold.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

Interesting. I wonder if there's any research to confirm or deny the impression given there, that women bloggers receive more and worse abuse than men. Without that, it's interesting, but still just someone's impression.

They love to represent their opponents as a bunch of scary, rapey neanderthals, and use these threats as evidence. In fact, many of their most vehement critics are other women, and even other feminists. They don't like to talk about that, though.

Note that nobody ever talks about all of the threats Richard Dawkins gets, or how something must be done about it. Presumably, it's because he's male. If I'm a male blogger, and I write about controversial topics, and then talk about all of the threats I get...who's going to care? People will shrug and say, "Yeah, that's awful, but it comes with the territory." But when it happens to a woman...wow! Stop the presses! This is a big problem that must be solved! Lengthy diatribes are written about how the women must be protected from filthy language and bad words.

It's very simple. If you think the threat is credible, report it. If you don't, move on. I'm not defending being a jerk; but...the jerks we will always have with us.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

They love to represent their opponents as a bunch of scary, rapey neanderthals, and use these threats as evidence. In fact, many of their most vehement critics are other women, and even other feminists. They don't like to talk about that, though.

Note that nobody ever talks about all of the threats Richard Dawkins gets, or how something must be done about it. Presumably, it's because he's male. If I'm a male blogger, and I write about controversial topics, and then talk about all of the threats I get...who's going to care? People will shrug and say, "Yeah, that's awful, but it comes with the territory." But when it happens to a woman...wow! Stop the presses! This is a big problem that must be solved! Lengthy diatribes are written about how the women must be protected from filthy language and bad words.

It's very simple. If you think the threat is credible, report it. If you don't, move on. I'm not defending being a jerk; but...the jerks we will always have with us.

Maybe, but lacking any kind of evidence beyond "lived experience", i.e. unverified anecdotes, I'm loath to even draw a tentative conclusion either way.

Do you have a way to KNOW that women on the Internet aren't subject to far more horrific abuse than men? I don't. It might be.

Edit: Come to think of it, there's some evidence I know of: the Skepchick "page of hate", which I found fairly weak. If that's the worst of their hate mail, they've not much to complain about. Then again, that's just Skepchick, I know nothing about what other female bloggers may receive by way of abuse.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

Edit: Come to think of it, there's some evidence I know of: the Skepchick "page of hate", which I found fairly weak. If that's the worst of their hate mail, they've not much to complain about. Then again, that's just Skepchick, I know nothing about what other female bloggers may receive by way of abuse.

You'd have to compare it to the abuse male bloggers get. In any case, I'm not questioning that the volume is higher. What I'm questioning is why people get upset when women are threatened, but not men...even when the threat is highly unlikely to be a real one.

It's not simply a matter of volume, because if it were, atheists everywhere would be up in arms about the amount of threats Dawkins gets. Instead, nobody blinks. Dawkins' threats must be several orders of magnitude more than Rebecca Watson's. Yet, nobody talks about it. Watson's threats get discussed whenever she's mentioned. In fact, her career seems to revolve around it at this point.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

You'd have to compare it to the abuse male bloggers get.

I think that would be qualified as a "what about teh menz?" response.

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

In any case, I'm not questioning that the volume is higher.

I would question that as well, myself. I just don't have answers.

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

What I'm questioning is why people get upset when women are threatened, but not men...even when the threat is highly unlikely to be a real one.

I think that's the classic patriarchal response: protect women and children, never mind the men. Tsig's response along those lines above really nailed it for me. To paraphrase: women are being insulted? Outrageous! How can we allow this to happen?

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

It's not simply a matter of volume, because if it were, atheists everywhere would be up in arms about the amount of threats Dawkins gets. Instead, nobody blinks. Dawkins' threats must be several orders of magnitude more than Rebecca Watson's. Yet, nobody talks about it. Watson's threats get discussed whenever she's mentioned. In fact, her career seems to revolve around it at this point.

