tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post4465114018884230006..comments2024-02-17T16:13:30.296-08:00Comments on Black Skeptics Group: The West and the Rest of Us: Atheism & Sexism 101Black Skepticshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03411665199987886245noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-41561913479460564792011-08-05T12:11:45.685-07:002011-08-05T12:11:45.685-07:00New Atheism as a global movement has everything to...New Atheism as a global movement has everything to do with racial politics, gender equity and social justice, particularly from a radical humanist perspective steeped in the connection between the social construction of the category of the human and liberation struggle. Organized religion is based on moral hierarchies of race, gender, sexuality, class and nationhood, and not mere dogma about the divine creation of the universe and natural laws. Hence, as a feminist, my atheism is part and parcel of a radical humanist perspective on the universality of human rights and self-determination in rejection of the dualism of Abrahamic religions and other theistic belief systems. My overarching point is that New Atheism will not have global cultural relevance if it is based on an atheist posture that simply substitutes blind reverence for scientific inquiry without insight into the historical and political context of how scientific traditions have been articulated and institutionalized in the West. It will be just as bankrupt for the lived experiences of people of color as a “liberal” religious stance that cherry picks biblical scripture as the basis for an ostensibly universal creed of ethics and morality whilst ignoring how the inherent dualism of Judeo Christian belief prescribes authoritarian systems of power and control based on race, gender, sexuality, class and nationhood. Some white Western atheists believe New Atheism should not be steeped in discourse about institutional power and privilege yet that very stance is actually informed by having the historical power and privilege of being the universal subject of humanity, morality and personhood status. And historically the moral and political status of the universal subject has been secured by both Western rationalism and religion. Sunsara Taylor’s blog about the recent SSA conference (wherein the head of American Atheists egregiously compares the “disenfranchisement” of atheists to that of African Americans) provides a good example of how this dynamic plays out in the so-called movement.<br />http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-thoughts-on-secular-student-alliance.htmlBlack Skepticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03411665199987886245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-72389920563927003082011-08-02T13:18:37.164-07:002011-08-02T13:18:37.164-07:00"the New Atheist focus on science and separat..."the New Atheist focus on science and separation of church and state, without insight into the racial and gendered histories of these traditions, is especially bankrupt for people of color."<br /><br />I'm not sure if I agree with this point or if you're framing it objectively. Calling the New Atheist priorities "bankrupt" on matters of race is like calling atheism bankrupt on matters of morality. Atheism does not inherently involve the specific issue of morality. Just the same, the New Atheist movement is not about race because it has no intention to do so. I'm not sure if it needs to be criticized for not focusing on subjects it was not designed to address. Nor should it necessarily be framed as "bankrupt". We shouldn't expect a dialog on race from the New Atheist movement.estevan carlos bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03938651195986928529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-92126389196696648602011-08-02T12:10:39.112-07:002011-08-02T12:10:39.112-07:00way off the mark on this oneway off the mark on this oneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-89436827009934503772011-07-29T09:36:59.868-07:002011-07-29T09:36:59.868-07:00Your comments are right on. The continuous invocat...Your comments are right on. The continuous invocation of the experiences of Muslim women as a cover for entrenched institutional sexism and the culture of male entitlement in the West was one of the primary reasons I was motivated to write the article. It further underscores the willful ideological blindness of the mainstream "atheist movement" to intersectionality.Black Skepticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03411665199987886245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-71455760760453227842011-07-28T19:54:03.235-07:002011-07-28T19:54:03.235-07:00I've also noticed the reluctance with with peo...I've also noticed the reluctance with with people will mention sexism, because it's become the norm to pretend that feminism is no longer needed. It seems like the success of equal rights' movements are judged by the lives of the few people who are fortunate enough to live in a community, family, etc. where they feel that they are not discriminated against, while the experiences of those whose families, communities, etc. still discriminate are ignored.<br /><br />Part of the reason why Dawkins' comment bothered me was because I'm from a Muslim family living in the US. So, while I get very frustrated by people excusing discrimination against women in Islam (using the "it's their culture" argument and others like it), I'm also bothered by people who use discrimination against women in Islam as a distraction tactic to get away with discrimination against women in other groups.