Ask an Atheist

Hooray!

Ask a Question!

Other Ways to Contact Us

Voice Mail: Ph: (206) 420-0997
Direct Email: E:

Airs Sundays at 3:00 PM on KLAY 1180 AM in Tacoma • Leave us a Voice Mail at (206) 420-0997

This Week: In Trouble

"Dogmatic Feminism" Discussion Podcast (part 1)

Becky and Sam have an extended discussion about this week’s episode, covering material unused on the show and some of the responses we’ve recieved.

Categories:
Podcasts

About the Author: Sam Mulvey

Sam Mulvey is a producer and the technical brain behind Ask an Atheist. He is a collector of vinegar varieties, vintage computers, antique radios, and propaganda.

Feedback and Commentary

57 Comments 0 Trackbacks
Iamcuriousblue June 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm

I posted the names of some of the relevant ERV threads in a comment on the previous thread, but now I’ve googled them up just for you. Here are the links:

Thanks!

There may be others since then;

As I pointed out, no new posts remotely related to this subject recently. As for the others, that is indeed the first time I’ve seen a regular running comments section for one post run for well over 6 months.

RB760 June 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm

As a follow up to my last post, here’s the link that Paul provided with his comments under the screen name Guerra. This was just one of many examples of people who have been ad-hominem-ed, strawman-ed, and evaded by the FfTB bloggers and crowd. Some of the times, the bloggers would let their sycophants goad commenters into an argument, then they would attack the commenter based on the result.

They don’t care for truth and skepticism. If they did, then you would see comments from them to address their sycophants on issues which us readers would see the sycophants as going to far in the other direction. Of course no objection happens because it’s an atheist arguing with an evangelical Christian. The Christian will say a bunch of fallacious and despicable things, and when the moderate Christian observer intervene, he will ignore the bullshit from Christians, and pick on the atheist for standing against those Christians. This is another example of how dogmatic the FTB’s feminism is.

Kemushi June 14, 2012 at 5:53 pm

Having read the comments of the new thread I hope I’m not derailing any childish sniping here, but I wanted to say that this is the first AaA podcast I’ve listened to and you’ve got me hooked. Here you’ve addressed just the issue that’s been bothering me most in the movement and what drove me from things like PZ’s blog months ago – there have arisen too many places where minor disagreements or a different perspective – particularly when it comes to gender – instantly make you the next Hitler.

Anne C. Hanna June 14, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Daniel, it’s very hard to believe that you’re asking questions in good faith here when you don’t even seem to have bothered to plug “Schroedinger’s Rapist” into Google. The very first link (not included here in order to avoid moderation) provides an excellent explanation of the problem. It’s well worth a read. Becky, I’d encourage y’all to take a look if you haven’t already.

And, just so you know, Daniel’s handling of this subject is exactly the thing that the feminist bloggers are so impatient about, with regard to the 101-level stuff. It’s not that people are ignorant — ignorance is forgivable. It’s that they expect others to correct their ignorance for them, rather than even going to the rather elementary and trivial effort of asking google first, and then they get offended when they’re told to do their own homework rather than expecting the very people who are harmed most by sexism to have to go to the extra trouble of personally and individually doing it for every single one of them. Since the whole point of fighting sexism is that men shouldn’t expect women to be catering to their every single privileged need all the goddamn time, this attitude itself seems rather like a manifestation of massive, oblivious (even if unintentional) sexism.

Anne C. Hanna June 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm

Oh, and the link, seeing as how I’ve been socialized to be nice and helpful even when people are acting all entitled and disingenuous about stuff, Daniel:

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

After you’re done enjoying that, please do explain what’s so horrible and man-demonizing about it, not to mention all those other links you were pointing to. Are those bloggers lying about the problems they raise? Are they lying about the fact that these problems arise from what a large number of men (but I’m sure not you, since you seem like such a nice guy and all) demand from women? Please do make a case rather than just waving around vague accusations about how terrible these women are for standing up for themselves.

Daniel June 14, 2012 at 8:34 pm

@Anne C. Hanna
I think it is telling that you took my message, disregarded any point I was making and then attacked assumptions. The condescending snark is an extra bonus and i am sure there will be some in return. I have read that article before and I know Schrodingers Rapist is couched very well in good intentions. The intentions to make interactions safer for women at these meetup events. The intention is good, but it harms both men and women in attempting to accomplish it. [B]We can do better than schrodingers rapist to create safe events[/B]. It’s spreading a gender binary message of predator/victim and male/female stereotypes. Which is something the gender equality movement is trying to avoid and Schrodingers Rapist perpetuates it. Maybe it is your privilege that you don’t see what is wrong with prejudging people.

Here is a look at what I said previously.
““scrhodingers rapist” or ,every man is a potential rapist until proven otherwise”

Which part do you disagree with? That it portrays every man as a potential rapist or the until proven otherwise? Could it possibly be that I didn’t fluff it in the same good intentions that the author did to make it sound nice? I’m sure that is enough condescension for you. Lets take a look at what is said so that maybe I can substantiate my claim.

“When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.” yes, in fact it does quite sound like the author is portraying every man she meets as a potential rapist(may or may not rape) that she will not know their true intention until shown otherwise.

“It’s that they expect others to correct their ignorance for them, rather than even going to the rather elementary and trivial effort of asking google first”

“After you’re done enjoying that, please do explain what’s so horrible and man-demonizing about it, not to mention all those other links you were pointing to”.

adopt those criticisms yourself before levying them against others. Google “problems with Schrodinger’s Rapist” next time.

Sam June 14, 2012 at 10:03 pm

We’re closing comment on this debate as per our most recent blog post. Please feel free to continue discussion at the page regarding the episode: here.