Men's Rights Advocates Make Me More Feminist

Last week on Twitter, #EndFathersDay was a trend of "feminists" saying shitty things.

Except that it wasn't actually feminists. Misandry is not within feminism, as it advocates equality as a defining characteristic.  On top of that, it was done by trolls.

The prank was started by 4chan’s politically incorrect board, /pol/, in an effort to rile up feminists and make them (and men) look like idiots. 

So, it was not even just trolls.  It wasn't just some prank by bored frequenters of 4chan.  It's part of a larger effort to delegitimize feminism in general.

It’s all a bit ridiculously cloak and dagger, but I don’t think we can dismiss it as a joke. The people behind it are trolls, sure, but they are also nasty bigots obsessed with fucking up feminism and “progressives” in general. And people still get fooled by these campaigns.

Now that we know what they’re up to, the trolls may find it harder to fool quite so many people in the future. They may keep trying, to lesser and lesser effect. Or they might come up with something a bit more sophisticated. I guess we’ll see.

Today, I found a great, concise video response to the Men's Rights Movement from Chris Gethard.

(h/t Steve Shives)

So, of course the de facto leader of the MRA's responded.

Right, because apparently the only reason to treat women with basic respect is to get them to like us enough so we can fuck them.

This asshole isn't some random MRA.  He's the founder of the most popular MRA website there is.  And when posts this shit, the sycophants who follow his nonsense give him the kind of support that put his comments at the top of the video.

YouTube user "conferencereport" beat to the video to say what I'd want to say to Elam, and probably better than I would have.

Anyone who knows me knows I despise the group that calls itself the "Men's Rights Movement".  I've merely touched on it here before, but I've witnessed a non-stop flow of misogyny and ignorance from this group.  These are just 2 examples of the idiocy that is a staple of the Men's Rights Movement.  Activity from them tends to be primarily be petulant whining about (their straw man of) feminism and feminists.

And with their immaturity, they do more harm than good to the causes they claim to care about.  They make advocating for men, in the places where it's actually warranted like unequal treatment in family courts, more difficult because it means associating the factually ignorant and the morally repugnant.

The Men's Rights Movement both makes the goal of feminism more difficult and provides great examples of why feminism is necessary.

About A Different Debate (That Has Not Happened)

While tabling for Apostacon last year at ReasonFest, I learned of a plan that was being worked for Apostacon later that year.  Learning of this was on the condition that I didn't share the information because it was still in the works and it would have had its own announce done by Apostacon itself.

The goal was for a debate.  Matt Dillahunty vs Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate.  If you're wondering who the hell Sye Ten Bruggencate is, you're wondering the same thing I was then and some friends were  the other day when I referenced him.

Here's the example of him I was shown.

The full show is here.

The gist is that he was entirely reliant on the tactic he has, Presuppositional Apologetics.  It involves an effective straw man of forcing the other person into a corner of solipsism by putting an intense focus on absolute knowledge, claiming only he can have knowledge (because God), and declaring anyone who doesn't claim absolute knowledge cannot know anything and thus cannot speak.

It's a childish word game.  When a member of the show called him out on it, instead dropping the game and having an adult conversation (the point of the show he was on), he immediately left in a tiff.

I wish I could say that was an isolated incident, but the more I learned about him, the more I learned that was his only debate tactic.  For instance, he pulled the same shit on Steve Shives and the other 2 who were on the Biblethumpingwingnut Show.

By the time my part in this story because, Matt had been dealing with Sye for a while, and he thought the potential for 2 vs 1 would get him to finally participate in a debate.  Multiple attempts were made by Apostacon to get in contact with them.  For a while, we received no response at all.  Eventually, a representative for Hovind declined citing schedule (a reasonable excuse).  We sent Sye enough e-mails that he cannot reasonably claim to have not seen them.  He never responded.

We eventually dropped the plan to attempt to make a debate happen out of logistical necessity.  We had a conference to plan and no time to play games.  Matt still came to Apostacon, where he did a magic show, that I hear was quite good^[1].

