Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Esquilax]

But *ALL* lives matter, but the second anyone points that out, the feminists scream racism.  It isn't just black lives that matter, it isn't just female lives that matter, it isn't just gay lives that matter, it's ALL lives.  Most people are on board with egalitarianism, it's just the online vocal feminists who are screaming and whining at anyone who doesn't put *THEIR* lives at the top of the pile.

Consider it like this: "all lives matter," is the end goal, whereas "black lives matter," is one step toward reaching that goal. It's fine to say "all lives matter," and that's still a true thing, but you need to consider the world you actually live in too, which is one in which specific groups that comprise "all lives" are treated as though they matter less. In order to properly get to "all lives matter," you need to put those things that are defying that paradigm into focus. Basically, if you want to get to a stage where "all lives matter," is a systemically true part of society, you need to fix those elements of society that make it untrue, and the reduced importance of black lives, in so many ways, is one of those elements. This isn't exactly a crazy statement. Two things can be true at the same time, and "all lives matter," is no less true just because we need to specifically say that black lives also matter. Universal tolerance is, by definition, not a zero sum game.

And you fundamentally know that, because despite your complaints here that it's selfish and "whining" to draw attention to specific issues rather than broad strokes egalitarianism, that sure as hell didn't stop you from focusing in on specific male issues a few posts back, and you were right to do that. I don't understand why other people, doing exactly the same thing only for a group that you're not a part of, is somehow subtracting from the overall goals of egalitarianism, while your focusing on the issues of a group you are a part of suddenly makes it valiant and a worthwhile addition to those same goals.

It's all very well to say you're for egalitarianism, but if you then insist that nobody can act in specific areas to reach that goal you're essentially positing that the only viable plan to reach an egalitarian society is exactly one step, and that step is "be equal." You aren't exactly starting from scratch here, there are specific inequalities, within all demographics, that require redress to get there.

[Dystopia]

^ Exactly, these feminists can't understand that Egalitarianism is the umbrella term for feminism and men's rights and trans-rights, not the other way around.

Exactly.  These people don't want equal rights for all, they only care about equality for their pet groups.  Where their pet  groups have more rights than others they don't like, they're completely silent.  The fact is, women make up 58% of university graduates today, but they're only screaming about more money to send more women to school.  They don't want equality.  They want revenge.  They're also not talking about all of the advantages they have over men.  They think they deserve that.  They don't mention it when women get lighter sentences for the exact same crimes.  They don't say a word when women get better access to child custody and support payments.  They never campaign to have some of that massive pile of money that goes to breast cancer research go to, say, prostate cancer research.  It's not even in their rhetoric, they don't care.  That's why they're trying to steal the thunder from egalitarianism because if anyone actually looked at how they operate in the real world, it becomes painfully clear that they don't give a damn about equality for all, they only care about rights for their in-group.

Hmm humans are tribal beings so we're supposed to care about our group. It's how it works.

Really? 58%? So what? Most degrees women pursue are either feminine jobs, less well paid jobs that don't allow leadership positions or degrees where lots of unemployment. To give you an example, in my country there's a LOT (and I mean a lot) of universities for psychology, education/teaching and nursing. Do you wanna guess the percentage of women? Yeah, pretty high. Do you wanna guess the percentage of unemployment for those degrees? Sometimes over 50%. So yeah, it's irrelevant the percentage of people in college without taking into account what degree it is, how much it pays, how much support you get, etc.

Lighter sentences? Already covered that? Child custody and support payments? Most are settled before court with an agreement. And even if you conclude women get child custody more often, facts are that (1) Women work less hours and receive less so it makes sense for women to stay more time with children and for men to pay (2) Gender roles put men as the breadwinners and women as child bearers so it's natural that even the wisest court will be biased in favour of women because they take better care of children

I am confused because you mentioned you are a conservative but conservatism is fundamentally incompatible with egalitarianism, so much that it's usually a leftist word to describe utopian ideas. Conservatives believe in helping people, but are not naive to believe everyone will really get the same opportunity.

