antifeminism crackpottery demonspawn dozens of upvotes evil single moms evil women evo psych fairy tales GirlWritesWhat it's science! mansplaining misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy playing the victim reactionary bullshit reddit

Men’s Rights Redditors wonder why nobody else realizes that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more

For example, women never have to fight off flying squirrels, which are very bitey, mind you.
For example, women never have to fight off flying squirrels.

So the regulars in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently discussing one of the most important — if often overlooked — issues of our time, which is: How come nobody but us sees that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more? Or, as  paranoiarodeo497, looking hopefully towards the future, has chosen to put the question: “What future event/tragedy do you think will happen that will make people realize not only are women no longer deprived but in fact equal to men?”

Alas, the Men’s Rightsers aren’t hopeful that anything will wake up the snoozing sheeple. BrambleEdge, for his part, worries that men will remain oppressed forever.

BrambleEdge 17 points 15 hours ago (18|1)  Seeing as men are deprived and far from equal to women, and people don't see it now, I doubt they ever will. I sometimes fear that gynocentrism is biological and not cultural.        [–]Demonspawn [-1] 1 point 52 minutes ago (1|0)      gynocentrism is biological  Treating women as human beings and men as human doings? Yes, it is biological. It's also why "equality" isn't, and seeking it creates a system of female supremacy.

Shrekem, meanwhile, turns to the work of eminent historian GirlWritesWhat for evidence that women were never oppressed in the first place:

Shrekem 9 points 13 hours ago (12|3)  The problem is that women were never oppressed or deprived, they just had different roles. Women are certainly not "equal" to men today, they receive special treatment and are immune to many laws that would get a man locked up for life. I recommend you watch Karen Straughan's video on "When female privilege backfires".      permalink     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]villevillakulla -4 points 11 hours ago (4|8)  I guess it depends on how you define oppressed or deprived, but it kind of sounds like you're full of shit, and "different roles" can be a blanket statement to mean anything you want it to mean.      permalink     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]Shrekem 5 points 8 hours ago (6|1)  I would define oppression as "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner" just like everybody else. I challenge you to come up with one example of women being oppressed in western society in the past few centuries. The treatment of women is nothing compared to real oppression like that of blacks during slavery.

IHaveALargePenis, in addition to being highly confident about his relative penis size, is also a bit more optimistic than his peers, suggesting that the irresponsibility of evil slutty single moms will eventually end up annoying not only single men but other women as well and thus, I guess, help to spark a new wave of antifeminism:

IHaveALargePenis [+3] 5 points 12 hours ago (6|1)  Government taxing bachelors to sponsor single moms/women in general. If shit keeps going the way it's going, everything women need will be provided by a government, while working less and claiming there's still a pay gap. It won't take a genius to put two and two together and realize that the benefits women get from the government, plus the benefits they get from working are huge compared to what men pay/get out of it.  But that's not when things will change, not yet. What we're going to see is a rise of single, irresponsible moms who breed and have their lives paid for by taxpayers. And part of those taxpayers will be other women, who can't find men willing to "breed with them" or marry them, etc. These women will be working 40+ hours a week easy, will sacrifice greatly, miss their chance to have kids, and realize they're paying for all these irresponsible women to have their cake and eat it to (our society is pretty good at rewarding the irresponsible). That's when things will change.
But Scoundrel, a more pessimistic sort, can’t imagine any scenario that would get the evil femmies to admit that men are oppressed:

scoundrelTW 6 points 13 hours ago (8|2)  It will never happen. If the government should start killing random men, the feminists would claim that men are being targeted because they are more valuable, so therefore, it is still patriarchy. Feminists will NEVER let go of their assertion that men are privileged relative to women. It would break up their club and their life's purpose.
Sorry, IHaveALargePenis, but you’ve been outvoted.

