Starting Point: Diversity

| Wed 12 Dec 2012 | 48 Comments | 3790 Views

Author Bridget Gaudette

I'm an ex-Jehovah's Witness with a focus on Black atheism, humanism, and sex-positive dialogue. | @BridgetGaudette

I think you would be loathe to find many individuals in the atheist/skeptic/humanist movement who believe that everyone except non-White males should be disenfranchised. I don’t think anyone wants people to feel unsafe. If you are in this super small minority that believes otherwise (that only White males should have a voice and safety is not a concern), then all I can say this isn’t for or about you. For the other 99.9%, can we agree that the movement should be diverse? I believe so.

If almost everyone agrees that the movement should be inclusive, what is all of the online arguing about? I think it’s mostly about HOW we can make this happen (also, much of the arguing is pointing out where we feel others have failed to act or a person feels unheard). Some folks think it should happen organically: when non-Whites and/or non-males step up, then they’ll be heard.. just give it more time. Some folks think it’s via education: leaders et al. need to acknowledge the lack of diversity and learn about such concepts as privilege and discrimination. Some folks want to “force” it to happen by boycotting events and conventions and issuing forceful blogs.

I don’t know (three words people need to use WAY more often) the best way to accomplish more diversity. I don’t know. What I choose to believe is that calling people names (be it feminazis, chill-girls, misogynists, or other) is not the best way to address the issue (see Backfire Effect).

That being said, just because I don’t believe in a particular style of fighting DOES NOT mean that I don’t think there is a fight to be had. I spoke with a friend earlier and I stated that I don’t understand the snarky and/or angry tone of some blogs and he said something along the lines of “well I don’t mind it because the cause is something I believe in”. This stopped me in my tracks. I believe in equality, too! So, allow me to restate: Just because I choose to fight the good fight differently DOES NOT mean I don’t think there is a fight to be had. I am a feminist. I believe that women should have a voice in the matters that they want to have a voice in. I believe White male privilege exists. I believe that pretty much everyone except non-White males are underrepresented in the secular movement, and that we should be making strides towards accomplishing diversity.

MY style is less confrontational than others (of course I do have my moments). I have been able to easily, privately, contact people on all sides of this issue, so it’s not like we’re unable to shoot each other an email or Facebook message asking for a recantation or elaboration on something that we take issue with. Our movement needs more sweeping changes than this, and sending an email here or there won’t solve the problem entirely, but what if such a simple gesture could actually make a difference? So I suggest that when someone differs in style that you don’t assume they want the opposite of what you want. Almost all of us wants the movement to be inclusive. What I’m asking is that we all agree that the movement should be diverse and the disagreement is on how we accomplish this. 

Yes, I’m simplifying the issue for brevity’s sake. I could write a book on this. I simply feel that the best starting point is where we agree and then we work from there. That starting point is not “elevator-gate”. It’s not a leader’s rejection of having a sexual harassment policy. It’s not what T-shirt someone wore. It’s not a specific blog post. It’s not some tweet. The starting point we share is a desire for diversity.

From what I understand of Malcolm X and MLK Jr., both wanted equal rights for Blacks. One believed by any means necessary (including violence), the other thought peaceful, more passive demonstrations were a good idea. And most people were somewhere in between. I’m guessing they didn’t care for the others’ style nor how they were choosing to address the issue of Black inequality, but they both had similar starting points and end goals in mind. I hope Malcolm didn’t call MLK Jr. a house-nigger because of how well he worked with Whites and others to make change. I hope MLK Jr. didn’t call Malcolm an evil racist because he was more forceful. It seems counter-productive to assume the worst possible thing about another human being (they might have done this, I haven’t done the research).

So I challenge you.. us.. as a movement, agree that we want diversity, that we have the same starting and end point.. it’s how to get from one to the other that is causing all of the division. Let’s not assume that those who think diversity should happen naturally or those that don’t fully agree on what privilege means are misogynists and sister punishers. Let’s stop assuming that the people who push hard for sexual harassment policies and diverse speakers at conventions are all radical feminazi man-haters. Let’s reset and go back to the starting point where we know we actually agree and can move forward from: the desire for diversity.

«
»
  • http://twitter.com/Crommunist Crommunist

    I’m guessing they didn’t care for the others’ style nor how they were choosing to address the issue of Black inequality, but they both had similar starting points and end goals in mind.

    They really didn’t, though. That statement is only true if you zoom way the hell back and squint. And Malcolm X did call MLK all kinds of names. It might be worth just a cursory look over what their philosophies/goals were before making this kind of comparison.

    I disagree with pretty much this whole “well both sides could be better” line of argument and always have, but I’ve made my position clear to you a number of times so I don’t really see the value in re-litigating the question.

