The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

[SteveB]

More women are entering and succeeding in politics here in the States. Only 17% of the congress are women (acc. to Kirsten Gillibrand, the other night on the Daily Show), so if we're looking for something approaching equal representation, there's a long way to go. But it is happening.

Damn, wasn't she so adorable on the Daily Show?

[hadespussercats]

More women are entering and succeeding in politics here in the States. Only 17% of the congress are women (acc. to Kirsten Gillibrand, the other night on the Daily Show), so if we're looking for something approaching equal representation, there's a long way to go. But it is happening.

Damn, wasn't she so adorable on the Daily Show?

She was. Maybe not the most eloquent guest, but cute as a button.

[Audley Strange]

More women are entering and succeeding in politics here in the States. Only 17% of the congress are women (acc. to Kirsten Gillibrand, the other night on the Daily Show), so if we're looking for something approaching equal representation, there's a long way to go. But it is happening.

The main issues facing women entering politics here (as I understand it) are whether they can raise the funds to support a winning campaign, and whether they can win respect for their stances on certain social and foreign policy issues (which, I think, might be why gun-happy conservatives like Palin and the other "Grizzly Moms" seem to capture the spotlight-- if not the win.)

I don't know. I was reading you two discussing the Woman Problem and I thought is might be useful to point out that women are in fact moving ahead, here and there, even in the big bad world of politics.

We weren't discussing the Woman Problem.

Thanks though. 17% seems quiet low to me. It's about 30% or so here in the U.K. I seem to recall. However here is the question, why is equal representation important? I mean this in the sense of what if you had the republicans field a ton of female candidates and the democrats had only male candidates would the fact that they are more women on the republican side be fundamentally important to you, as a woman? If you support republican policies then reverse the parties?

I understand that the majority of the population are not being represented as the majority of the population, however do you think that will change? Is it necessary? If it's all about balance should there be quotas to balance up the occupations where females are over-represented? If it's not then why is it an issue exactly.

JAQing off blind in a hail of privilejizz I assume. I really want to know though. I genuinely don't think that if parliament was filled with women tomorrow it would be a cause for concern, their policies might be. So I don't see why there has to be equal representation as such. Is the gender of a politician or the person that serves you burgers really that much of an issue?

edited to add (in the uk (( if you must know(((alright))))))

[Twoflower]

I've always thought one way to show men and women are equal in the states at least is to require both men and women to sign up for the draft when they turn 18.

Better yet, have neither of them sign!

That would be ideal, but as long as the draft is around I think both sexes should have to sign up for it.

[orpheus]

Agreed. Interesting that whenever I point out how sexist this is against men, I'm "corrected". The explanation goes like this: evidently It's not really sexism against men; it's really sexism against women. "Beneficent sexism", it's called. Women get an apparent advantage, but it's only apparent, since it's caused by the stereotype of the weak woman who shouldn't fight in wars. It's an instance where they benefit from a stereotype perpetuated by the PatriarchyTM.

The atrocious consequences for the man are disregarded. All sympathy goes to the woman.

I certainly agree that the stereotype isn't good. But this is such tortured logic to avoid acknowledging that men can actually suffer sexism.

When I've pointed out how truly screwy this is, I get nowhere.

[Audley Strange]

Agreed. Interesting that whenever I point out how sexist this is against men, I'm "corrected". The explanation goes like this: evidently It's not really sexism against men; it's really sexism against women. "Beneficent sexism", it's called. Women get an apparent advantage, but it's only apparent, since it's caused by the stereotype of the weak woman who shouldn't fight in wars. It's an instance where they benefit from a stereotype perpetuated by the PatriarchyTM.

The atrocious consequences for the man are disregarded. All sympathy goes to the woman.

I certainly agree that the stereotype isn't good. But this is such tortured logic to avoid acknowledging that men can actually suffer sexism.

When I've pointed out how truly screwy this is, I get nowhere.

Well that's because it is a reasonable position and to disagree displays a certain level of irrationality.

Otherwise, why are they not complaining that more women deserve to be killed and injured in wars?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

:twisted:

Y'all are KILLING me.....can't....stop....laughing....







....don't make me dig out the Emunclaw video....

[hadespussercats]

I've always thought one way to show men and women are equal in the states at least is to require both men and women to sign up for the draft when they turn 18.

Better yet, have neither of them sign!

That would be ideal, but as long as the draft is around I think both sexes should have to sign up for it.

I agree. I remember having a big discussion about it with my mom when I was 8-- I was so confused why women didn't have to go fight.

Mom tried to say something about women being higher souls, or... I don't know, something to the effect that women were morally superior to men and that's why we didn't fight. I didn't see what was so superior about making other people fight for us.

Mom's a Quaker. Or was. I don't know if that plays in to the discussion, though, since she's a surprisingly hawkish pacifist.

[A Hermit]

And just to remind you dear Robert, they threatened to release personal information.

You're full of shit. "They" did no such thing.

One person, a name no one recognized, threatened to do that in PZ's comments, everyone jumped on them and the comment was deleted.

It's lies like that one that are perpetuating the problem.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good bout of self righteousness...

[A Hermit]

A Hermit,

I believe I'm done with this conversation...

Promise this time?

I've explained to you why the examples you've posted are not really representative of the situation, all of them being taken out of context, misrepresented or pure fantasy.

You want to talk about creationist tactics? You've obviously picked up the quotemining method....good for you!

[hadespussercats]

More women are entering and succeeding in politics here in the States. Only 17% of the congress are women (acc. to Kirsten Gillibrand, the other night on the Daily Show), so if we're looking for something approaching equal representation, there's a long way to go. But it is happening.