Meanwhile, loose-dendrite, off on a bit of a tangent, warns those who might otherwise be susceptible to feminist-think that seeing similar numbers of men and women in positions of power would not be a sign of gender equality — but rather a symptom of FEMALE TYRANNY!

loose-dendrite 7 points 16 hours ago (12|5)  Most feminists seem to think that equal representation in all positions of power is sufficient. Seeing as feminists have moved to goal posts in the past, I find this unconvincing.  It would also almost certainly indicate a massive imbalance against men due to a few factors:      Female IQ is less extreme than male IQ. There are more male geniuses and idiots. Our leaders should be smarter than average so they can handle the mentally difficult job of managing our society. Therefore one expects more men than women in power going simply by intellectual merit. If representation is equal then some imbalance against men must exist (even if there is also an imbalance somewhere against women).     Men have higher testosterone and therefore are more likely to participate in status seeking behavior. In other words, there's more male than female interest in power because power is high-status. If there is equal representation then an imbalance against men must exist. I consider this an inferior argument to point #1 because I don't remember the associated research very well.

Huh. I was unaware that high IQ was a prerequisite to power in our society. Did anyone tell George W. Bush?

In conclusion, MRAs have once against shown that they can use any and all evidence to “prove” what they already believe. Another flawless victory over the forces of reality.

361 replies on “Men’s Rights Redditors wonder why nobody else realizes that the ladies aren’t oppressed any more”

Perhaps all atheists aren’t defensive about it, CassandraSays. I apologize, because I was being a bit too US-centric. In the US, its difficult for atheists not to feel at least a little persecuted, at least, if you’re paying attention to politics.

Having a religious family just magnifies that. I was just trying to point out, if atheists get defensive fast, there’s often a reason and a history behind it.

I was not aware of previous hurtful comments from Nepenthe, so I was trying to give all parties the benefit of the doubt. Sorry for contributing to the derail.

No need for an apology, it’s just weird having stuff assumed to be universal that doesn’t apply to you at all even though you’re part of the group that things are being assumed about.

I think the attitude in Europe (or in certain American cities like San Francisco or Portland) concerning religion is more relaxed. There is more of a “believe and let believe” attitude. Here in ‘Murica, however, there is a much larger presence of people who hold fundamentalist beliefs and want the government to endorse them, ie prayer in school, censorship of LGBTs, outlawing abortion, denying marriage equality, etc. There are people in my family who are young earth creationists, or who think LGBT should be jailed, or that atheists worship the devil, or worse, the “self,” and dealing with them requires incredible feats of patience on my part. So I understand what you’re saying, mnekora. When you are an atheist in a conservative area surrounded by fundamentalists, you get a little jumpy.

Whereas I moved to San Francisco from London, so my reaction to the idea that as an atheist I must feel discriminated against is basically “huh?”

mnekora: Of course there’s a lot of religious privilege out there, and of course people who are part of an often put-upon group can be given more leeway for being short-tempered, and we do discuss it fairly often. But three things:

1. This is not being defensive:

Well, I just discovered an invisible unicorn in my bathtub whose tears cure cancer if you believe in it, learned that I’m the reincarnation of Carl Sagan, and that the universe will end unless I give all my money to some guy named Steve. My life is so much better now that I understand. Yesterday I was a fairly normal, marginally employed, mentally ill person. Now I’m Special and Important and Significant to the Universe. Thanks for letting me know that reality doesn’t matter!

I’m going to go make the unicorn cry now. If I don’t make a lot of money, Steve will destroy the world.

This is being an asshole. In fact I don’t think there’s any possible way to respond defensively to “believe whatever you like as long as you aren’t hurting anyone or forcing your beliefs on others” without being an asshole, because you’re getting your hackles up over your right to force your beliefs on others. Getting defensive over someone saying that, say, you can’t be moral if you don’t follow a religion would be totally reasonable, but that’s totally not what’s going on here.

2. Not to pick on your comment specifically, but responding to “wow, that was a totally assholish thing you said about everyone with different beliefs from you” with “well, atheists get defensive because of bigotry towards them” is…well, a derail. It’s instantly changing the subject from an atheist’s asshole comments about religion to religious people’s asshole behavior towards atheists, which is a fine thing to talk about, but not right then when people were trying to talk about the exact opposite.

