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.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bramble.png?resize=573%2C230&ssl=1)
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.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/shrekem.png?resize=567%2C377&ssl=1)
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.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ihavealarge.png?resize=580%2C276&ssl=1)
But Scoundrel, a more pessimistic sort, can’t imagine any scenario that would get the evil femmies to admit that men are oppressed:
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!
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.
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.
Also, thanks grumpycatisagirl. 🙂
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?”
You have lived in San Francisco and London? I’m so jealous. 🙂
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:
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)
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.
Oh well, Canberra. Of course that’s a den of iniquitiy, it’s full of politicians. 😉
LOL kittehserf. Good point.
The other thing mnekora is unaware of is that this sort of thing has led to major division and falling-out here before.
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.