<br /><br />I absolutely love science and think separation of church and state are essential. At the same time, I do think that there has to be a more multi-disciplinary approach. (Personally, while being a science major, I also love literature, and I think there's much in stories that can make us rethink our views.) Social justice and civil rights have to be an important part of any movement, and ignoring them means that the benefits of science and secularism will reach only some groups, when really the benefits should reach everyone.<br /><br />Thanks for writing.<br /><br />-Ani SharminAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-4784754309808633672011-07-28T10:33:21.854-07:002011-07-28T10:33:21.854-07:00Good insight; the right not to know, and to have o...Good insight; the right not to know, and to have one's selfhood defined by the FREEDOM of not knowing or having to experience these forms of embodiment is a linchpin of masculinity. Sadly women have also internalized the codes of institutional sexism so completely that many don't have any allegiance to the idea that this regime of hyper-embodiment and territorialization should be challenged.Black Skepticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03411665199987886245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-3764810931788864522011-07-28T09:30:41.521-07:002011-07-28T09:30:41.521-07:00The Golden Rule is the tool rational people use to...The Golden Rule is the tool rational people use to determine the morality of our actions. "How would I feel if that happened to me?" It's a good tool, and serves us well in most cases. We see the problems when other criteria are used instead. Among the poor alternatives are scripture or tradition, etc.<br /><br />But the Golden Rule is NOT directly helpful in this case. Because as males, when we ask ourselves "Would I feel offended if someone offered a casual complement of my physical attributes?", the answer is almost always No. <br /><br />I'm talking in normal setting, amongst adults. Locked in a violent prison is NOT a normal setting, and would be handled differently. No other similar situations occur to me. But in a normal setting on the street, on the job, on campus...if someone told me 'you got a nice ass', the response of any man wouldn't be anything other than amusement and perhaps feeling a little flattered. When men apply the Golden Rule here, the answer is "I would not be offended if someone treated me this way." <br /><br />In fact, it leads us to opposite conclusions. "I would feel amused or flattered if I received this type of comment." And also, "Having offered such a complement, I would not enjoy being chastened -- those women are failing to apply the Golden Rule in their response."<br /><br />So what is being asked here id for men to ignore the Golden Rule, and instead, take it as given that the behavior is bad, without further evaluation. Rationalists are not good at that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07264806579798928822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-19121382498318298482011-07-21T12:41:04.575-07:002011-07-21T12:41:04.575-07:00Excellent article, Sikivu. We were discussing the ...Excellent article, Sikivu. We were discussing the Watson-Dawkins incident extensively at our social networking site fir atheist (www.atheistuniverse.net); it generated 194 comments so obviously the subject generates a lot of passion. I'm not surprised about your experience with the young Asian-American rick band female lead singer; it is considered "uncool" in the young generation to complain about sexism; complaining about sexism is not "sexy", it's an admission of may be not being sexual enough for the times?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Dawkins's huge foot in his mouth is so indicative of what you excellently describe as this bad habit of always explaining what truly constitutes sexism and what doesn't. Hint: it's never them, these highly aware, super-sensitive nice guys (as they see themselves) are well past sexism, in their own eyes, but they are not. Many insist that only non-Westerners are sexist. And many more insist that atheists cannot possibly be sexist! They may just be a bit nerdy or clueless, that's all :-P<br /><br />We still have a long ways to go.Adrianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449319476888682571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-33520413577251654202011-07-21T10:09:24.928-07:002011-07-21T10:09:24.928-07:00Yeah, that's foul; apparently men need to be c...Yeah, that's foul; apparently men need to be coddled and accommodated so their tender egos won't be hurt by steamrolling "fem-bitches". That's rank bs. Whatever issues these commentators might have with Watson personally, discrediting the claim of institutional sexism is particularly egregious and toady-esque and shows they've drank the post-feminist Koolaide.Black Skepticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03411665199987886245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7461703865983958582.post-64090909314248013952011-07-20T14:42:37.148-07:002011-07-20T14:42:37.148-07:00Cogent and persuasive as usual. What I found inte...Cogent and persuasive as usual. What I found interesting is the degree to which some other skeptic women were quick to criticize Rebecca, as she recounts here: http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming-names-at-the-cfi-student-leadership-conference/. One example: “What effect do you think it has on men to be constantly told how sexist and destructive they are?”D Frederick Sparkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136230311377966914noreply@blogger.com