I’ve seen this exact conversational tack before and, aside from being a way to completely avoid having to discuss one’s assholish behavior, it actually allows you to make an asshole comment as a springboard to talk about how everyone else is mean to you. Which is bullshit.

3. Being defensive towards a group that’s actually oppressing you is one thing, but fictionkin and other people with beliefs generally considered “out there” are not the ones picking on atheists and are in fact part of even smaller and less influential groups, so berating them is just being pointlessly mean.

And, come to think of it, reinforcing your own oppression by encouraging the stigmatization of beliefs that seem strange to the mainstream.

(All those “you”s are not talking about you, personally, of course.)

Even if you live in an area of America that is relatively friendly to atheists, national politics alone often make the point that atheists don’t have the same real rights as religious people, even if lip service is paid to the concept.

Look at Barney Frank. He only came out as atheist when he was ready to end his career. It would have entirely precluded him getting elected to his office if it had come out earlier. And that’s just one less extreme example.

Every time I hear “atheist oppression” my eyes roll out of their sockets.

Can I join the NAAALT corner?

Late in, but yes, the US is far more intensely anti-atheist than Australia is, for instance. Presumably that produces the reaction of too many Asshole Atheists(TM) that I see on the internet – the ones who are not criticising institutions or theology or the failure to separate church and state, but whose whole scornful theme is that anyone not-atheist is suffering mental illness. (Just imagine, the entire world except for an enlightened few is suffering some mental illness, and not only that, but one it’s okay to laugh at. Who knew?)

Personal scorn for anyone not-atheist, although without any suggestion of mental illness, since zie has mentioned suffering it, is something Nepenthe has a history of in zir comments. It’s definitely Asshole Atheist stuff and like Cassandra said, that’s what the reaction was based on, despite this being about other identities such as fictionkin.

Speaking of which, LBT, I apologise for my initial “ermagerd” reaction when you (I think?) mentioned it.

At my job (Sweden), I’m the only theist there. Everyone else is an atheist.

I was at another job for a while where I can’t say I know everyone’s religious status, but I once heard the following conversation between two co-workers:
– … and my sister in law, who, you know, is RELIGIOUS…
– But is she like normal anyway, or crazy religious?
– Pretty normal I guess, not that bad, anyway…
At times like these, I’m like “Should I reveal that I’m religious too?”, but sometimes (like this time) I really don’t have the energy for conversations about it.

So yeah, whether there’s some kind of atheist oppression going on or not really depends on where you live. (The fucked-up thing about Swedish atheists, though, is that some of them read American atheist blogs and suck up this “I’m so oppressed, woe is me” attitude, despite this totally not applying to them, despite the fact that religious people are in minority in this country.)

ANYWAY, I think this particular discussion was originally more about mocking people who are in a tiny minority no matter where you live. As I said, it started with mocking people who identify as fictionkin and other “special snowflakes”, so it wasn’t originally about Christians, for whom you can make a case that they’re an oppressive force in the US at least. Nobody has been bullied by fictionkin, so there’s no need to feel defensive against such people.

I grew up in the Bay Area so I was a little shocked when I went to Australia and realized some people outside the U.S. as a “deeply religious country.” In fact, one atheist gentleman I met there cited it as a reason he had no interest in visiting America. To me the presence of religion in the Bay Area and in Canberra (where I was at the time) seemed extremely comparable.

But I do see certain larger attitude barriers in the U.S.: I think we have a loooong way to go, for example, before an atheist (or even a non-Christian) would have even a close shot at the presidency. And there are six state constitutions that include “religious tests” for holding public office.

Dvarg – I think some of the writing-to-newspaper-blog atheists here have a touch of the USian attitude too, but just a touch. It’s less that they come across as “I am so oppressed!” than that they don’t seem to think anyone should be allowed to be religious at all.

S/B some people outside the U.S. *viewed it* as a “deeply religious country.” All my comments seem to miss words.

Oh, yeah, this was definitely about Nepenthe being a jackass and not for the first time about the identities of others. I don’t understand why zie even needed to go there, as long as it’s not harming anyone else, who gives a shit how someone else identifies?