After that, I hadn't put any thought toward the failed attempt for a debate or Sye until Matt tagged Apostacon on Twitter in response to Sye tweeting this video.

In that video, Sye has a clip of Matt referencing the offer Sarah Morehead that I talked about above.  In his response to that, Sye lied about not being aware of the offer.  The only other option is that he's incredibly lazy about checking his e-mail.

Why is he lying?  Only he knows.

So, Matt responded.

In his response, Sye makes excuses about why he's still never called into the show anyone can call into and nitpicks trivial details.  In claiming he'd be hung up on, he's entirely ignoring the episodes Matt is referencing, where neither Matt Slick nor Ray Comfort were hung up on.  Sye has no good reason to think he would have been treated any differently.

I suspect that Sye decided to challenge Matt to a debate after seeing the Nye-Ham debate and decided to himself some attention.

If it was nearly anyone but Matt Dillahunty, I would advise not to waste your time with him Sye Ten Bruggencate, who I do not believe is capable of a civil, honest, or sincere debate.  But I think Matt is much more likely than most to effectively call him out on his bullshit.

Matt knows he won't convince Sye that he's wrong.  But he also knows that exposing Sye as being full of shit could make a difference with believers in the audience.  Matt knows that there will be potential future atheists in the audience.

My expectations for the debate are similar what Shives posted on Matt's first video.

I expect Sye's part of the debate to be thoroughly frustrating.  I expect him to be dishonest, mostly in the from quote mines and claims of exclusivity to absolute knowledge.

Sye claims he wants to expose "the atheist worldview" for what it is.  But all he has is word games.  So, to make the endeavor worthwhile, all Matt has to do is expose the dishonesty and terrible arguments for what they are.

If he does that, it will have the same result as the Nye-Ham debate, with even Christians saying the atheist won and comparing him to a conspiracy theorist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  I missed it due to Apostacon related obligations

Four Years Ago - Some Thoughts On Grief

It happened 4 years ago today.  I was on the way out the door to drive to Kansas City to spend the holiday weekend with some friends when I got a text to go over to my brother's.  He had something to tell me that he wouldn't tell me over the phone.  That could only mean someone had died.

I was expecting it to be our grandmother or our great-aunt, both who've had failing health in recent years.  But I was wrong.  It was our father.

Maybe it was the fact that I'm a bit of an emotional robot.  Maybe it was me never having a belief in any afterlife.  Maybe it was something else entirely.  But I instantly skipped the first four stages of grief^[1] and accepted that he was gone.

I've experienced anger due to his death, but I wouldn't qualify it as being part of the grief.  It was justified anger at the hospital staff who didn't do their jobs^[2].  I do experience occasional sadness during times his presence would be most desired, like when I want to get his opinion on something or I find a new game I think he'd enjoy.

Denial and bargaining are things I never experienced.  Denying it never seemed like a productive use of my time.  Who the hell would I bargain with?  And for what?  To make him rise from the dead?

Sometimes I wonder how my reaction would be different if had ever believed in Heaven or any other afterlife.  I suppose the idea that he lives on in Heaven could give me comfort if I thought it were true.  But even many believers question its existence.  Is a shaky idea of an afterlife barely believed in any comfort to the grieving?

I'm sure many can compartmentalize enough to achieve proper acceptance, but I'm sure many others never do.  For instance, I've had Christians tell me, with sincere belief, that we never die.  They think we simply go to either Heaven or Hell, where we live on forever.  The idea of them achieving acceptance seems unlikely if they don't actually think their loved ones are dead.  Maybe they don't actually grieve then, but I doubt that too.  Surely, they miss those who are gone, no matter where they think they've gone.

How is closure achieved if the grief stage of denial is preserved by a religious idea that encourages us to pretend the dead are not really dead?  Do believers in an afterlife ever really accept that people are dead?

For me, I'm glad that I don't think my father has gone to Heaven.  I'll never see him again, and I'm not happy about that.  But I'm happy that I'm not living a lie about it.  A comforting lie is still a lie.