Since we already analysed your case and noticed you need to study a bit of sociology to realize how prejudices, social structures, disadvantages and social inequality works (And hurts people) why should anyone care about your pre-packaged rhetoric that can be found on any MRA rant about how feminism oppresses men?

I agree with you, and I think the fact that men are considered more dangerous is systemic and institutionalized inequality. I don't agree that women should be given less time because they will not survive in prison; prisons exist which are women only and women survive in them fine. Also, prison sentences shouldn't be about whether a person can survive or not in prison; prisons should be created such that any person who is incarcerated there is both punished and protected from harm.

Yes, as long as prisons don't allow violence and sexual abuses it's fine. Women can survive and usually they form gangs and perpetuate violence inside prisons, it's not a problem only for male prisons. 

I disagree that it's a false dichotomy. I never said that you had to focus on men / gays / transsexuals equally to women, but if a feminist stands for equality for all, they should at least focus on those groups some of the time. The reason a lot of feminists get flack and opposition is because they claim that feminism is about equal rights, but then do nothing for men's rights, and in some cases deny outright that there are social inequalities which men face.

Yes, but can you not focus more on your group? One doesn't magically discard the other possibility. I can tell you with safety that most articles on feminism sites are about women, but once in a while you find things like men being raped (1/6 men are abused) and men facing problems like sexual abuse, domestic violence, coping with toxic masculinity that leads to drug abuse, etc.

If you want to call yourself a feminist and say it's about ridding inequalities for everyone, but then you only focus on inequalities which affect women, then to me, that appears very one sided.

Why not both?

But *ALL* lives matter, but the second anyone points that out, the feminists scream racism.  It isn't just black lives that matter, it isn't just female lives that matter, it isn't just gay lives that matter, it's ALL lives.  Most people are on board with egalitarianism, it's just the online vocal feminists who are screaming and whining at anyone who doesn't put *THEIR* lives at the top of the pile.

If you made some research you would know that the reason why things like BlackLivesMatter happen is because there's injustices you face just because you are black. The probability of being incarcerated or shot by a cop as a black person is much higher. The whole BlackLivesMatter is to make a point about racism. It isn't saying that whites don't matter, no one wants to oppress whites (or very few people). It's not putting lives at the top of the pile, it's saying that just because someone is black you can't shoot them on sight or frisk them more often than you would normally


As for WomenLives I have never been into Twitter enough to see it but I guess it probably comes in a context of problems that affect women more because they are women like sex trafficking and consequent abuse, sexual slavery + rape, domestic abuse that goes unnoticed and sometimes women get sentenced for shooting their abuse, etc.

It's you who are not seeing the point so much that you need to come up with the AllLivesMatter when no one was denying that, people were just finding a good motto to actually make a point about racism, violence and prejudices. A good question to ask yourself is what is the probability of a black wearing dirty clothes being frisked compared to a white who would probably pass as a hippie.

[Polaris]

Notice who comprises most of the outspoken atheist community.... white men.

[Esquilax]

Notice who comprises most of the outspoken atheist community.... white men.

And?

[Cephus]

But *ALL* lives matter, but the second anyone points that out, the feminists scream racism.  It isn't just black lives that matter, it isn't just female lives that matter, it isn't just gay lives that matter, it's ALL lives.  Most people are on board with egalitarianism, it's just the online vocal feminists who are screaming and whining at anyone who doesn't put *THEIR* lives at the top of the pile.

It's like you didn't read anything I said, yet for whatever reason, you decided to respond to it?

I did respond to what you said, you're the one pretending that attacks against feminism are reactionary.  I think in large part, they are perfectly earned by radical feminists online.  They pretend that they're for equality across the board, but in reality, they only want rights and freedoms for their particular group of characteristics.  That's why I brought up the fact that those who argue that *ALL* lives matter often get shouted down by the feminists as racist and misogynist.

---

Notice who comprises most of the outspoken atheist community.... white men.