Just a thought on atheist oppression:

Barney Frank waited till he was out of office to come out as an atheist.

Someday I’m gonna tell the preacher who sorta-kinda raised me that I’m an atheist now. That day is gonna be just GREAT.

(actually I think I will let him go to his grave holding on to the illusion that he successfully indoctrinated me, that’s just, what, another twenty, thirty years of falsehoods between us? No biggie)

national politics alone often make the point that atheists don’t have the same real rights as religious people

Getting elected to public office isn’t a right, so what else right-wise am I missing as an atheist?

The religious right is most definitely a threat to my rights as a woman, but I’m not seeing how they’re a threat to my rights as an atheist if I live in, say, San Francisco.

I live in TX, I’m more under siege because I’m female than because I’m atheist.

To me the presence of religion in the Bay Area and in Canberra (where I was at the time) seemed extremely comparable.

Oh well, Canberra. Of course that’s a den of iniquitiy, it’s full of politicians. 😉

I probably started this by calling out Nepenthe without sufficient context — although frankly, even without the context of knowing what has happened in the past, I think hir comment was pretty terrible.

My apologies to the people who didn’t understand what was going on there.

My rights as a woman are probably more under attack, seeing as some want to outlaw abortion, birth control, etc. However, there is a stigma to being an atheist in ‘Murica, at least where I live. Even people here who are agnostic have a nasty attitude toward atheists. On the whole we are a misunderstood bunch. So I would not say that my rights are necessarily threatened, but I do not like to tell people at work that I am atheist because they look at me like I am a terrible person. And some fundamentalists (not all theists) take my rejection of their religion very, very personally, and it makes them very, very irrational.

Honestly, the only thing my atheism has ever brought me into conflict with is my father. He’s still very much into Freemasonry, which is nice from a religious tolerance perspective, less so when “belief in a supreme being” is still the basis of his life. Making it worse is that this was the way he managed to bond with his father, and it was one of the few hopes he had of us as kids, was to be able to join him.

Unfortunately, neither my brother nor I are all that interested in joining an organization that excludes women, and I’m not all that comfortable in social organizations to begin with, let alone mystic ones now.

I should clarify that where I live, and what I mean by “Murica,” is small town, conservative, somewhat sheltered part of the country. Most people here watch FOX news and think Obama is a Kenyan socialist, if that gives you an idea.


Getting elected to public office isn’t a right, so what else right-wise am I missing as an atheist?

I’m living in a county where the courthouse just erected signs saying IN GOD WE TRUST over its public entrances, and the criminal court judge stated in open court that the defendant in front of the court at that moment, who identified as an atheist wiccan, worshipped Satan because he wasn’t a Christian.

I don’t know what you’re missing, right-wise, but I’m missing some of my first amendments rights and my right to a fair and impartial trial.

All the U.S. currency also says IN GOD WE TRUST, which might be construed as an establishment of religion.

I can’t even with this atheism shit, and I am one, so I’m gonna bow out of this discussion.


I will be the first person to admit that white atheist dudes like me have it pretty good. Atheists definitely do not experience the same kind of oppression tht women and POC’s do, to name a couple groups. But that certainly does not mean that atheists do not have legitimate social grievances.

We, as atheists, have it pretty nice, I think, for one large reason: you can’t “look like an atheist”. I can hang up my atheist hat in real life, and nobody knows about it. On the other hand, you can “look Muslim”, and you definitely can’t stop being a woman when it suits you either. For the most part, atheists can hide and blend in, and we avoid the worst oppression that way. People react to you differently if they know you are an atheist. The reactions can be downright hostile.

atheists are consistently thought of by much of the US population as untrustworthy, even evil. And take a look at what happens when atheists DO stick their heads out of hiding and try to be a bit more public. Even tasteful atheist ads on busses and billboards are met with floods of complaint and vitriol. And your dismissal of the fact that atheists are de facto barred from holding high public office is disturbing, Hellkell. Are you really going to claim that this isn’t an indicator of a deeper problem with the way society sees atheists? Seriously? Why do social justice activists care about women, POCs, an Muslims holding high office in America then? Are atheists an exception somehow?