Besides the fact that it's not real^[3], I see the notion of an afterlife to be a waste.  If I thought my father lived on elsewhere, I'd probably have less appreciation for the 29 years I knew him.  If I thought I would live on after my time on Earth, I'd have far less appreciation for that time.  An average of 70-some years is nothing compared to eternity.  But it's a hell of a lot when it's all you've got.

Death sucks^[4].  But so would eternity.  It would suck infinitely.  Some people sure seem to like the idea of an afterlife.  But I just don't get it.

Believers can have their delusions if that's their desire.  For me, I'll stick to reality.  I'll stick to my grief being a reminder to appreciate what I've still got.  I'll stick to doing my best to appreciate my limited time in this life and my limited time with the people in it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model
2.  Something I can't go into further for the obvious legal reasons.
3.  http://news.yahoo.com/proof-heaven-author-now-thoroughly-debunked-science-131711093.html
4.  http://youtu.be/njfJ8Kp1jVc

Morning Joe Addresses Declining Faith By Promoting Catholicism

Yesterday morning, Morning Joe was discussing the recent poll[^[1] that had 77% saying they think the influence of religion declining in America^[2].

Immediately prior to this segment, they had encountered some technical difficulties with their guest's sound, giving Scarborough the opportunity to joke about it being caused by demons and accuse their sound their sound guy of not loving Jesus enough.  They went to an unplanned break, with Scarborough exclaiming "Can we get someone who loves Jesus in here!?"^[3].  I bring this up both because it was offensive and because it puts the opening comments of this video into context.  

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The hosts, both Catholics, wanted someone to ask about why faith is declining in America.  So, they brought in a priest.  A priest who, when asked why people are leaving religion, barely mentioned the protection of child rapists that's happened by his employer.  You know, that thing that's often cited as the number one reason people leave the Catholic Church^[4].

@ 0:48^[5]

yeah. or the christian churches. i think the people feel sometimes alienated from religious institutions as they do from governmental institutions. when we get too fixated on ideological division i think in the churches we have seen some, certainly in the catholic church the sexual abuse scandal has disaffected many. and what the churches and the synagogues and mosques need to do is get back to the basics. in our case to preach the gospel. to focus on what we're most deeply about. i think people yearn for meet i -- meaning. they are yearning for some answers to very human, very deep questions.

Apparently, the key to getting people to stop leaving the church is for them to even further ignore the fact that the Catholic Church has made the protection rapists from prosecution a standard practice and simply preach the gospel.  A gospel, by the way, that teaches that we're all inherently evil and in need of the savior they say Jesus is.  Of course, the priest left that bit out.

@ 3:50

absolutely. i mean, you're right. that is the pew form of survey from last december. a fifth of all americans say they are not affiliated with any religious institution. i mean, a small portion of those are agnostic or atheist but most describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. that is they're seeking some answers. they're longing for something to touch their heart. they're longing for god and not finding it in any one particular religious institution. i think for anyone in the religion business like myself that it is a call to us to above all listen to that longing. they are longing for god. i think we do better when we listen first to what that longing is about and then share our tradition. let me go back to st. francis of assisi, the pope's patron saint. listen, i'm a jesuit priest. i'm proud to be a jesuit. he took the name of st. francis and it was st. francis who said, preach the gospel and only if necessary use words. to the extent that we are --

People aren't longing for god.  They're longing for answers.  God is simply something religion attempts to convince people is a legitimate answer to those questions.  It doesn't actually give real answers to those questions.  It just gives people an excuse to stop asking.

There's nothing particularly special or new about what this priest was saying.  It was all the standard stuff you would expect to see from a guy attempting to sell his religion.  I don't fault the guy for doing his preaching where he had the chance, as that's his job.

I fault this network, that calls itself news, for giving him that platform and free airtime to sell his scam, with no opportunity for any other viewpoint.  Not only did they give him that platform, they assisted him with the questions they asked.

@ 1:25

i'll ask you if you were a politician what are you about? what is the church mainly about? what is your mission that has been lost over the past 30 years?