The main issues facing women entering politics here (as I understand it) are whether they can raise the funds to support a winning campaign, and whether they can win respect for their stances on certain social and foreign policy issues (which, I think, might be why gun-happy conservatives like Palin and the other "Grizzly Moms" seem to capture the spotlight-- if not the win.)

I don't know. I was reading you two discussing the Woman Problem and I thought is might be useful to point out that women are in fact moving ahead, here and there, even in the big bad world of politics.

We weren't discussing the Woman Problem.

Thanks though. 17% seems quiet low to me. It's about 30% or so here in the U.K. I seem to recall. However here is the question, why is equal representation important? I mean this in the sense of what if you had the republicans field a ton of female candidates and the democrats had only male candidates would the fact that they are more women on the republican side be fundamentally important to you, as a woman? If you support republican policies then reverse the parties?

I understand that the majority of the population are not being represented as the majority of the population, however do you think that will change? Is it necessary? If it's all about balance should there be quotas to balance up the occupations where females are over-represented? If it's not then why is it an issue exactly.

JAQing off blind in a hail of privilejizz I assume. I really want to know though. I genuinely don't think that if parliament was filled with women tomorrow it would be a cause for concern, their policies might be. So I don't see why there has to be equal representation as such. Is the gender of a politician or the person that serves you burgers really that much of an issue?

edited to add (in the uk (( if you must know(((alright))))))

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking a bunch of questions. But then, I'm prone to that myself. So, er... JAQ away?



No, 17% is actually quite low, and it's revealing, I think, that a recent wave of successes among women politicians has raised the percentage to that less-than-staggering amount. But we're moving in the right direction.

I've been quoting my Mom a lot lately-- sorry! She says that American women have shot ourselves in the foot by spending so much time complaining about silly stuff that doesn't matter. "Never mind England, look at India! They've had a woman in charge. Ireland, too. These countries that are supposedly so backward can get a woman to lead them, and we can't?!"

I'm not sure it's that simple. But she makes a strong point.

For me, I'd be much more likely to vote for a man who seemed poised to do the work I wanted and shared my beliefs in terms of policy, over a woman who didn't, but who happened to have similar genitals. I would vote for Rum over Sarah Palin any day of the week, even if he is furrin. And I chose Obama over Clinton, because, well, HC is actually surprisingly conservative on a lot of issues. Plus, I found BO more inspiring. I don't know if HC could have gotten more done than BO has in the past four years-- given what they're facing across the aisle, not to mention the sad state of the world at large, I'm guessing no.

Anyway...

I do think there's a influence-- seeing more women in the media, holding positions of power. No matter what their politics are, I think when a people gets used to seeing women holding certain jobs, it stops being so much about the fact of her womanhood and more about whether or not she'd do good work. (Not to derail, but I think women comedians have finally reached that sort of critical mass in the past decade-- stories about whether or not women can be funny are old news. Too many women are being funny to ignore them-- now just go to a show and enjoy yourself.)

But beyond that, I don't think the Palins or the Michelle Bachmanns are helping. Well, they're helping someone-- just not me.

Still, I think it's important to get more women representing us in government, if only to stem the worrying tide of encroachments on women's hard-won reproductive rights nationwide, and to start hammering out some policies about healthcare and family leave that reflect the burdens women carry largely because of certain realities of biology.

This could be (and has been) a huge thread in its own right, so I'm trying to be concise (which means I'm not making my arguments as thorough/sound as I could-- just trying to get down the sense of them. Sorry, again!)

[Rum]

It is like some horrible video you can't unglue your eyes from..

There's a discussion over there about sexual harassment. It goes without saying I am opposed to such behaviour, however they are talking..well here's an example without naming names:

"definition that makes it impossible to deal with crating hostile environments via microaggressions, especially in large spaces where each microaggression might only be committed once by each individual aggressor"

I .. must ...leave the place ...alone...

[Thinking Aloud]

If we're talking equal representation of the sexes, a US Census report in 2006 showed that there were 143000 dads who stayed at home to look after the kids, versus 5.6 million mums in 2005. That's around 2.5% of stay-at-home parents represented by men. Let's have a bit of equal representation here too - I feel entirely isolated and alone in this role, and ostracised and treated as second-class by the females around me.

This is only semi-serious, but is something that all this equality discussion is apparently avoiding like an elephant in the room: the effect of procreation on a parent's career, income, choices, salary, seniority, success, etc.

[Robert_S]

If we're talking equal representation of the sexes, a US Census report in 2006 showed that there were 143000 dads who stayed at home to look after the kids, versus 5.6 million mums in 2005. That's around 2.5% of stay-at-home parents represented by men. Let's have a bit of equal representation here too - I feel entirely isolated and alone in this role, and ostracised and treated as second-class by the females around me.

This is only semi-serious, but is something that all this equality discussion is apparently avoiding like an elephant in the room: the effect of procreation on a parent's career, income, choices, salary, seniority, success, etc.

Start a thread and see what happens.

[colubridae]

To demand obedience al la Carrier is the very nadir of humanity. All else pales into insignificance. Your own Matt Dillahunty once said that ‘slavery is probably the only absolute immorality’. The unquestioning obedience you and your ilk demand is slavery.

What a load of ignorant, self serving, bullshit. Everyone involved in A+ jumped on Carrier for that over the top post, and he apologized, retracted it and promised not to do it again. To take that one post and claim that it somehow represents everything about A+ looks like laziness, stupidity or dishonesty. Possibly all three...

Pappa aplogised for his joke. That apology was rejected out of hand. Now you hold up carrier’s ‘apology’ as a thing of beauty to be admired and cherished.
Double standards. Meh. Go look in the mirror.

Honestly you don’t know whether you’ve been shot, fucked or snake-bit

edit oopas sorry pressed the wrong button?