I, myself, choose to keep my atheism untied to my real life identity out of fear of having trouble finding a job when employers google me, for example, and I have to be very careful talking with coworkers and acquaintances and even some friends, when many topics come up. There’s a lot of microaggressions atheists deal with from society all the time. Many gay people also present in their professional lives as straight for similar reasons.

Hellkell, it’s certainly justified to mock people who seem to believe that white atheist men have it SOOOOO bad in their lives and try to win the proverbial oppression Olympics. But please don’t minimize the legitimate social justice problems that affect atheists. Just because we have the same rights as the religious on paper doesn’t mean that everything is fine. MRAs claim that since women “legally” have all the same rights as a man now, that women can’t be oppressed. It’s just not true. Women don’t have the right, in practical terms, to express controversial opinions on the Internet without getting a torrent of vitriol for it. Atheists don’t have the right to be open about their beliefs without worrying that their social status and careers won’t suffer for it. Both of these things are problems. Women have it worse, as a group, than atheists, definitely. But what the hell happened to intersectionality? Don’t throw atheists under the bus just because we don’t have it as bad as certain other people.

Like I said, I’m out of this discussion. If you want to play oppressed minority, have at it.

I know I’m out, but COME ON.

You’re going to compare being gay to being atheist?

There’s a lot of microaggressions atheists deal with from society all the time. Many gay people also present in their professional lives as straight for similar reasons.

Your dudely oppressed feels are getting all over the place.

I fail at shutting up.

Also, Katz,

Sorry that my tone came across as trying to excuse asshole behavior, or complain about people being mean to me. I have to admit that I didn’t know everything going on in this discussion, with the personal histories and all.

Nepenthe’s comments were more confusing to me than anything else, but ind hindsight, I see that they were much more assholish than I first grasped upon reading them. I apologize for derailing and defending said hurtful comment.

I have to say that I did find, “Atheists, as a whole, believe that the religious hold factually incorrect beliefs, and may or may not be shy about saying so. We talk about religion because we believe that issues of true and false beliefs are important, not because we want to mock or be derogatory towards religious people. to be a bit on the side-eye list.

Because guess what, I value true/not true as well. I value the difference between true and false beliefs less so. Actions matter.

I wasn’t going to comment (in part because I’m one of the people a bit gunshy (here) from previous rides on this merry-go-round, but there was a comment in the Pharyngula thread, which blog I don’t follow, because I am made to feel unwelcome in the comments which is why I am not comfortable in the comments (which sort of defeats the purpose for me).

In my experience, it’s usually best to assume you’re not communicating well when people don’t seem to get what you’re saying, rather than to assume that something is wrong with them.

Exceptions can be made for Christian apologists and Creationists.

Have I engaged in apologia for “Christianity”? On some things yes. Does that mean there is, “something wrong with me”? Not ispo facto (which is part of what Nepenthe was implying, and why people got down on the comment)>.

Are there aspects of Christianity which are problematic? Yep. Are there aspects which are fucked up? Yep. Are there sects which are evil? Yep. Are there decent sects which have evil aspects? Yep.

Why? Because they are run by people. The mess at CFI is exactly the same as the mess in The Catholic Church (and a lot of protestant churches, and a number of jewish groups/synagogues). It was, for whatever reason, more important to them to save their reputation, than to punish a malefactor.

That there are bad people in them doesn’t mean all they do it for the bad (see, there I go with the apologism).

That I, to some degree, accept some unfalsifiable ideas doesn’t mean I am unconcerned with “false belief” (and no,I don’t give a damn what heresies one believes, so long as one doesn’t try to force others to adhere to them).

I’m a big believer in, “by their fruits shall ye know them”, and that means I can be tolerant of a lot of people who believe things I think are false. Because it’s no skin off my nose.

Which is what your message ends with, but it’s not how it reads in the middle bits (and yes, as a Catholic, I’ve been at the receiving end of some fucked up inter-christian bigotry; so I know how it is to be vilified by a majority religious environment, I get that it’s shitty, and horrid, and makes one feel a bit persecuted. I’m sorry that’s happened to you; it sucks).

