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

[DaveD]

I used to love the Young Ones, it's been decades since I watched it but wasn't there an episode with Rik reciting his bad protest poetry from a crucifix?

The first episode, "Demolition". He was trying to stop the house being knocked down.

[Audley Strange]

Ah good I wasn't imagining it. Chairs Dave.

[hadespussercats]

My friend has a daughter and both he and his wife work part time so they can both look after her and importantly I think, each other. It seems from what he tells me that there are a few couples at the nursery she goes to who do the same thing. They live without needless extravagance, but not poorly , comfortably.

We had a discussion about this and what he said is that by doing this, they are content.

Now surely something like that sounds more like a way forward that keeping or swapping traditional roles.

That's a lot like what J and I do. Or did-- at the moment, he's working out of the house more. But this first year, we've shared a lot, and he took an extended leave and worked from home when he could, to take care of Sprog and to help me when I was working/pursuing professional interests.

I think anyone who cares about women's and men's equality should be doing whatever they can to support men who want to be primary caregivers to their children. I think many fathers and mothers would lead happier, more fulfilling lives, if they shared the so-called work/life balance more evenly.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Someone led me to this...

http://musingsbysoggymog.blogspot.co.uk ... -plus.html

This seems common. I think it's time that we encouraged women to speak out about their "harrassment" from Atheism Plus supporters.

I clearly cannot organise such a thing having a dick, (yeah I seddit) however I think it would be interesting to catalogue the ladies who have been subject to their contempt.

Am I serious?

The viewer decides...

Did you see the shyte that she linked to? Holy mother of perpetual misandry!:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/i ... nt-to-end/

Ann Friedman posted this quote from Ellen Willis recently, and I find myself continually drawn to its eloquence and perfection:

Often men’s impulses to coerce and degrade women seem to express not a confident assumption of dominance but a desire to retaliate for feelings of rejection, humiliation, and impotence: as many men see it, they need women sexually more than women need them, an intolerable balance of power.



Of course, the reason it feels intolerable is that, from the cradle, men are told they are better than women and that women exist to serve them: sexually, domestically, and at times, in the workplace. Growing up and wanting something from women and finding out that they can say “no”—despite the fact that they were put here to serve you!—is often extremely distressing to men. The invention of the nonsense word “misandry” goes back to this. Men who fling it about are, in my experience, usually referring to women refusing to give them something they believe they’re owed: sex, attention, placating smiles, demurely wiping tables while the men are talking. When women deny them what they believe women owe them, instead of asking if in fact they were owed these things, they instead lash out at women. They sexually harass them, which is a way of saying that you have no right to give them no attention, so if you don’t give them the positive attention they desire, they will extract some attention from you, even if it’s just annoyance or fear. Anti-choice men come from the same mentality, I’ve learned from dealing with them. Their anger at rejection from women gets projected onto the fetus, or even to sperm. They convince themselves that there was some sort of patriarchal paradise in the past when women didn’t get to say no to men, and believe that if they could at least revoke women’s legal right to say no to a man impregnating her, they could have those days back.

.....Since when did "in my experience" come to mean "I pulled this preposteroud bullshit outta my ass"...?

[hadespussercats]

Audley, I'm just bumping this in case you missed my response.

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!)

I'd like to add that Bella's comment about health insurance here is on the nose-- at least one parent needing to work full-time to ensure coverage shoots in the foot any attempts to truly share parenting and other work/life balance issues among couples (not just heterosexual couples, I'm guessing-- but when it is heterosexual couples balancing work and parenting, that's when many of the typical sexism issues come into play.)

[Audley Strange]

My friend has a daughter and both he and his wife work part time so they can both look after her and importantly I think, each other. It seems from what he tells me that there are a few couples at the nursery she goes to who do the same thing. They live without needless extravagance, but not poorly , comfortably.

We had a discussion about this and what he said is that by doing this, they are content.

Now surely something like that sounds more like a way forward that keeping or swapping traditional roles.

That's a lot like what J and I do. Or did-- at the moment, he's working out of the house more. But this first year, we've shared a lot, and he took an extended leave and worked from home when he could, to take care of Sprog and to help me when I was working/pursuing professional interests.

I think anyone who cares about women's and men's equality should be doing whatever they can to support men who want to be primary caregivers to their children. I think many fathers and mothers would lead happier, more fulfilling lives, if they shared the so-called work/life balance more evenly.

I agree, however society recognising the position of men being primary caregivers could lead to, in the event of seperation, more equal legal consideration towards men in that regard. So it would seem reasonable that a lot of women would be likely to kick up a fuck about that.

[Audley Strange]

Also Hades.

My apology, I thought I had repsonded to that. Gimme a moment...


Ah yes, I decided not to derail, but fuck it, you know what, if anything this thread is an example of why this place fucking rocks.

With that in mind.

I think I begin to see. So while you'd prefer a man supporting the rights of humans sexual health over a pro-lifer, you'd ideally like it to be a women supporting the rights because A) women just are simply under-represented in politics and B) although a man is fine, having a women stand up for it is likely to inspire a bit more confidence in other women both take it seriously and become possibly become politically active?