    • Secular Simian

      Crommunist,

      The author did not say that Malcolm X and MLK did not call each other names. She said “I hope [they didn't].” You are attacking something the author did not actually say.

      • CommanderTuvok

        “You [Crommunist] are attacking something the author did not actually say.”

        He can’t help it. He is a FreeThoughtBlogger!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      And what did Malcolm calling MLK Jr. names accomplish? Who is more revered? Who accomplished more?

      Shitty things have been done and said. Some unforgivable. I don’t deny misogynists and “radical” feminists exist within the movement. For some reason assuming a person doesn’t believe they exist or there is no problem is the knee jerk reaction to not be severely offended by more things.

      • Andrew Tripp

        Okay, questions of reverence are irrelevant to the discussion, thanks to, you know, how history works. As for accomplishment, well, that’s harder to quantify. It is certainly true, however, that MLK never would have accomplished what he did without Malcolm X, and especially not without Angela Davis and Stokely Carmichael, who are pretty much completely erased from American history books. In fact, MLK was himself quite radical in his speech; however, his more strident speeches and writings have, for the most part, been whitewashed out by historians.

        Engaging in criticism of “namecalling” is most often thinly veiled criticism of the kind of progressive activists who are largely responsible for social change. The reason we remember Lincoln and not Thaddeus Stevens, MLK and not Stokely, Susan Anthony and not Ernestine Rose is because the former in each relationship are palatable, not necessarily because they did the most work.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      Also, what would you suggest would help? I am TRYING to find SOMETHING to unify without name-calling. Some folks are beyond all hope of reaching, but most of us want to work together.

      • http://twitter.com/JlnFrancisco julian francisco

        I’m not being flippant (at least not trying to be) but what do you hope to unify? As you say this has been very personal but more importantly there’s been some very strong disagreements on very personal subjects. Subjects that are at the core of some people’s lives and experience.

        Someone has had their employment threatened, someone has had their personal information distributed among people they are far from comfortable sharing that with, someone has had every aspect of her depression and attempt at recovery deliberately dismissed and mocked. Where exactly is this healing supposed to happen?

        And just what are you asking some people set aside to get this bride built? To become comfortable being called a cunt? A tranny? A house nigga? A chill girl? To be ok with having their speech limited? To be ok with hearing “I raped these bitches” where ever they go?

        This post is nice and I think the goal’s admirable but this “split” happened for a reason.

        • http://twitter.com/JlnFrancisco julian francisco

          Ok, that was way more pessimistic than I wanted it to be. I just wanna make sure everyone gets how deep some of these wounds run. I still would like to see an end to the constant sniping.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

          No, not get comfortable with them terms, stop using them! I have had people I HUGELY admire imply I didn’t care about women, that I was a sister-punisher. WTF? I co-founded secularwoman.org! I am not excusing bad behavior. I have advocated for more female (including trans) and black speakers at conventions. I helped set-up a sexual harassment registry to highlight orgs that have them.

          People that threaten rape.. there is no hope for them. No matter how much we scream and yell they will still be assholes. The focus should not be on them. Acknowledge that they are useless and get back on track. There are also times when you have to walk away for your own safety.

        • http://twitter.com/brian_carnell brian_carnell

          You wrote a very well thought out response.

          There are a lot of interesting substantive issues, but most of the debating around them seems aimed at jockeying for position and scoring points against this or that perceived enemy. Folks like you then become collateral damage — there’s a ridiculous “us or them” mentality, and then idea that some folks should just be written off (the recent remarks made by Michael Shermer or Richard Carrier, for example, *define* them now in some people’s minds).

          Where I think your essay misses the mark is that this is nothing new. There has always been a confrontational streak in skepticism/atheism but skeptics and atheist never cared because that was directed outward toward believers and others. This latest conflagration is simply what happens when a certain segment of skeptics/atheists start treating each other like they are used to treating believers.

        • bluharmony

          Which also means that we shouldn’t (and should never have been) treating believers in that way. They’re people, too. And if they’re misguided, how will attacking them help?

  • Secular Simian

    Excellent article, Bridget. I completely agree. We all are fighting the same fight, just from different angles and different strategies.

  • http://twitter.com/Humanisticus Humanisticus

    What a breath of fresh air this article is amongst the storm that is the atheist/sceptic community. I’m fairly new to the community myself, having only entered the atheist sphere just under 12 months ago. Since then I have been trying to make sense of the divide. I try to stay out of it and remain as objective as possible but being human I have failed on an occasion or two.

    Like you, I simply do not know the reason why women and minorities are underrepresented, and I seriously doubt it there is one singular cause. It is more likely a combination of reasons.