Ah… forgot to say, there was no reason to bring up religious people in that thread; not one. It was a gratuitous dig.

Which is why I am not comfortable there; and comment rarely,and usually in a driveby manner.

Hellkell, I don’t see what you’re complaining about in that comment. Many gay and bi people (including myself; I am bi) try not to publicly reveal the fact that they are gay for social and career related reasons. Again, this is to to say that to consequences for both identifications are equal, because they’re not (and they in fact differ by society and region.). But again, why do you feel the need to throw atheists an their legitimate grievances under the bus? Why not accept that people treat atheists in a shitty way too oftentimes?

Pecunium, I don’t think there is anything wrong with you; we simply have differing beliefs about the supernatural. If you had a discussion with me about your religion, I would assume you had the same motivation (a concern for the truth) as I do. Sorry that my wording implied that you did not care about the truth.

As for that pharyngula comment, to be fair, I think “Christian apologists” was referring to people like William Lane Craig, or Sye Ten Bruggencate, referring to professional apologists. But yeah, Pharyngula comments can be great and it can be shitty. I usually think they are right, but diplomatic, they’re not. I dont really like commenting there myself, even though I follow and like PZ himself.

Ah… forgot to say, there was no reason to bring up religious people in that thread; not one. It was a gratuitous dig.

Which is why I am not comfortable there; and comment rarely,and usually in a driveby manner.

I got driven away from Slacktivist by the aggressively assholish atheist commenters. Slactivist. A Christian blog.

mnekora: That’s a generous reading of a blanket statement. Given that most of that thread (including that comment) was about how to be a clear communicator, and the other iterations of knee-jerk anti-theism, I’m not giving them that leeway: I assume they said what they meant; they make exceptions to assuming people are just poor communicators if they are engaging in Christian apologism.

It may not be what they meant, but it’s what they made a point of saying.

It may not be what they meant, but it’s what they made a point of saying.

It can get a bit willing over there. And, just like here, there are some conventions about topics and language. “Formal” apologetics is one of those taken-for-granted things. When they mention Christian apologists and apologetics, they mean a very specific kind person engaged in a specific kind of public advocacy.

There are plenty of commenters who are purely venomous about religion itself but the social justice orientation of most of them means that they’re more willing to work alongside conscientious religious/ humanist people than they are with the asshole contingent of the atheist, sceptical group they actually “belong” with.

When they mention Christian apologists and apologetics, they mean a very specific kind person engaged in a specific kind of public advocacy.

And…that makes it okay to assume that there’s “something wrong” with those people?

Repeating hellkell’s name many many times in one comment even when it’s perfectly clear that you’re addressing her? Pretty creepy, just FYI, and also comes across as splainy.

If you find yourself sounding like you’re talking to a toddler you should probably reconsider the way you’re interacting with people.

Oh boy, we’re going here again? David’s going to need a widget in the sidebar with a dedicated “you want to discuss religion? Do it here” thread, it’s like deja vu all over again!

“…and the criminal court judge stated in open court that the defendant in front of the court at that moment, who identified as an atheist wiccan, worshipped Satan because he wasn’t a Christian.”

Well fuck. My pagan // atheist ass has certainly been accused of satanism before, but in court?!

Part of my problem with all this though is that “theist privilege” ignores all the major religions (and of course the less well known ones too) that are openly vilified — Islam for example, or the micro-aggressions Jews face (anyone here care to answer how annoying “ze totally jew’ed me” is to a Jew? Cuz I usually want to smack my father for it)

Like, literally last night I had another case of assuming I’m Jewish (I give zero fucks, it actually amuses me some [told ya pecunium!]) — that part was fine, whatever, I don’t get it but hey, think I’m Jewish, whatever — the rest? “jewish women are so hard to impress” and how a mutual Jewish friend acts like a Jewish lady.