Let me honestly ask you though and I know this might sound like a trap but it's not. Given that men are a bunch of shady shits when given power, do you not think we should also consider women given power much the same?

Yes, I didn't realise it was so expensive. However can you or anyone confirm or deny to me that the Obamacare plan was to make it mandatory that you purchase private health care?

[hadespussercats]

My friend has a daughter and both he and his wife work part time so they can both look after her and importantly I think, each other. It seems from what he tells me that there are a few couples at the nursery she goes to who do the same thing. They live without needless extravagance, but not poorly , comfortably.

We had a discussion about this and what he said is that by doing this, they are content.

Now surely something like that sounds more like a way forward that keeping or swapping traditional roles.

That's a lot like what J and I do. Or did-- at the moment, he's working out of the house more. But this first year, we've shared a lot, and he took an extended leave and worked from home when he could, to take care of Sprog and to help me when I was working/pursuing professional interests.

I think anyone who cares about women's and men's equality should be doing whatever they can to support men who want to be primary caregivers to their children. I think many fathers and mothers would lead happier, more fulfilling lives, if they shared the so-called work/life balance more evenly.

I agree, however society recognising the position of men being primary caregivers could lead to, in the event of seperation, more equal legal consideration towards men in that regard. So it would seem reasonable that a lot of women would be likely to kick up a fuck about that.

The cost of real equality, right?

I wonder if fewer marriages would end in divorce if couples felt free to work out arrangements that recognized the dreams and desires of each partner, regardless of sex. Getting there might mean letting go of some of the benefits that were part of the patriarchal format. I think it'd be worth it.

[Animavore]

I used to love the Young Ones, it's been decades since I watched it but wasn't there an episode with Rik reciting his bad protest poetry from a crucifix?

Funny thing about The Young Ones - I watched it as a child with my parents and I've always remembered these great classic moments. I saw it recently and watched both series trying to pick out all these moments in what I thought was a tepidly funny programme. Maybe it hasn't aged well or something. Anyway, all of those moments which stuck in my mind all happen in the very last episode. Not sure if my logic is correct here but to me it seems that that was the only really memorable episode in an otherwise forgettable TV series.

Not sure where I'm going with this. I'm drinking so - Neh.

Anyway - are you lot still on about this lame-ass Atheism Plus shite?

[hadespussercats]

Also Hades.

My apology, I thought I had repsonded to that. Gimme a moment...


Ah yes, I decided not to derail, but fuck it, you know what, if anything this thread is an example of why this place fucking rocks.

With that in mind.

I think I begin to see. So while you'd prefer a man supporting the rights of humans sexual health over a pro-lifer, you'd ideally like it to be a women supporting the rights because A) women just are simply under-represented in politics and B) although a man is fine, having a women stand up for it is likely to inspire a bit more confidence in other women both take it seriously and become possibly become politically active?

Let me honestly ask you though and I know this might sound like a trap but it's not. Given that men are a bunch of shady shits when given power, do you not think we should also consider women given power much the same?

Yes, I didn't realise it was so expensive. However can you or anyone confirm or deny to me that the Obamacare plan was to make it mandatory that you purchase private health care?

I would prefer a male politician whose policy supported my views, over a female politician I disagree with. I don't think a woman politician is inherently any better or worse than a male politician-- I do think that women politicians are far more likely than men to have certain key life experiences I recognize, which might influence their political views. I also think a diverse group of people discussing/implementing policy are more likely to develop policy that reflects a wide perspective on the issues of the day. A homogeneous group of any sort might overlook an important viewpoint or problem, not out of malice, but simply because it's not something they've ever encountered themselves.

And yes-- women are just as prone to possible corruption as men. That's the nature of politics, and it's a constant. Still, I might argue that certain corrupt forces might be more likely to work in my interest, so I might want to facilitate their rise to power...

My understanding of Obamacare (formerly Romneycare, in Massachusetts) is that everyone is required to purchase health insurance (much like how everyone here who drives must insure their car-- at least in most states, I think.) But if someone can't afford to purchase insurance, the government will bridge the financial gap.

Which is very different from state health insurance. Which (in my view) is a shame.

Beyond that, I'm woefully underinformed.

[Audley Strange]

Thanks Hades. I agree with everything you said in both the above posts actually.

I'll leave the Obama derail for now.

[hadespussercats]

Thanks Hades. I agree with everything you said in both the above posts actually.

How dare you agree with me?

Curses... foiled again!

[SteveB]

Thanks Hades. I agree with everything you said in both the above posts actually.

How dare you agree with me?

Curses... foiled again!

I agree with everything you say too and as a fake mod I have to warn you that you're almost at your 10,000th post, so make it count!

[Bella Fortuna]

How exciting! We need a party!

[hadespussercats]

Thanks Hades. I agree with everything you said in both the above posts actually.

How dare you agree with me?

Curses... foiled again!

I agree with everything you say too and as a fake mod I have to warn you that you're almost at you're 10,000th post, so make it count!

Holy shitballs!!! You're right!