Again, I do think that's the patriarchal attitude talking. Men can take care of themselves and are privileged on top of that. Women are sensitive fragile creatures who must be protected at all cost. Also they're victims of patriarchy and we should listen to those among them who feel the most victimised. Don't listen to the ones who don't view themselves as victims or disagree about patriarchy; they just don't understand what it's like.

The above paragraph pretty much summarises my conclusions since I started digging into the subject two years ago. I may have it wrong and I'll continue listening, as I have been. I'm no longer doing much of the shutting up though. It doesn't seem to be helping.

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

Again, I do think that's the patriarchal attitude talking. Men can take care of themselves and are privileged on top of that. Women are sensitive fragile creatures who must be protected at all cost. Also they're victims of patriarchy and we should listen to those among them who feel the most victimised. Don't listen to the ones who don't view themselves as victims or disagree about patriarchy; they just don't understand what it's like.

The above paragraph pretty much summarises my conclusions since I started digging into the subject two years ago. I may have it wrong and I'll continue listening, as I have been. I'm no longer doing much of the shutting up though. It doesn't seem to be helping.

Anyone who tells me I can't take care of myself will quickly discover otherwise

And from an old school feminist, yes, I have a problem with the delicate flowers who want it both ways. If women in the 60s and 70s tried to float that one, the rights and privileges women expect now would not be what they are. I came in after that but was very much aware of the struggles of the women who broke ground for us. I remember the "A woman's place is in the house AND the senate" slogan, it had resonance then.

[Lorentz]

Originally Posted by Kochanski

Anyone who tells me I can't take care of myself will quickly discover otherwise

Your first name isn't Kristine by any chance, is it?
If so, Lister wants to say hi.
And you can call me smeghead.

[Kochanski]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

Your first name isn't Kristine by any chance, is it?
If so, Lister wants to say hi.
And you can call me smeghead.

Hi smeghead

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

I think that would be qualified as a "what about teh menz?" response.



I would question that as well, myself. I just don't have answers.



I think that's the classic patriarchal response: protect women and children, never mind the men. Tsig's response along those lines above really nailed it for me. To paraphrase: women are being insulted? Outrageous! How can we allow this to happen?



Again, I do think that's the patriarchal attitude talking. Men can take care of themselves and are privileged on top of that. Women are sensitive fragile creatures who must be protected at all cost. Also they're victims of patriarchy and we should listen to those among them who feel the most victimised. Don't listen to the ones who don't view themselves as victims or disagree about patriarchy; they just don't understand what it's like.

The above paragraph pretty much summarises my conclusions since I started digging into the subject two years ago. I may have it wrong and I'll continue listening, as I have been. I'm no longer doing much of the shutting up though. It doesn't seem to be helping.

I agree. That's one of the big issues I have about these kind of feminists/SJWs. They seem to have a rather low opinion of women, that they're so delicate and tender, and if a man looks at them the wrong way they swoon, needing days to recover from the ordeal. Also, if it's pointed out that only a few men a rich/powerful/leading the patriarchy, and most of us aren't like that, and could use some help too, and don't like being stereotyped as terrible brutes, and use run-on sentences, we're told to check our privilege and stop mansplaining.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

I agree. That's one of the big issues I have about these kind of feminists/SJWs. They seem to have a rather low opinion of women, that they're so delicate and tender, and if a man looks at them the wrong way they swoon, needing days to recover from the ordeal.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman is rolling over in her grave; the feminists are walling themselves off in "safe spaces", presumably with yellow wallpaper.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

I agree. That's one of the big issues I have about these kind of feminists/SJWs. They seem to have a rather low opinion of women, that they're so delicate and tender, and if a man looks at them the wrong way they swoon, needing days to recover from the ordeal. Also, if it's pointed out that only a few men a rich/powerful/leading the patriarchy, and most of us aren't like that, and could use some help too, and don't like being stereotyped as terrible brutes, and use run-on sentences, we're told to check our privilege and stop mansplaining.