So yeah, I’m a bit wary to say that the side eye I get for saying atheism (my default answer when I suspect pagan is going to get me DEVIL WORSHIPPER!!) is worse than what some theists get. Even if they’re more acceptable as political candidates (though, um, see the “Obama is a Muslim” shit on whether all theists are electable)

And, in things that surprise no one, I’m with pecunium on these bits —

“Because guess what, I value true/not true as well. I value the difference between true and false beliefs less so. Actions matter.”

“I’m a big believer in, “by their fruits shall ye know them”, and that means I can be tolerant of a lot of people who believe things I think are false. Because it’s no skin off my nose.”

Which is really quite good because otherwise we’d potentially hate each other and that’d be sucky (I am very unfond of his god, the Christian god, which gets me way more shit than just not believing anything does…lucky for me he’s never expressed so much as annoyance at this)


It would appear that my gods at present as pea sized and fond of bloodworms and brine shrimp, and chewing on my nails. Less fond of me continuing to insert plants in their tank, but I’m prepping for the 30g move that’ll probably happen this weekend.

Idolatry!!! (‘Tis a joke if that’s not clear)

Repeating anyone’s name repeatedly in one comment is kinda creepy. Unless trying to invoke Sir Pecunium, defender of logic and smasher of trolls (or was it white knight extraordinaire?). In which case it’s a bit like beetlejuice beetlejuice beetlejuice. But less gothy.

Atheists, as a whole, believe that the religious hold factually incorrect beliefs, and may or may not be shy about saying so.

But boy do some of them get shitty if someone suggests their belief that there is no god is factually incorrect.

See, mnekora, it’s what pecunium said: by their fruits shall ye know them*. If someone’s belief isn’t hurting others, whether through personal actions or public/instituional policy, then it’s nobody else’s fucking business to get all smug about it being “wrong” or “delusional” or whatever. My beliefs are largely unverifiable and the reactions of one or two fundamentalists (“you are deceived by a demon!”) one or two atheists (“you’re deluded and need to see a shrink!” – never mind two psychologists I’ve seen for other reasons have been “Yay happiness!”) and one asshole Spiritualist (“you’re not doing what I say is the way!”) says a lot more about them than it does about me.

So yeah, people who devolve into Asshole Atheists and make idiotic sweeping comments about how terrible all religion, all belief is, who talk as if everyone not-atheist was a Santorum clone, as if everywhere is the same as the worst of small-town America – well, they just lose my sympathy for their problems real fast.

*except mango, obviously.

People react to you differently if they know you are an atheist.

Remember what I said earlier about not generalizing from your own experience?

(If this results in a comment in which my name is used 15 time I’m going to call bingo.)

mnekora: I’m not a never-reader of Pharyngula. Yes,I saw the “A”pologtics. It’s weak sauce. Because I’ve also seen the, “Not all Theists Are Like That” and the sudden screeds, out of nowhere; off-topic” about how nasssty religious people are.

And, given the context; assuming the subtext of “professional apologists for asshole christianity” was (at best) poor communication, in a comment about being careful to make one’s self plain to the readership.

I’m not trying to beat you up. I’m explaining why reactionary politics; oppression olympics, as it were, and the urge to lash out at The Group, isn’t the best of behaviors.

This is a common theme in my attempts to oil waters. I try to do it only when I can’t bite my tongue anymore, because it can come across as tone-policing.

What it is is me, a person, not liking my toes stepped on, especially when the stepper came across the room to to do it. Do they feel aggrieved? Yep. Do I know why? Yep. Do they have some cause for that grief? Yep.

Does it mean I have to put up with being smacked because of what someone else did? Nope.

And this sort of round robin explanation of defensive apologetics for toe stepping is why I don’t like to engage in this sort of thing (and let Nepenthe slide).

That’s the thing that puts me off Pharyngula – it’s very asshole atheist, which really detracts from its good qualities, for me. Leaves a sour taste in the mouth after reading some threads. Like – what the FUCK is it to Asshole Atheists how other people’s inner lives work? There also seems to be a real STEM condescension sometimes, what cloudiah aptly called educational privilege.

pecunium – not to worry, it’s not like Nepenthe or anyone else being a jackass about [fill in subject of choice] isn’t going to get taken to task for it by several someones here. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.