And that matters how?  There are no quotas, the "four horsemen" just so happened to be white and wrote things that resonated with a lot of people.  It isn't racist, it's reality.  If female atheists wrote things that lots of people wanted to read, then they'd be just as popular.  Maybe the fact is that they're just not as talented as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris.

[Silver]

And?

Do not mind him.  He is being retarded tonight.

[Cephus]

Hmm humans are tribal beings so we're supposed to care about our group. It's how it works.

But there's a difference between caring about one's gender or one's skin color, while pretending to care about all. Egalitarianism is for equality for all regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Really? 58%? So what? Most degrees women pursue are either feminine jobs, less well paid jobs that don't allow leadership positions or degrees where lots of unemployment. To give you an example, in my country there's a LOT (and I mean a lot) of universities for psychology, education/teaching and nursing. Do you wanna guess the percentage of women? Yeah, pretty high. Do you wanna guess the percentage of unemployment for those degrees? Sometimes over 50%. So yeah, it's irrelevant the percentage of people in college without taking into account what degree it is, how much it pays, how much support you get, etc.

And yes, 58%. The degrees that women CHOOSE to pursue are their own problem. There's a ton of whining about women going into STEM fields, yet overwhelmingly, women choose not to pursue those careers and it's always the feminists who are convinced that it's all some grand conspiracy to keep them out. The fact is, they don't, by and large, choose to go into those fields. They do choose to go into lower-paying fields like education and nursing, then you get feminists pretending that because women CHOOSE those fields, that men magically make more and it's some patriarchal bullshit. It isn't. Apparently, the majority of women just don't have any agency if they're not doing what the feminists want them to do.

Lighter sentences? Already covered that? Child custody and support payments? Most are settled before court with an agreement. And even if you conclude women get child custody more often, facts are that (1) Women work less hours and receive less so it makes sense for women to stay more time with children and for men to pay (2) Gender roles put men as the breadwinners and women as child bearers so it's natural that even the wisest court will be biased in favour of women because they take better care of children

All of which is entire bullshit. It's only been in the past couple of decades that children have been routinely placed with their mothers, fathers almost always got custody back in the 50s and before because they were understood to be better parents and have more financial wherewithal to care for the children. Do some homework.

I am confused because you mentioned you are a conservative but conservatism is fundamentally incompatible with egalitarianism, so much that it's usually a leftist word to describe utopian ideas. Conservatives believe in helping people, but are not naive to believe everyone will really get the same opportunity.

No, that's ridiculously untrue. But then again, I'm sure you buy into the nonsensical lie that conservatism has anything whatsoever to do with what's happening in the Republican party today too.

Since we already analysed your case and noticed you need to study a bit of sociology to realize how prejudices, social structures, disadvantages and social inequality works (And hurts people) why should anyone care about your pre-packaged rhetoric that can be found on any MRA rant about how feminism oppresses men?

All of which comes straight from leftist sources. Sorry, not impressed with asshole liberalism.

[Polaris]

Notice who comprises most of the outspoken atheist community.... white men.

And?

That demographic statistically has poorly addressed the concerns of feminists.

[Cephus]

And?

That demographic statistically has poorly addressed the concerns of feminists.

Maybe because the "concerns of feminists", at least within the atheist community, have been so ridiculous?

[Jenny A]

Notice who comprises most of the outspoken atheist community.... white men.

I do notice.  So what's wrong with us women and minority atheists?  Seriously.  It's not as if there is a single megaphone out there and white men are hogging it.

I have a few suggestions for why there are fewer outspoken women and minority atheists though.  Atheism is not a popular position.  To be really outspoken you need to feel safe and secure.  Also education and atheism are linked.  What you are seeing is the most secure educated group out in front.  Not a big surprise.

Additionally, atheism isn't an organization, support group, or religion.  It's not as if woman and minorities could be excluded or excommunicated.  I don't believe a god of any sort, so I'm an atheist.  No group of outspoken white men is going to have any impact on that belief.