Categories
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”

“*except mango, obviously.”

And avocado.

Seriously though, I am unable to fathom how you can be that…not upset by, not hurt by, and snark is too kind…that much contempt for something you didn’t know existed ten minutes ago. I could get it if the “something” in question had bearing on your life but fictionkin just don’t, not even remotely.

Seriously, you’re a fairy kitty from Mars? How’s the weather on Mars lately? Or, for less forgiving people — what sort of kitty? So you like [breed]? Derail to cats!

Or, you know, assuming it wasn’t rude, which could be construed as relevant to you, fucking ignore it.

Seriously though, I am unable to fathom how you can be that…not upset by, not hurt by, and snark is too kind…that much contempt for something you didn’t know existed ten minutes ago. I could get it if the “something” in question had bearing on your life but fictionkin just don’t, not even remotely.

Speaking from personal experience, I think reactionary hatred of the unknown is all it is, and it’s very strong.

I remember when I first found out about otherkin, I launched into a very similar screed. I wanted all beliefs to be divided into Reasonable Beliefs for Serious People and Silly Beliefs for People Who Just Want Attention, with mainstream religions (and, sure, atheists and what not) in the former category and otherkin and “weird stuff” in the latter. The former people were supposed to take seriously and the latter was the stuff that you were allowed to consider stupid and make fun of.

So the ironic thing was that I was basically agreeing with the atheists who wanted to make fun of all supernatural beliefs–I was just disagreeing on where the line should be drawn.

Argenti: Avacado isn’t a fruit, it’s a nut (but don’t eat the actual nut… it’s toxic).

Even the various otherkin I think to be delusional, not, by and large, a problem. I have a friend whom I am informed (it’s not come up between us) is an alien. Has an entire language, etc. which fleshes it out. It’s unfalsifiable. To me, it’s false. To them, it’s the way things are.

And it’s as nothing to me, because it’s harmless to me. Helpful as all fuck to them.

So saying they are screwy, stupid, and otherwise not right in the head, that’s a harm and whatever my opinions about the veracity of it… matter not a bit to the asshole-nature of what those who deny it to the face of those who have a belief which harms no one (and otherkin, etc. is that: one can’t even hide behind the, “x” movement hurts lots of people, and “y” parallel group gives them cover” which the anti-religious can drag out [and which Richard fucking Dawkins hides behind, when he’s not using religious extremists to justify abusing women).

Argenti, katz, pecunium – ::applauds::

katz, I’m just now (as in, this thread) getting to the place you describe. Thank you for describing it so clearly.

pecunium – “And it’s as nothing to me, because it’s harmless to me. Helpful as all fuck to them.”

Which is precisely how the only two actual mental health professionals I’ve had dealings with take my situation. Doesn’t matter what their beliefs are, it’s the practical effect of the patient’s beliefs they’re concerned about. Does a person’s belief cause them harm, does it undermine them, make them unhappy, or make them behave badly to others? Then they need help getting away from it. Does it give them strength, make them happy, and not make them behave badly (or even help them behave better) to others? Great, go for it!

In fact it’d be amusing to see their reaction to Asshole Atheists in that respect.

And “Richard fucking Dawkins” indeed. That jackass gets my hackles up all the time.

First, I want to apologize if I smacked anyone in this thread or other threads. Who wasn’t a well-deserving troll, that is.

I especially want to apologize to hellkell for taking it personal-like at her.

Being fat, not making millions, and an atheist are the only ways I differ from my society’s Default Person, so when my community reaches out to me with a big, fat F U I have nothing to compare it against, so it seems really big to me.

On a lighter note, I really hate bad cantaloupe. When it’s good, it’s divine, but when it’s bad, yuck.

@grumpycatisagirl

And there are six state constitutions that include “religious tests” for holding public office.

Um wow O_o did not know that.

@argenti aertheri

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)

Yeah, I’m mostly staying out of this cuz I don’t know much about shit atheists face, being not an atheist, but that rubbed me the wrong way too. In US (only place I can speak about, it’s where I live) it feels like it isn’t so much as a theist privilege thing as a christianity privilege thing. :/

@Tenya re: homeschool

I mean, I’m with falconer. Its not like the only options are “no homeschool” and “completely unregulated homeschool where you dont have to teach your kids anything”.