@ 3:13

yes. i think like many catholics i watched the scandal unfold with great disappointment and discouragement as a catholic. but i still hold my faith very tightly. yet, father, you look at the numbers of americans who have no faith at all. i believe it's growing rapidly and it's one in five. one in five people in the american public. and a third of adults under 30 are religiously unaffiliated. how would you explain that? and is there room for the catholic church to do some work?

@ 5:23

it is so intimidating. i'm jewish and you are in an interfaith relationship but all the people in my sort of band are spiritual but not religious. that's the line they get all the time that father o'brien just said. they are so either intimidated by the church or the synagogue because they don't want to be part of some rote rhythm that doesn't feel like it has a real soul to it some people say. what do you say to the people that are searching but are so intimidated or don't really respect the contemporary approach of these institutions? i don't know how you get them back.

Here's  few other issues I have with this segment.

@ 4:58

steve large ent one time told me, steve is a very devout christian but he didn't go around, you know, he didn't wear it on his sleeve and he said his favorite saying was along these lines. he said, it came from mother teresa, which was, work as if there is no such thing as prayer. and pray as if there is no such thing as work. and that's the line -- lead by your example.

In other words, actually do shit because you are safe assuming prayer doesn't fucking work.  But pray anyway.  It would be good advice, if only it had stopped at behaving as if prayer doesn't work and not advised people to waste their time^[6].

@ 6:58

it's interesting, father, the pope said something the other day about, that i think addresses what brian was talking about. he said atheists can meet the church and where they will meet the church is in good works. he said atheists actually can be, can find grace, which was a remarkable thing for a pope to say.

No.  Through my good works, I do not "meet the church".  And fuck you for saying so.  I do good works on my own.  Without a god.  Without a church.  You don't get to try give credit for my good works to your religion.  And I especially don't want credit for my good works to go the Catholic Church, an organization that protects child rapists from prosecution.

@ 7:14

absolutely. and, you know, other popes and religious leaders in the catholic church have said sometimes those nonbelievers or seekers do a better job at their faith rather than those who just go about speaking their religion but not living it out. those actions have got to be coupled with belief for us to truly be examples of faith.

I don't have faith.   Maybe that's why I, and the other atheists without any faith, do a better job of actually getting shit done instead of merely preaching or praying.  That sentiment might have actually been expressed on air if they had had an atheist on air for this segment about people losing faith.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request^[7].

The entire segment reeked of an infomercial for Catholicism and their new Pope.  The only thing more offensive than a supposed news network aired this infomercial for the Vatican is how casually they mentioned the fact that the organization they were promoting has protected child rapists.

Are we really so desensitized to the issue of the rape of children that it has become a sidenote and an organization that facilitates is given a national platform?  I can't be the only one this confused about this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://video.msnbc.msn.com/morning-joe/52055712
2.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/162803/americans-say-religion-losing-influence.aspx
3.  This is paraphrased from memory, so it's not necessarily a direct quote.  But the message conveyed remains intact.
4.  http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/30/7-reasons-catholics-leave-church-in-trenton-1-is-sex-abuse-crisis/
5.  Quotations look the way they do because I copied them directly from MSNBC's transcript.  The only editing I did was some selective bolding.
6.  http://youtu.be/bv9o25k4e64
7.  https://twitter.com/aparticularA/status/340488918153715712

Atheism Plus, The Word "Stupid", and Offense

I recently wrote about not calling all Christians stupid^[1]. I stand by that, but I'm not entirely opposed to use of the word "stupid".

More recently, I shared a video by Steve Shives called "5 Stupid Things About the Men's Rights Movement"^[2]. Given the subject matter, I thought r/atheismplus^[3] might appreciate it. Hell, it's stupid shit like Men's Rights Advocates that make much of what Atheism Plus^[4] aims to address necessary.

I was partially right, as the next day, the post was on the front page with a score of 7 (10 upvotes, 3 down).  But I was also partially wrong, as the moderators didn't like it as much.

It was removed because it contained the word "stupid".  The conversation that ensued didn't result in anything productive.  They say their goal is to create a safe space for who are hurt by words like "stupid".  I'm sure they think they're doing something good, but I'm not sure they're doing the good they think they are.

