A few points of conflict with Jackie L's (Eilonnwy) article.

[Dotard]

[youtube]g6undjxb_QQ&feature=related[/youtube]

[fr0d0]

There is no strawman; the discussion is still going, but for the moment we are focusing on what you accused tavarish of being, and why you continually refuse to explain what you meant (despite your other claim that you wish people would try to understand more).

Great. Lets all get our pitchforks and torches.

If you read above you'd see I've been addressing the points exactly. Now quit your whining and address them.

[Spectrum]

Thanks again for a pretty balanced post TSQ. I think it is harassment when like this it's the culmination of frustrations where a person is vilified for going against the populist flow, which in this case I believe to be seriously misguided. Women have consistently defended their position to be shot down by open misogynism cheered on from the side lines. This is in no way showing sensitivity to a minority. Quite the opposite. I can't understand the willingness in championing lack of sensitivity. If you don't get it, why not try a little understanding rather than throwing stones with the mob?

I don't see this. You know what I see? A lot of open-minded, pro-equality-for-all atheists (and several just as great, non-atheists). You can complain all you want, but that's all it is, complaining. You aren't going against the populist flow here by yelling out "inequality!". Go to the GOP, various public schools in the U.S., etc. and shout that. Here however, it is misplaced. What misogyny? Also, please explain what you meant by "you don't get it". What do we/they not get?

PS: I'm disappointed in you, that you want to keep fighting this lost battle. Not that you should care of course.

[fr0d0]

It is a lost battle against bigotry speccy. Not that you're anything to do with it being a newcomer. You have no idea of the history. But what do you think about the current points raised? Do you think you should just be yourself and fuck everybody else or do you think consideration of others in the interest of fairness should be our ideal? Opinions above side on the former - if that's your idea of right then I have to disagree.

[Spectrum]

Consideration is key, but being yourself is key too. I see a healthy mix of both here. Look, I think this is all one stale, tactless argument. It's simple, race is an issue because we make it an issue. It's not something like world hunger or disease; lack of resources and natural disasters exist despite our aversion to them. Racism, sexism, etc. aren't going to be an issue as soon as we could all care less about them. Then we begin to see people as the individuals they are. Viola, issue solved.

[theVOID]

I'll start fresh with this one.

"While the demographics of atheists have some statistical issues, it is a well known fact that most people who identify as atheist, especially in the US, are white men. While many women and people of color do identify as atheist and that number has been growing, there is still a very large disparity here, especially between white atheists and people of color."

And that likely has something to do with racially disproportionate poverty caused by historical wrongs leading to generally lower education. As for females I can only assume on experience it is because more non-religious females identify as spiritual or something to that effect. That could be completely wrong, however all else being equal I can think of no other reasons that might tip the scales off the top of my head.

discussions is the way we look outward and consider why people of color may not want to abandon religion, or identify as non-religious. One such explanation is that their racial identity is more important than their religious identity, or that religion is tightly associated with their racial identity.

Is that not the fault of the community around this person who may be discriminatory themselves? The reasons why one may not to be a public atheist are the responsibility of white male atheists.

Also, if one thinks that cultural Christianity and atheism are inseparable one need's look no further than Bob Price, the church going atheist who believes Jesus never existed.

However, what I never really see is an inward look as to why people of color may not want to identify as atheist. As stated above, the atheist movement is largely made up of white men. I will go even further and state that they tend to be made up of straight cisgender white men.

That is an 'inward look' that would be futile to anyone but the racial minority.

However it is always important to recognize that there are inherent social privileges and/or disadvantages based on your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.... The concept of social privilege is a complicated one, so I will not delve into a detailed explanation here, but simply link you to pages that very well document white, male, straight, and cisgender privilege.

Sure, I agree all these things exist. Now when are we getting to the part where I am supposedly abusing my privileged?