@mnekora

which rights dont atheists have? I am curious (not like, saying youre lying; I just honestly havent hear about this before)

okay, after i wrote this question grumpycatisagirl said

And there are six state constitutions that include “religious tests” for holding public office.

which is fucked up regardless. 😐

I assumed earlier that when you were talking about atheists facing descrimination, it wasnt things in the law but generally opinions religious people had about atheists, like that they dont have a moral compass. (like grumpygirlisacat mentioned we might have a long time before an atheist president…)

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.

um, well you cant “look gay” or “look lesbian” but i don’t really thing that makes it easier on gay or lesbians… So I’m confused?

I do like, not really like getting in these atheism conversations because i admit to being out of my depth (Im a semi-christian who does not really have much experience talking about religion with other people. except on manboobz.).

THo with what Argenti said, I’m wondering if it’s atheists or just anybody generally non christian treated skeptically by fundy christians.

@Kittehs

that is an evil looking fairy kitty!

“Theist privilege” as a frame describing the situation in the US feels to me like an attempt to claim the status of Seriously Oppressed and at the same time an indication that one really doesn’t understand how oppression works, as if one did get it one wouldn’t have forgotten about all the prejudice that religious-but-not-Christian-or-not-the-right-kind-of-Christian people face.

Also, for the record? Not being able to get elected President is not a sign that your rights are being taken away. A law stating that atheists can’t be President would be what your rights being taken away would look like, in that scenario. Being unable to win a popularity contest is not the same thing as having your civil rights attacked.

A Fairy Kitty on Mars? Oh, good, Curiosity has company. I was worried zie might get lonely. Sure, Opportunity’s still around, but who knows for how much longer?

Incidentally, the day before yesterday (August 5th) was Curiosity’s first birthday.

Just a note about those six state constitutions I mentioned that require people to believe in God to run for office – I don’t live or have ever lived in any of those states and don’t know if those articles are really enforced or have much of an impact at all on modern life. I’m sure it’s all very old language. But I still think it’s crummy that that language is in them – most of it is along the lines of “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”

“Being unable to win a popularity contest is not the same thing as having your civil rights attacked.”

If only MRAs understood this…

Can one weasel one’s way out of the wording? If they don’t want to know who the Supreme Being is, well, I’d be quite happy to say yes, I do. They don’t need to know I’m talking about Ceiling Cat. 😉

Kittehserf – if you take these constitutions literally they don’t seem to care which Supreme Being you believe in, as long as you believe in at least one. So Ceiling Cat shouldn’t pose any problem for you.

Oh god, I don’t know what happened guys, all I did was mention fictionkin and now it’s another atheist asplosion. WHAT HAVE I DONE? *rending of garments and tearing of hair, wailing into the thundercloud sky* All I wanted to was leave a minor complaint!

RE: hellkell

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?

Because SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES, hellkell. If you don’t put ’em in their place now, they’ll get the idea they can talk about it in public! We’ll be drowning in LARPers and furries!

RE: katz

I wanted all beliefs to be divided into Reasonable Beliefs for Serious People and Silly Beliefs for People Who Just Want Attention, with mainstream religions (and, sure, atheists and what not) in the former category and otherkin and “weird stuff” in the latter.

I felt similarly, of course. Then, in its infinite generosity, life informed me that I actually existed, and therefore I was one of those Special Snowflakes I so hated. Then it watched me try to STOP EXISTING and it laughed and laughed.

It was one of the most educational experiences of my youth.

Thought so. It’s about like saying “yes” with your fingers crossed behind your back – which shows how silly the requirement is anyway. Like belief in Ceiling Cat Basement Cat a Supreme Being is any guarantee of moral rectitude.

“Argenti: Avacado isn’t a fruit, it’s a nut (but don’t eat the actual nut… it’s toxic).”

Eating the nut would require me to touch the thing, to the point that the whole “readily available toxin” thing isn’t enough (hey, sometimes such things are sorta relevant…email me if we’re going there)

Katz — I more or less got over it sometime around deciding my father was an asshole. Obviously his rants about LGB people are full of shit cuz uh? Yeah, last I checked I wasn’t intentionally infecting anyone with AIDS (hell, last I checked I didn’t have it and seeing how I’ve done exactly zero things that might expose me since, this entire line of “thought” is absolutely moot) — the bigotry kinda became obvious when it included me. Yeah, I know, selfish. But that was pretty much the cascade for everything else that no, really, they’re people too, and probably not so different from me, cuz human.

Last one to go? *hangs head in shame* I was still all weird about furries when my sorta-an-ex-we-never-dated showed off zir fursuit (lol, foamsuit really, but that’s neither here nor there) and my “fuck, ok, maybe it is just my thing about masks” kicked in. And thus was born my “is it relevant to me or harming me? Nope? Then whatever”.