Just the use of the word "stupid" makes them think of the mentally disabled.  In other words, they associate the mentally disabled with stupidity.  They claim to not be attempting to protect them, but that's exactly what they're doing.  They really are taking on the role of White Knight, despite their insistence otherwise.

A cafeteria I frequent employs some mentally disabled people in various roles.  There are two kinds of ways I see people treat them.  Some people treat them like they're anyone else, speaking to them as if they're capable of handling being treated like they're not stupid.  Then there are others, who talk down to them, speaking to them as if they're five years old.  Atheism Plus, or at least the moderators of their subreddit, are of the latter group.

They took offense on behalf of people who never asked for it.  They attempt to defend people from things they do not need defending from.  They're not helping anyone by getting offended at everything.  If anything, they do more damage than good.  They think they're fighting a culture that harms various types of people.  But all they're doing creating a culture that keeps those people down.  A culture that sees them as less than.

When you find offense^[5] around every corner, people get used to you being offended.  When they get used to be offended, they tune you out.

Misogyny^[6] is real.  Discrimination against the disabled^[7] is real.  Both must be fought.  But focusing on words instead of actions doesn't fight either.  Treating people like they cannot handle the real world^[8] does not help them.  Plus, it's better to treat people like they're human beings.  After all, human beings is exactly what they are.

This is something I've been gradually noticing, but still hoping wasn't the case, about them.  I want to like Atheism Plus, but shit like this does make it difficult.  Being that overly sensitive is stupid, and I don't think saying that makes me ableist. It makes me realistic.  It makes me someone who doesn't associate the word "stupid" with the disabled.

This incident on Reddit, may not be representative of Atheism Plus.  I certainly hope it's not, and I've had plenty of positive interactions with people who identify as Atheism Plussers.  But the more direct interaction I have with people in leadership positions with Atheism Plus, the less I find myself wanting to defend them.

I'll continue to defend them when I see the irrational hatred they receive, as I still see an insane amount of obsessive hate aimed at them.  My interactions with people who actively oppose Atheism Plus have been far less positive, mostly being reminiscent of conversations with conspiracy theorists & Creationists.    But I don't see myself adopting the label anytime soon.  And I'll definitely be criticizing them when I feel it's warranted.

If the haters are right, I'll be vilified for criticizing them.  I don't expect that to happen though, even despite the unfortunate incident that prompted this post.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/2013/04/an-open-letter-to-some-atheists.html
2.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/2013/05/five-stupid-things-about-mens-rights.html
3.  http://www.reddit.com/r/atheismplus/comments/1dljqh/five_stupid_things_about_the_mens_rights_movement/
4.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-atheism-plus-links.html
5.  http://youtu.be/zwoqzb5R6vw
6.  http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/war-women
7.  http://youtu.be/P7_cMziG1Fc
8.  http://youtu.be/_xrr_gV5K68

Happy Draw Mohammed Day

The original plan was to have this^[1] done in advance.  Instead, life got in the way, and I almost forgot about it completely.  I had shut down my computer for the night, only to be reminded of it by a tweet by Steve Shives^[2].  So I started it back up & drew this.

Yup, my art skills are that good^[3].  Be jealous.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day
2.  https://twitter.com/steve_shives/status/336646369634820098
3.  I'll try to get a few of the ones from people with actual artistic ability to share later.

Five Stupid Things About the Men's Rights Movement

I've encountered the so-called Men's Rights Movement^[1] a lot lately.  The more I see of it, the more I see that they're nothing but whiny little bitches who don't like women for a variety of reasons and are throwing a hissy fit because they don't get to act the misogynist assholes they could have if they'd lived a hundred years earlier.

It pisses me off enough that I'll definitely have more to say on it later to show what I mean.  But, for now, I'll leave you with Steve Shives'^[2] take on it^[3], the latest is his spectacular "Five Stupid Things About . . ."^[4] series, as it's spot on and I don't want to wait to share this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement
2.  http://www.youtube.com/user/stevelikes2curse
3.  http://youtu.be/aCniWzjVIv4
4.  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL84A91744A72011F6