Christopher Hitchens, a man I tend to admire for his cunning wit in debates with Christians, once made the claim in a debate I attended that women tend to be more religious because they are mothers and will do anything, including pray, to keep their children safe. What may seem like a logical consideration on the face is really sexist at its core. All it does is try to simplify the answer and imply women are not capable of considering religion with reason because they are mothers with a life to worry about.

I don't buy the argument that Hitchens made at all, but...

Women usually are more emotional than men, and men usually are marginally more intelligent, this is confirmed by pretty much all of the largest studies known so while I'm not personally that comfortable with claiming it out loud, it's certainly the best evinced conclusion. If that is the case and religion is more emotional whilst atheism is more intellectual then this could explain some of the stats for racially equal belief stats.

I have seen atheists argue ad nauseum for a woman’s personal responsibility in not getting raped and failing to see how that is victim blaming and contributing to rape culture.

I totally disagree with this sentiment, not only that but I know almost nobody who thinks that a women being provocatively dressed justifies the action in any way at all. I know women who think that the moon causes their period cycles, yet I wouldn't generalize that for a point that women are shit skeptics, which is exactly what you've just done.

Better yet, go find some neo-nazi's. They're largely white men too

Learning when you have done wrong and trying to educate yourself to change certain previously held attitudes is to be encouraged. In fact, I think many atheists encourage that type of behavior in respect to religion, as most are first generation atheists and have undergone a personal transformation when their belief in god and religion changed. Now we need to encourage this type of behavior when it comes to understanding privilege and taking a personal inventory of certain attitudes that have serious social consequences.

I agree.

In an effort to educate myself, I have viewed many statements by atheists on the topic of race and been taken aback at the obvious white privilege dripping from their words.

Do you not feel somewhat cheap in making all these generalizations?

I have seen blatant racism in some instances, and in others I just see someone who doesn’t understand their own privilege and I can see why these people have no idea why what they say is problematic. Yet, their inability to be aware of their own privilege does not excuse them and I look back at these discussions of why the atheist movement lacks more people of color and shake my head in disdain.

So the privilege of person x lowers the chances of person y being an atheist? How so? You've made no connection thus far.

In truth, I have started to become disappointed and disillusioned with the atheist movement. Atheists will decry religious discrimination, as they should, but not recognize that a program to sterilize drug addicts for money is discrimination too.

1) If you expect anything from an atheist movement other that being a movement regarding religion it's no wonder you are disappointed, it would be like showing disappointment when my boat can't drive me home. If you want an anti racist movement then plenty already exist.

2) Discrimination is not always bad. I'll gladly discriminate against drug addicts, and that being as a regular drug user. The line in the sand is pretty damn clear, and when you're putting yourself in that situation where your procreation could lead to a miserable life for a child then it's not unethical to take an incentive to have a vasectomy.

3) Most of these drug addicts are white males

When Bill Maher was criticized for receiving the Richard Dawkin’s Award because of his crazy comments about medicine, he was not taken to task for his extremely misogynistic remarks. In fact, I will often hear atheists pat themselves on the back for being more educated than religious people and then spit out the most vitriolic racist and sexist comments, or make classic derailing arguments, and then wonder why more people of color and women are not atheists.

1) I've heard more Maher jokes against white men than women

2) You're massively (and falsely) generalizing again.

3) People of color or women who don't campaign for religious freedom because of some unrelated comment by proponent y then how are they commendable? If you don't believe in God but won't campaign because of what Maher said, then fuck you.

[Live_free]

Feel guilty for being myself? Feel guilty for being born the way I am? Check my privilege at the door? Attack those who disagree? Claim adversity and scream prosecution? Double Standard?

Sounds to me like Eilonnwy is trying to make a new religion and will be a great cult leader.

[Autumnlicious]

Sounds to me like Eilonnwy is trying to make a new religion and will be a great cult leader.

[Dotard]

---

By Paul Elam
Years back, in another life, I used to teach at seminars and conferences that provided continuing education units for professional re-certification.