I still get the creeps from people in…masks isn’t right, cuz Halloween masks don’t do it. Those cartoon things at amusement parks more (yeah I did not enjoy Disney, sea world was another matter, until I dropped my camera and ruined the thing, held out a few more years with TLC but a broken gasket is a broken gasket). But that’s more or less irrational and thus my fucking problem.

LBT — honestly? Multiples were one of those “don’t know if real” things until I met you. My psych TA for the course that came up in wavered from “extremely rare” to “psych created”. At a guess, it’s a combo of shit like multiple miggs (*sigh* and I can only enjoy Session 9 anymore if I go with the “Simon’s a demon” theory…email me if you want the plot explained), and the DSM criteria of loosing time.

And then I started hanging out here and well, HI PERSON WHO EXISTS! And hey Sneak and Mac and Gigi and Mir, though we’ve never met I don’t think, funny how you exist and all! (Gigi is berating me huh?)

Gaah… more proof that reddit is like a living monument to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

u8hy
(Niko! Off the laptop! Mama’s turn to type!)

My general response to finding out about the more unconventional lives of fellow Manboobzers:

With the occasional “You can do that?!”

Sorry about the repeating the name thing, since it does sound creepy, in retrospect. Everyone’s definitely right about that.

I think that’s the danger of writing posts from my phone; I keep getting interrupted and I don’t notice context or read it all over properly, and since I was a rather displeased and not exactly in the best mood in the first place, I wrote hastily, and I think it ended up sounding shitty. Phones suck for this sort of stuff. I’m probably not going to post on a phone when I feel like that again.

Aaanyway.

—-

@Pecunium

Fair enough, on your interpretation. My experience with Pharyngula has been that when ‘Christian Apologists’ and ‘Creationists’ are spoke of, that’s generally code for William Lane Craig, Ken Ham, and their ilk. But you ARE correct that Pharyngula has the tendency to lash out like that and take cheap jabs at the religious. I can definitely see why you, a Catholic, would not feel welcome there.

I do not feel that you were beating up on me, or that you were being uncharitable to me at all.

@CassandraSays

I definitely wouldn’t mistake not being able to win a popularity contest for having one’s rights taken away, but the representation of groups in politics compared to their actual population proportion IS in fact an indicator of how well and how fairly society treats a particular group. Not a perfect one, by any means.

—-

In general:

I really don’t want to play oppression olympics here. If we did that, I think I’d lose. Hard. It’s not about who’s more oppressed. As I mentioned before, I would freely admit that atheists have it pretty good, compared to a lot of groups, like women, gays, muslims in the America, etc. I don’t want to claim that atheists have it SOO bad, but simply that on at least one axis of privilege, atheists have it worse than the predominant religion in the US, and most places in the world, and I don’t think that’s right. Perhaps one might even say that minority religious groups are just treated worse, because Muslims have a lot of similar issues in America, but they get it even worse because of the intersection of the religious element of this issue with racism as well. And atheists are simply another of the minority religious groups. So framing it as ‘theist privilege’ may in fact be inaccurate, but ‘majority religious group’ privilege would definitely be accurate.

Most of the negative consequences atheists face come in the form of social costs, and being marginalized. Violence against atheists is rather rare (but not entirely unheard of). I’ve been the victim of vandalization and threats due to it, though. Atheists do face quite a bit of hostility from religious people, especially fundies. And there’s even a lot of liberal Christians who are willing to throw atheists under the bus too. I’ve run into a bunch of them. Much of the discrimination atheists face is in the form of the unjustified social cost of being a publicly-known atheist. Atheists consistently come off last in all sorts of polls judging the public’s attitude towards various groups, and people perceive atheists as being dishonest and even sinister, doing the same things as believers. In the minds of many, religion is used as a kind of stand-in for moral behavior, and religiosity is interchangable with virtue. In many places, being known as an atheist makes one a pariah, and if the wrong person finds the wrong thing when they google your name, it can cost you consideration for a job and such (This also goes for being gay, and a bunch of other things, too).

It’s all shitty and it matters to me because I’m an atheist and I’ve experienced a bunch of this in my life. I’ve also experienced other crap because I’m not 100% straight and because I don’t conform to male gender roles. Certain members of my family won’t talk to me anymore, some because of the atheism, some because I came out as bi to my family. All of this stuff sucks. These are simply the things I’ve experienced, so they’re important to me. I have at least a bit of empathy, so I’m also a feminist, because I realize that women get put through a lot more of this crap than men do, as a whole, and I think that sucks too. I just want people to be able to be people, and to be judged by what they do, not by what they believe, or who they love, or any other irrelevant factor like that. That’s my reason for being interested in social justice.