I really wish I could say you were strawmanning, but I can't. Maybe in an alternate universe you are.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Lorentz

Your first name isn't Kristine by any chance, is it?
If so, Lister wants to say hi.
And you can call me smeghead.

Oh, WOW. I was wondering why that name sounds familiar. Now I know!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Uh oh, they're onto Ally for being a White Male!

Quote:

Ally Fogg has been posting some older material to build into his new posts and likely to put down some background for people to see what he's written. I have to say that I am... leery of what's been written so far. I've seen some of the commentary among the posts so far and I'm at the carefully considering narrow eye stage. It's male focused SJ talk. Which isn't my problem. I'm definitely getting a distinct smell of something, but I haven't yet got a concrete decision.

Quote:

Fogg's latest post on misandry, just...I...I dunno. Something tells me that you'll have more leeway with the traffic on "Men" if you're on one of the traffic-free roads like say "White". That's a part of intersectionality he seems to be failing at too.

'Cause, seriously, I don't know how I would have had as hard a time with gender standards if I'd been NT.

Linky.

He recently reposted an article on privilege:

Quote:

When people compile privilege checklists they often include many negatives – bad things that don’t happen to you because of who you are. I reject this. Not being harassed on the street is not a privilege enjoyed by anyone but is a fundamental right that should be enjoyed by everyone. Occasionally there are actual independent advantages to being white, straight, male etc, but they are rare. However there is a real privilege is not even having to be aware of the nature of the traffic on someone else’s road.

I’m a white, straight , cisgendered, middle-class, able-bodied male. I cannot accurately know what it feels like to be anything else, but I know perfectly well how all those things do or do not impact upon my life. I’d prefer to think of Stavvers’s traffic as all the various pieces of ****, large and small, that life throws our way simply for being who we are. If you’re a black, lesbian, disabled woman, yes, that **** is coming hurtling at you from all sides and however hard you try to avoid it, some of that **** is going to mess you up.
Some of the traffic is driven by individual actions of racists, misogynists or individuals who otherwise oppress others but most of it is institutional and necessary to the socioeconomic system.

I know what it is like to be a pedestrian on the highway marked ‘White.’ It’s a breeze. The amount of ****-traffic heading my way down that road is all but zero. I could lay out a sleeping bag across the white lines in October, set my alarm clock for Spring and lie down to hibernate, safe in the knowledge that not one single car, truck or bus will squish my toes. Being white is a piece of piss. The same goes for the road marked “straight.” The same goes for being middle-class, able-bodied and cisgendered. All those things are just big old lonesome highways without so much as a trundling tractor to disturb the bliss. I should know, I’ve been walking those roads for 45 years.

Crucially, however, this isn’t exactly how it feels to be male. Not to me, and not to many other men either. Standing in the middle of the road marked ‘Male’, I have to dodge loads of traffic. Whizzing by on one side are the gender expectations, the demands to be a stoical, self-sacrificial breadwinner and provider, a sexual conqueror, all that old, stubborn heteronormative and patriarchal bollocks. Whooshing past on the other are the prejudices and assumptions about male aggression or violence, laziness, criminality, domestic and parental incompetence and all the rest. All around are the institutional ****-trucks sent by legal structures, education policies, health services, military traditions and more. Is the road marked ‘male’ busier and more difficult to traverse than the road marked ‘female’? No, I don’t believe it is, but it doesn’t need to be, this is not a competition. If you’re a woman and/or a feminist and you’re reading this and sneering, thinking “that stuff doesn’t sound too difficult to me, what’s your problem?” then congratulations – you’ve just entered the precise, privileged mind-set of every angry anti-feminist MRA dude on the internet. Of course you don’t see it – it’s not your road.

Linky.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Uh oh, they're onto Ally for being a White Male!

I see. So, how long do you give him?

[adamwho]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Uh oh, they're onto Ally for being a White Male!

I see. So, how long do you give him?

I have had some interaction on reddit with moderates from FtB. My advice to them, if they have any self respect, is to get away from FtB.