*DISCLAIMER* I speak only for myself and there are many places i might be wrong, i do not want other members or nirmukta to be attacked for the same.
Even though the thread is about this article i would also like to talk about common debates that accompany such discussions.
The article was posted in nirmukta FB group and caused a lot of heat,it talks about why atheist communities seem to be dominated by white males, and what this tells us about ourselves and what we could do about it.
Such arguments tend to get heated up in all atheist forums, it gets worse on facebook with single button-press comments, notifications , news feeds, ego-pumping likes,which is why such discussions are often diverted to forums.
Let me start with simple question, how many of you have actually seen an ostrich bury their head in sand? ever seen that in any wildlife documentary where ostriches bury their head in sand?, yet the number of times it is shown in cartoons and comics and number people who just "know" it to be true is enough for most of us to believe it to be true as well and use it as phrases to propagate it further.
If you scare an ostrich in wild, it won't bury it's head in sand, it might ignore you if you are lucky, otherwise consider ourselves dead, with powerful kicks from the bird that can run upto 70 kilometres/Hr.
This is how stereotyping works, but in this case no-one would have any intrinsic urge to propagate it, now imagine this in the case of gender roles, where there is an intrinsic urge to propagate them specially among religious to, there is an urge to google and present flawed researches proving inferiority , there is no denying that differences exist among genders but when you find papers that seem (perhaps even unintentionally) aimed at ratifying existing stereotyping , you know there's a problem, and the problem predates religion,perhaps even homo sapiens and in the social structure we live in has become self-consolidating emerging in ads, moves,even kids-cartoons .
Times are ofcourse changing, thanks to movements like feminism, these problems have been easily noticeable and to some extent checked.
There are obvious reasons this is a pet topic in atheist circles.
Atheists are assumed to be (behaviourally)non-religious, why shouldn't they be? they do not believe
in religions, right? but they grow up in the similar culture as religious and traces of religious bigotry are easily found in them.However many atheists assume they have outgrown their biases by rejecting their faith, thus when confronted, many atheists defend it by attacking the opposing view as trying to be "Politically correct".
Since most atheists pride themselves as rationalists and assume themselves to be beyond biases, they find pride in taking up a controversial stance to ratify their opinion of themselves,that they take up the position of "truth" no matter what society thinks, this attitude is expected since most atheists have to rebel out of their religious upbringing where they are taught not to question,but often they end up taking a controversial stance just because it is controversial(only a true rationalist can take up such a stance, right ?) and several scientists support it *NOT* because there exists overwhelming evidence to support that(Also how much roles do genes play in "accepting atheism" in the age of machines, computers, internet(google) ?).
Atheism and feminism
There are several reasons why more such discussions should be encouraged in atheist circles (to raise awareness, *not* to take up a controversial stance just for the sake of it) and *not* downplayed as being "emotional"
Being an atheist does not imply being a humanist, thanks to social-activist movements bigotry in public spaces is reducing, though bigotry predates religion but case of religious bigotry is special, religions not only propagate bigotry , they recommend it and they reward it, they shun discourse and project it as absolute truth and absolute morality,so if being a atheist would make it easier in general to be a humanist with a big chunk of biases minimised.
If your revolution doesn't implicitly and explicitly include a rejection of misogyny and other intersectional marginalization, then you're not staging a revolution: You're staging a change in management.~Melissa McEwan (shakesville).
Males and feminism
My fellow freethinkers should understand that feminism is a win-win for both sexes,feminism is *not* misandry , the root problem is patriarchy, the root word of patriarchy is not male, it is father, in a dysfunctional family , the father would beat the mother , the son and the daughter in which case it would be better for the son to join forces with his sister and mother rather than continue the tradition.
Misconceptions about political correctness
Quote:Politicial correctness (or PC) is a term, generally a negative term, for use of language, or sometimes policies in general, that is sensitive to identity concerns. Sometimes it is a term for anything identified as feminist, anti-racist and so on.
The term "political correctness" is generally used to describe others. It has connotations of:
unthinkingly bending to the will of progressive politics, implying that the politically correct person does not have their own opinions
censorship or silencing of speech opposed to progressive politics
suppression of harmless individuality and existing cultural traits
support for affirmative action at the level of individuals as well as organisations
'unnatural' use of language
Political correctness is positioned as opposed to personal autonomy by its critics. Commentators may use 'political correctness' to imply the existence of mainstream legal or political power structure enforcing politically correct behaviour or even thought. Examples of such structures in reality (for example, anti-discrimination and anti-harrassment laws) may be portrayed as unacceptable infringements on personal autonomy.
Acts that might be described as "political correctness" include:
any call for less of certain kinds of speech (for example, anti-feminist speech)
using gender neutral terms, or even gender-agreeing terms, for roles that might be occupied by a woman (eg "chair" or "chairperson" or "chairwoman" for "chairman")
describing a person or their behaviour as sexist or racist or otherwise discriminatory
any opinions supportive of feminism, anti-racism etc
Accusations of political correctness can be used disingenuously to silence people, since being "politically correct" in some circles makes one automatically in the wrong.
Quote:Some people have claimed the term politically correct as a description of themselves
Misconceptions about freedom of expression
If you are tempted to begin an argument against something we’ve said here with, “God, stop being so PC!” just stop right there. We are proudly PC and have absolutely no intention of stopping. Racist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and sexist comments are as unwelcome here as sizeist ones.
Often in forums, the concept of freedom of expression is misunderstood, this is even more often in atheist circles since many atheists have to go take the "Do not offend our faith" from people around them,this causes them to often put the actual cases of offence with assumed-from-privelage cases of offence in the same category.And being a community of atheists, the argument "You are acting just like 'em religious fanatics is thrown often"
Here is a funny cartoon i created to express this, being a cartoon, it need not be accurate, read through the accompanying text that discusses it in more detail.
The thing that i hate most about the freedom of speech strawman(s) is that they trivialise the (still prevelant) incidences of suppression of freedom of speech, stoning ,burning alive, disembowelment,crucifixion,beheading... when they compare them to "religious fanatics".
When your posting rights are suspended from a forum that has an unambiguous set of policies , to which your posts do not comply , that is not suppression of free speech,posting rights to any forum are conditional to it's policies that you are assumed to agree to when you "ask to join".
Or as this article
Quote:You may be free to write what you want to, but you may not use my pencil or keyboard to write it unless I permit you to do so. You may be free to talk about the importance of religion, but you may not expect to air your views on the BBC, unless they want you to. You may be free to sing Church songs all day long, but you may not barge into my living room and unleash your oh-so-blessed hymns on me