I don’t really appreciate being accused of being some kind of quasi-MRA dudebro just because I believe that atheists are treated inequitably compared to Christians in the US.

And finally, circling back around to the original topic:

I have the same attitude as most of you have towards otherkin and fictionkin and such. If it makes them feel better, and doesn’t harm anyone, it’s all good. The extreme negative reaction towards someone holding an odd, eccentric belief is…weird. I definitely agree that if you’re an atheist, one should be pushing the angle that people with different beliefs are non-threatening and just fine as long as those beliefs are benign, rather than insisting that there is only one correct thing to believe.

Hey there, intersectionality fail. Women and atheists? POC and atheists? Sometimes the same people.

They’re definitely sometimes the same people. I didn’t realize I implied that they weren’t. It’s occasionally difficult to talk about different, but often overlapping group, so sorry I slipped up with the wording somewhere.

I’m interested in social justice, but I’m still pretty new to the community, and commenting about it like this. I still find myself trying to correct things I naturally say to be more inclusive of trans* people.

Honestly, that entire comment is a mess. For example…

I don’t want to claim that atheists have it SOO bad, but simply that on at least one axis of privilege, atheists have it worse than the predominant religion in the US, and most places in the world

The predominant religion in the US is not the predominant religion in the world (Christianity as a whole has the edge, but the specific forms of Christianity practiced here not so much). As has been stated many times, the way atheists are regarded in some parts of the US is not the same way they’re regarded everywhere. People keep pointing this out and you just keep circling back to universalizing your own experiences.

I don’t really appreciate being accused of being some kind of quasi-MRA dudebro

Nobody said this. Once again, you’re making the entire issue all about you. Please stop doing that.

I didn’t intend that statement to imply that the entire world was just like the US, and I know there’s different dynamics in different societies.

But I’m clearly just rambling at this point, and I’m going to observe the first rule of holes and bow out of this thread, and go back to lurking.

I apologize again for the derailing.

I’m interested in social justice, but I’m still pretty new to the community, and commenting about it like this.

FWIW mnekora, I think you can get there.

Maybe lurk more, and comment later when you’ve got a better sense of this place. Mistakes aren’t always fatal, so don’t feel like you are eternally persona non grata!

If it’s any help, I read Nekora’s comment about “the predominant religion in the US, and most places in the world” as meaning “the predominant religion of place A, B or C, whether it’s religion X, Y or Z” – not as meaning Christianity is.

Even so, that doesn’t mean atheists have it worse off than the members of that religion. Unless one’s trying to get a job in a religious organisation’s workplace (be that a school or hospital or charity, for instance) I very much doubt religion will come into it – and if it does, it’s not just atheists who might not be favoured. In thirty years’ work and lots of jobs, religion has never been an issue, or even mentioned for the most part. Only place I can think of where it was was in my first job, and that was just because there were three AoGs in the office. They weren’t trying to convert anyone, either, and were quite ready to join in laughing at the manager (who was one of them) and take the piss about him speaking in tongues because his everyday English was … ah, different.

I know, anecdata ain’t data, but I want to show an example of how being an atheist, or just nothing at all, means jack shit in some places, and the Great US Chip does not apply.

mnekora — just lurk on the rare religious thread. There’s quite a bit of bitter history to this one which is why so many of us pretty much just want to noptopus away.

Guys, what do y’all call That Thing that happened while I was on hiatus? You know, the reason we do not have this conversation anymore.

And my point is that I live in the US and it’s never been an issue for me here. This stuff is so strongly tied to region, family of origin, and a bunch of other things that generalizing about it is pointless.

(Like Argenti I would also love it if we didn’t have to keep repeating this conversation.)

Kitteh — even in the US inter-religion stuff gets weird. Like, generally speaking Christian (or the right sort thereof) privilege is a thing, but there are plenty of places // situations it isn’t. Was telling my mother about the exploding milk, and pecunium left out one important detail — he keeps a kosher kitchen — which led to a story from her first job. Reception at Jewish Family Services (exactly what it sounds like), her pepperoni and cheese cracker snack was suddenly “when we said snacking at your desk was fine, we didn’t mean that” and “please don’t nuke your pork” (apparently microwaves do not get not enough to make themselves kosher or something?). In any case, within that context, not being Jewish wasn’t a problem per se, but you were going to have follow Jewish customs, at least enough not to offend the clients or de-kosher the microwave.