In one particular module, I used a portable grease board in a room in front of my waiting audience. Without introducing myself or saying anything else, I used a grease pen to write the words “Men are…” at the top of the board, and then silently invited the audience to finish the sentence.

Almost invariably, “pigs” or “dogs” was the first offering, accompanied by a room full of good-natured chuckles. I would nod my head and write it down on the board and return to the audience, still silent, for more.

“Controlling,” says one. “Afraid of commitment,” says another. “Aggressive.” “Macho“ “Afraid of intimacy.” “Violent.” “Sexist,” and “Power hungry.” More of the pejoratives, and almost only pejoratives, would come from the audience till the board was full.

I then flipped the board to the other side.

“Women are…” was the cue, and the answers were even more rapid fire than they were with men.

“Strong.” “Capable” “Empowered” “Sensitive.” “Nurturing,” and the like would fly from the audience to the grease board like a barrage of arrows, till that side too was full.

“What do you imagine,” I would ask, taking a strategic pause for a sip of water, “that these answers tell us about the real nature of sexism in the way we view men and women?”

Asking them a question with actual spoken words must have thrown them for a loop, because the stock response to that question was almost invariably a room full of nonplussed, cognitively dissonant faces. And that confusion usually gave way to irritation, clearly at me, though every answer on both sides of that board had come from them.

And by the way, the participants in the crowd? They weren’t accountants or nurses or teachers or financial advisors.

They were mental health professionals.

Counselors, psychotherapists, social workers and the lot. The very people we love to imagine possess the objectivity to rise above the mindset of bigotry and sexism. And the people, despite our want of faith in their work, least likely to actually do it.

I wanted a little more pressure so I asked more questions. “How could this affect our therapeutic alliance with clients?- Could it make our relationships with females enabling?- Punitive with men?” And always, the final question I asked was “Do we carry sexism, against men, unconscious or conscious, into our work with each and every client?”

With that question the anger usually intensified.

In one talk, a female participant, a social worker, jumped out of her chair and threw her papers everywhere. “You’re the sexist!” she hissed at me, and stormed out of the room. She later wrote letters of complaint both about my topic and the fact I would not sign off on her attendance.

Welcome to the wacky world of mental health.

It is a telling study in the psychology of hate. Indeed, as we peel back the layers of fantasy from the profession, we are forced into a most disturbing conclusion.

Psychology is hate. At least as it is practiced in western culture.

It’s most evident in the junk psychology market. Since the mid-eighties, get-rich-quick psychology gurus have often made their way to bestseller lists. Books like Robin Norwood’s Women Who Love Too Much, Susan Forwards, Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and others have been runaway hits, all predicated on rigid stereotypes of men who hate and women who love; all just more additions to the already crowded grease board.

Recently, MRA Mark Rudov appeared on Fox News in a brief debate with Karen Salmansohn on women executives. She was given a nice plug for her new book, Bounce Back. They could have, and probably should have in the interest of balance, given her credit for her previous publication, How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers.

I don’t make this stuff up. Unfortunately, I don’t have to.

Currently, male bashing monarch Phil McGraw reigns in the ratings, and it won’t be long before another emerges, fighting to be top dog in dogging men. All you need is a warped worldview and a nod from Oprah.

And these are just the media hucksters. At least we can say that the men and women who embrace their misandry-for-profit schemes are just another dumbed-down group in a dumbed-down media culture.

The more culpable and dangerous are the ones with the air of legitimacy. These folks don’t write, or don’t just write. They teach, do research, and most dreadfully, hang out their shingles and help infect the world, one gullible client at a time.

The world of psychology in academics and practice has become a weapon in the realm of gender politics. Almost all pretense to objectivity and academic integrity has been forced aside by ideologues with an ax to grind against men and who are using the loathsome disguise of helping professionals to further their agenda.

If you think that is extreme, read on.

