Things I learned on Reddit today.
1) From a_weed_wizard in the Men’s Rights subreddit, I learned that feminists cannot be atheists:
GirlWritesWhat agrees:
I’m not sure where those downvotes came from, since everything GirlWritesWhat says is by definition true.
2) From AskHistorians, I learned that feminists trying to correctly translate ancient Greek are evil man-hating monsters. Check out the downvotes on EggyMc!
Obviously, she’s retranslating with malice aforethought!
In this case, it’s easy to tell where at least some of the downvotes are coming from: A link on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
MRAs: protecting ancient Greek history from MISANDRY since 2012!
How can they misunderstand the definition of “atheist,” when all it means is “a lack of belief in a god or gods”? I’m a feminist. I’m also an atheist. They’re totally compatible.
That’s coming from misogyny. I know it’s fun to have a group of those people to blame, but sexism’s pretty universal, god or no.
And Weed Wizard gives absolutely zero evidence or even a single example of feminist “articles of faith” that preclude us from being atheists. He just said a big bunch of nothing.
So..Hera’s bloke Zeus…
Eating a woman (or mystical Greek Titan) before knowing she’s conceived, then, 9 godly months later, having a fully formed goddess born, via axe-to-the-head delivery – is probably exactly the kind of reproduction these guys are aiming for.
No shared parental duty, no babies and an opportunity to to flout all that caring midwifery shit with some macho jerkwad axemanship….makes their “artificial womb” plan look a bit cack now really…
And the first dude can piss off as well.
Presumably this is just what happens in a country that has stoners, but no decent, reality based, documentaries on science and history.
Shame really…he might have noticed that the campaign for women’s equality only really started up after the maternal mortality rates dropped from something insanely high (about 40% in cities with poor areas?), when it turned out that once “dying prematurely in child birth” stopped being a fair* reason to end a woman’s education, the only thing now
preventing it was…well, misogyny after 10,000 years or so of patriarchal rule.
He might even have seen some about what effects industrialisation and mechanical weapons (that anyone, of any class and any level of upper body strength) did to past society’s concepts of masculinity and body counts on the battle field.
Aww come on! Man doesn’t even need documentaries (books, schools etc) to look into it. He’s got Disney and weed. At some point he’s gotta notice that all the animated girls’ mum’s are dead and start drawing together a few connections…please…for fuck’s sake.
I despair.
* I say “fair” but not in a the “balanced, sane and reasonable” sense. Mean “fair” by the standards of a society as short sighted and competitively hierarchical as ours. That society is not one that’ll “waste” it’s resources educating girls that’ll then probably just go on to die in labour…
@Cliff Pervocracy
“Apparently feminism is a religion because it means you believe, uh, women exist?
Huh. I guess I’m a fanatical believer.”
So before feminism women didn’t exist? Were they figment’s of mens imagination? I hope you didn’t rush to be the first to post something incredibly stupid.
————
“Once our idea of female gender roles gets past the 1950’s scholar’s fear of women and their sexuality then we will finally see some honest history.”
I’ve noticed this being said quite often these days, the, “fear” of womens sexuality. It isn’t really the fear “of” womens sexuality, it’s more the fear of how detrimental to a society it is to allow women to devolve down to their base animal instinct of acting like animals in heat at their leisure in public. All the while of course keeping men’s animal instinct of acting like animals in heat on a short leash.
The problem of course being the expense, manpower and willingness to continually protect women who are doing everything in their power to sexually arouse men and tempt men into acting on that arousal.
So the fear of womens sexuality is really the fear that men will devolve down to the same level of animalistic behavior displayed by women.
If EggyMc actually knew anything about honest history, he/she would’ve know the cycle of decayed, dying empires. At the pinnacle of every empire/civilation they become debauch and tolerate, promote and publicly glorify every form of sexual perversion. After that, that civilization crumbles quite swiftly.
Sexism is universal. Female subjugation isn’t. Support for women’s rights is highly correlated with secularism.
>>Patriarchal institutions that are outright religious structures exist and are major things in a lot of the world.
>>Aiming for Tu Quoque rather than trying to play up matriarchal, more gender equal cultures, however sidelined they may be.
Make your points better.
Religion is in most cases becoming far less patriarchal and even identifying with feminist dogma in many cases:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/men-and-patriarchy-in-the-church/
Religion is in practice sometimes (okay, often) sexist.