And then there are the places where pecunium’s a heathen idol worshiper cuz the Virgin Mary. (pecunium, you run into that or not really cuz major cities aren’t so fundy?)

So yeah, even here it depends A Lot on region and context.

Also, may you pet a cactus just got upgraded to may you pet my stinging cactus, cuz damn that fucker hurts and then an hour+ later you’re like “wtf, how’d I get a bunch of blisters THERE?!” (This is me on break from repotting cactī cuz every last one got me at least once)

And my point is that I live in the US and it’s never been an issue for me here. This stuff is so strongly tied to region, family of origin, and a bunch of other things that generalizing about it is pointless.

There seems to be some disagreement in SJ circles whether oppression within a larger culture automatically translates to oppression within all subcultures as well, or whether it’s possible for the oppression to be nonexistent or even reversed in certain situations. I believe the latter although there are reasonable arguments for the former.

Yeah, the US alone is such a huge, varied country that it seems bizarre to generalise, unless one goes for things like “WTF is it with so many governments/institutions there?” or “the NRA should really, really go live on Reddit Island”.

Not sure what you mean about when you were on hiatus, Argenti – I’m thinking of the exodus but that was before I was here, and wrong subject.

Not having been here as long as you guys, this subject doesn’t get me pulling my hair out (yet!); it’s less talking-to-a-brick-wallish than dealing with trolls, because the people lapsing into AssholeAtheist mode are not assholes in general, and I have some hope that they’ll get the point. Even so, there have been a few threads where I ended up bowing out ‘cos they got into theology or whatnot, and were pretty painful (as in, tedious and pointless, not personally unpleasant).

OT and I hope hellkell sees this: She Who Makes Fine Dresses aka Secret Lentil is an evil person. The Emphella Shell in olive! How dare she tempt me like that!!

@argenti aertheri

Also, may you pet a cactus just got upgraded to may you pet my stinging cactus, cuz damn that fucker hurts and then an hour+ later you’re like “wtf, how’d I get a bunch of blisters THERE?!” (This is me on break from repotting cactī cuz every last one got me at least once)

OW. You have my sympathies.

Thanks Marie. Tr longer needled one hurts more, but just in that “great, I just stabbed myself way”

Kitteh — yeah, I mean the exodus. There were some religion related fights leading up to the final fallout, if I follow the chain of events correctly.

Nekora: . I can definitely see why you, a Catholic, would not feel welcome there.

It’s not that I am a catholic (or whatever stripe of religion). It’s that I’m not an atheist. The difference may seem irrelevant, but it’s not. I see (often) the argument that those who aren’t atheists are fundamentally less intelligent/meritorious/worthy of being considered.

As used, it’s active bigotry.

the representation of groups in politics compared to their actual population proportion IS in fact an indicator of how well and how fairly society treats a particular group. Not a perfect one, by any means.

Ermn… no. Let’s take Catholics. They don’t get treated well; in the ways in which religious society in the US goes about things (I have several tracts in my garage right now; because this is trash day, which were posted about my neighborhood, explaining that The Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” referred to in Revelations; and anyone who is a member of the Catholic Church is damned, because they serve demonspawn: honest).

A significant chunk of “missionary outreach” on the part of both fundie-evangelicals, and Mormons, is aimed at Catholics. It’s hard to be elected to office as a Catholic (once you move out of the NE/Fla/the American SW).

But, if you were to look at the Supreme Court you would have a hard time telling that. A majority of the Court is Roman Catholic. But even in the parts of the country where being a Catholic isn’t a bar to being elected, living as one is sometimes fraught. want to guess what comes up if “The Church” is mentioned?

Yep, pedophile priests. And the implication is that anyone who doesn’t leave, shaking the dust from their sandals, is on board with that. A lot of the time it’s not implied at all.

But, “respect” and decent treatment don’t translate to political office. There aren’t any unstructured Quakers in office (I say unstructred, because Nixon was a structured Quaker, which is basically Presbyterian). They get lots of praise, but they can’t get elected.

Why? Because they are pacifist, and socially liberal.

So why are the Cathlics appointed to the Supreme Court? Because they are seen as useful: they let the Democratic presidents nominate someone the Republicans will sign off on; because they are presumed to be influenced by the Pope on Abortion (though not on capital punishment).