Allaboutcounseling.com is purportedly an information and referral resource for people seeking mental health services. What it is in reality is a portal, a conduit that induces women into the mentality that it is the vile scourge of manhood at the root of their problems.

And they offer feminism as the solution before the first session is booked.

Some tidbits from their site include some detailed hype about the fundamentals of feminism and some reassurances that not all feminists are lesbians.

I suppose they figure heterosexual women need such basics. And it’s good pre-sell to overcome objections before they are raised. Ask any used car salesman.

They even have a nifty section promoting a new masculinity. These Freudettes have the key to re-engineering men for the better, with the implication, of course, that the way men are now is defective and in need of an overhaul.

Part of that overhaul is a gag. This is just one of the standouts, as it appears word for word on the site.

Openness- To others (especially to women) criticism of our behaviors and attitudes, listen, listen some more, and only speak if the critic wants feedback.

This isn’t even speak when spoken to. It is shut up and take it. Speak with permission only, from whichever woman is attacking you at the moment.

Ah, the finer aspects of mental health.

They have much more there. Enough bogus stats on domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse for a N.O.W. convention, and staunch defenses of feminism tied in directly with the counseling message. Their ultimate point is clearly that sound mental health for women depends on embracing feminism, and with it the hatred for men.

Sound advice for those seeking love and intimacy if I ever saw it.

At this point, the grease board is showing more grease than board.

I wish I could say that this was the bottom of the pit; that the infection stopped there, but we are still dealing more with the symptoms than the actual disease.

Enter the American Psychological Association, and it’s Division 51 group The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. (SPSMM) You can pronounce the acronym spasm if you want to. I do. And it fits.

Here are two of the bullet points from the Mission Statement on their home page, out there for the world to see.

•Endeavors to erode constraining definitions of masculinity which have historically inhibited men’s development, their capacity to form meaningful relationships, and have contributed to the oppression of other people.

•Acknowledges its historical debt to feminist-inspired scholarship, and commits itself to support groups such as women, gays, lesbians and people of color that have been uniquely oppressed by the gender/class/race system.

Aye, there‘s the rub, and with it goes the last remaining bit of room on the grease board. Men are defective, pernicious banes to civilized society. And feminism is the answer.

Even our most revered experts in human nature are saying as much.

And this is how it worked in the old Soviet Union. It is wise to consider that in the Solzhenitsyn era of gulags and iron fisted reaction to political dissent, that most of the dissidents were imprisoned in “mental health facilities,” the logic being that if you disagreed with the state, there must be something wrong with your mind.

It was also a strategy of, and yes, I will say it without reservation, the Hitler regime, to poison the minds of the populace with disinformation about Jews, prepping the people to look the other way while they were dispatched in the name of a master race.

The plans for men may be less extreme and of longer duration, but it is happening nonetheless. Men are being marginalized year after year. Their numbers in college graduating classes are waning; 42% at last count. They have lost over 80% of the jobs in the current recession. They are dying by suicide and all other manners of death at rates that make women’s lives look like vacations in Fiji.

It’s hell having all this power. It is a wonder how we find time to oppress the world with it, much less twirl our moustaches and snicker while we do it.

But the anti-male hate machine keeps grinding away. Spasm would no doubt classify the MRM as a mass shared psychosis, and MRA’s individually as antithetical to humanity.

I used to remember that social worker who threw the tantrum in my class with a smile. It was a funny image. But that was some years ago. At the time, I knew the sexism was there, but it was not entrenched as deeply as it is today. And I naively thought it would go away.

I am not smiling about it any more.

---

^^Slightly long read, but may provide some insight into Eilos psychosis.

Men are being marginalized year after year. Their numbers in college graduating classes are waning; 42% at last count. They have lost over 80% of the jobs in the current recession. They are dying by suicide and all other manners of death at rates that make women’s lives look like vacations in Fiji.

[Tiberius]

Interesting article Dotard. I wonder what a similar experiment would reveal today?