The concepts of belief and worship are not INHERENTLY sexist in any way.
“Sexism would go down if people followed non-sexist religious practices” is just as legitimate an alternative as “sexism would go down if people were all atheists.”
@hieropants
Yeah, remember when the Soviet Union went from being pioneers of legalised abortion to entirely banning it because of all that religious influence on politics?
/@hieropants
I’ve noticed this being said quite often these days, the, “fear” of womens sexuality. It isn’t really the fear “of” womens sexuality, it’s more the fear of how detrimental to a society it is to allow women to devolve down to their base animal instinct of acting like animals in heat at their leisure in public. All the while of course keeping men’s animal instinct of acting like animals in heat on a short leash.
Translated from the NWOslave, I’m pretty sure this reads “REALLY BAD THINGS are going to happen if women wear clothes I don’t approve of, or don’t wear clothes, trust me (also there are no clothes I approve of) “. Would that be one of those awful feminist translations, or am I going alright here?
@Rutee, @hieropants
Yeah, that was a poor point and a lazy shot, and I’m sorry to hieropants for arguing in poor faith there. Cliff’s post above mine expressed what I was trying to get across far more eloquently than I did.
It never stops amazing me that NWO can accuse feminists of having a hateful view of men and at the same time make it clear that he thinks that being a rapist is a natural part of men’s nature. It’s like it doesn’t even occur to him that he’s depicting men in an extremely negative light.
@Steele “Religion is in most cases becoming far less patriarchal and even identifying with feminist dogma in many cases:”
Holy shit did a MRA just admit that some things are actually or used to be patriarchal? I think that might be a first.
Where does this happen, because I seem to have missed the show.
Poor Zeus! Constantly being false rape accused when common sense would indicate he couldn’t be a goose or a shower of gold coins, and now it turns out his wife is super manipulative. Zeus is so oppressed.
“Religion is in most cases becoming far less patriarchal and even identifying with feminist dogma in many cases:”
You realize that that article was pretty firmly drubbed down just here, right? It’s hilariously wrong.
http://manboobz.com/2012/06/22/a-voice-for-men-christianity-is-all-about-hating-on-dudes/
Silly boys XD XD XD
Also, Steele, that article is not arguing that the Church is becoming less patriarchal, but that it was never pariarchal at all. The argument is that Christianity has been misandric from at least the days of St. Augustine, if not earlier. It goes so far as to argue that the fact that the belief that Jesus was celibate was misandry.
Possibly by accident, you actually ended up with a much more reasonable, albeit still wrong, position than the article you cited as your source.
You might want to step up your reading comprehension game, even if you have given up your dream of being a writer.
Lowquacks: Err, I’m an atheist, and I don’t really have articles of faith. (I guess, since I don’t believe in objective morality, my morality could be considered one…? But even then I’m just saying that I would like to live in a world where the maximum number of people are happy and will take action to make this world come about, both of which I do have evidence for.) I try to only believe things I have evidence for, and if I believe something without evidence I consider it less “faith” and more “making a mistake.” Could you elaborate on what you mean?
NWO: I AM WEARING A FIREFLY SHIRT AND BAGGY JEANS FEAR MY UNLEASHED SEXUALITY
*patriarchal
I love how Steele thinks (a) a link to an AVfM post counts as evidence of something, (b) doesn’t even check to see that we already fisked it, and (3) gets the point of the AVfm post completely bass-ackwards. This is what keeps me coming back here — this, and the animal videos.
Oh, great, now Steele is bringing his brand of stupid to multiple threads.
The cynic in me tends to believe he knows damn well that’s what he’s doing. He might play dumb when he’s called out on it, but he obviously wants women to be afraid.
I don’t think that it occurs to him that women being afraid of men is a bad thing that makes men look bad, though. He seems to think that women fearing men is an excellent thing.
As a devoted follower of Surak, I would take offense at this statement, were I in the habit of indulging emotional outbursts. Which I am not. *raised eyebrow*
(It’s okay if this joke fails, because this comment doesn’t exist, having been written by a feminist and atheist.)
Re: atheism and feminism allies.
Only very rocky ones as the whole Elevatorgate plus recent debates show–I think some of the atheist groups in the US are changng (American Atheists have a good sexual harassment policy)–but the ‘natural’ alliance isn’t there, and there is a strong and vocal minority who are downright misogynistic. (Erm, been reading over at freethoughtblogs.com, can heartily recommend a number of them!)