Do I think the majority religion (prot-christianity, of a recent vintage) is a problem? Fuck yeah. I’d like someone’s spiritual life to be a non-issue (not least because I have lots of very minority religious people in my circle of friends/family, as well a lot of atheists).

And this is where I’m going to make a tone argument: Pharyngula, et al., are not enlisting me to their cause. They are, in fact; to some degree, driving me away.

Why? Because being told I’m a delusional fool who needs to give up my sincere beliefs because they are bad for humanity; is offensive. If it’s not “meant” as offensive, then they people saying it are deluding themselves.

I don’t believe that. I don’t believe it, because I have seen it declared; they mean to offend. I know too much about human nature to think that theism is the cause of our ills. I know too many atheists who would make a world no less unjust (more actually; the Galtian Libertarain Atheist isn’t rare) to think that the problem is theists.

It’s people.

And telling people who agree that you aren’t being treated fairly that they are evil; not helping. Which is what lots of Atheists do,and aplogetics for that are no more plausible than stupid apologetics for the shitty aspects of religious beliefs are.

And no, I am not saying you’ve said this. I’m saying the same things which make you touchy about certain sentiments, make those who are religious, and agree atheists get treated less than well, touchy about certain turns of phrase.

And “we care about true/false beliefs” is gonna set them off: every time.

Argenti: I have a nasty sense of humor: I call it The Great Divorce.

And then there are the places where pecunium’s a heathen idol worshiper cuz the Virgin Mary. (pecunium, you run into that or not really cuz major cities aren’t so fundy?)

If you are Catholic, you get it. In areas where there are more Catholics it comes up more, actually. I’ve also encountered people who ask about the horns on Jews.

The summation (from my POV) is there were several blow-ups which centered on religion (and Christianity, in specific). Then a truly nasty comment catalysed some other issues which had been simmering, waiting to boil over.

Then it got ugly for a bit. A lot of it was (so I understand it) done in private discussions.

I’ve also encountered people who ask about the horns on Jews.

W H A T

(God damn you, Michaelangelo.M)

Then it got ugly for a bit. A lot of it was (so I understand it) done in private discussions.

From what I have gleaned, this was (coincidentally) about last August, and since I’ve been an active commenter since early 2012 at least, and I don’t recall any such thing except suddenly peeps mention “that blow-up a few months ago,” I thought it must have mostly been on the fora or private, myself.

I do know I haven’t seen several formerly-regulars here in about a year, but life happens and I’ve been trying not to jump to conclusions.

Falconer: It’s not Michelangelo’s fault. He didn’t create the idea, and I don’t think the people who asked it had ever heard of him (if they had, they’d certainly not seen the statue; even in image).

Falconer: I’m sorry. I wasn’t upset/offended. It’s just that Michelangelo is an interesting figure, and for all his faults (his relations with women were odd, until he was in his 60s he didn’t use women as models for women) that bit of anti-semitism ought not be blamed on him; but on some really bad translation a few centuries before.

Heh – there was a show I saw once where the main character asked why Michelangelo’s women all look like men with boobs that were stuck on with an ice-cream scoop. All is now explained. 😀

RE: Argenti

As far as multi representation goes… I just have gotten used to getting a pained look on my face whenever anyone goes, “Oh, there’s a multi in there!” Because I just KNOW they’re going to be evil and violent, or helpless and constantly victimized. (Or, worst of all, the butt of a bunch of jokes because LOLZ MULTI.) It’s very tiring. Not including media us or our friends have made, I have seen TWO fictional pieces of media where there are two multiples in the same room–and one, it was two Batman villains.

RE: pecunium

I have a nasty sense of humor: I call it The Great Divorce.

I’m a bad person. I laughed. And yeah, the Great Divorce happened while we were still sitting in a corner, too spacy to do more than convert oxygen into carbon dioxide safely. I think it did mostly happen on the parts of the forum I never got access to, so *shrug*

Also, to completely change the topic (because oh god, AGAIN?), WE GOT A CALL FROM OUR DISABILITY PEOPLE. o_o They said they approved our claim, but I ain’t believing jack shit until that magical letter is in my hot little hand (in a couple of weeks). But oh my god, guys, we might have like, real money again! We might no longer have to quake in fear over what our housing situation would be!

I HAVE ALL OF THESE FEELINGS AND NONE OF THEM ARE SURE WHAT THEY ARE.

(It’s times like this I am SO GLAD to be multi. My sister was able to handle all the phone conversation while me and Sneak ran around in circles and flailed in the background.)

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.