    I am not optimistic that both sides will call a halt and get back to the drawing board despite your very true observation that there is the shared goal. There has been too much said and things have gotten too personal, including personal addresses being published, threatening people’s jobs, forcing resignations, and the plethora of vile death/rape threats. However, if this article was to be seen by all persons involved then who knows, some might just lay down their arms long enough for some civil discourse to begin.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      I hope my intentions are kept in mind.

  • Cara Coleen

    excellent :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      Thanks!

  • http://twitter.com/JlnFrancisco julian francisco

    We don’t all want diversity. That was one of the pretty early points in all this. Many consider it dismissive/offensive towards minorities. Others think it’s unnecessary and will degrade skepticism.

    We do not all believe in inclusivity. If you followed the early days of Abbie Smith’s Monument or the half million threads on pharyngula, you’d know that.

    I, personally, want more diversity everywhere but that’s another issue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/laden.greg Greg Laden

    I don’t agree that 99.9 percent of “us” want the same thing. Using the term “diversity” may produce a large percent, but it isn’t specifically diversity that many are looking for. We are also looking for respectful, uniform, fair and positive treatment.

    Regarding the harassment issue: there were clear cases of harassment (unless a lot of people were lying). Some, many, of the meetings at which these things were happening did not have anti harassment policies despite the fact that most modern organizations do, so the secular and skeptics movement was behind. When it was suggested that such policies would be good, the world seemed to sort out into three parts: Those that thought it would be good, those that kept their mouths shut, and those who insisted that it would not be good.

    That third group is actually the subject of part of the novel I wrote about that time … people wanting no sexual harassment policies at conferences were actually following the will of a higher power. But that’s another story.

    Anyway, I have an analogy.

    A person wears a horrid stinking sickening aftershave to work. But only a third of the people in the workplace actually vomit and get headaches. Everyone else isn’t bothered by it. But among those who are not bothers, there are those who just shut about it and there are those who insist that a rule against horrid vomitus aftershave not be implemented because they don’t want anyone to tell THEM what to do or not do, and they see this as an offense. Never mind the people puking in the bathroom.

    That, I think, is how that drama played out. A bunch of people wanted no change in the rules, for one reason or another, even though other people were in fact being made to feel very uncomfortable.

    Oh, and there were emails. There were overtures, by me, of others with whom I disagreed. But those emails and overtures generally turned into harassment, twitter accounts designed to harass other people and nothing else, entire blog networks designed just to either harass or ridicule feminists.

    There is a large part of this community that does not want new, thoughtful, and yes, somewhat aggressive feminism to have any power at all. They do not provide alternatives, they to not make solid arguments. They just hide behind anonymous masks and attempt, explicitly and with great vigor, to drive individuals out of the community.

    I agree with what you say here. This would be nice. But, it is impossible.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      So, should we continue picking each other apart? No. Shitty things have happened. Some are unacceptable. I am SO pissed off that I have been called a chill-girl because I don’t focus on those things. I can say 5,000 times that no one’s address should have been posted and that no one should be threatened. UNACCEPTABLE. We need to yell and scream at times but after a while, people tune that out. It’s then that we need to step back and breathe and rethink strategy.

      I started an organization to promote secular women. I care about these issues!

      • http://twitter.com/gregladen Greg Laden

        The people that I’m talking about, though, are not yelling and screaming. They re carrying out continuous harassment against a specific list of individuals and they are doing it mainly for their own amusement. That is not helpful, necessary, or appropriate and their contribution to the discussion is nothing other than an annoying distraction.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

          Well I am not talking about anonymous assholes. I want the people with influence that claim to care about diversity to stop the snarky name-calling and baiting.

    • CommanderTuvok

      “I don’t agree that 99.9 percent of “us” want the same thing.”

      You are right about that. You don’t represent the kind of people I would feel safe with in the atheist/skeptic communities.

      “Some, many, of the meetings at which these things were happening did not
      have anti harassment policies despite the fact that most modern
      organizations do”

      I believe TAM was one of the first to have them, you know, the conference that you did your best to sully.

      “When it was suggested that such policies would be good, the world seemed
      to sort out into three parts: Those that thought it would be good,
      those that kept their mouths shut, and those who insisted that it would
      not be good.”

      A false trichotomy. There were plenty of people who were perfectly happy with a policy, but were prepared to criticise the parts of the policy that were flawed, badly worded, and infantilised. One of the common accusations is that the people in the Slyme Pit rejected any notion of a policy. That is a lie.

      “Oh, and there were emails.”

      Mmmm. You’d know about threatening emails, wouldn’t you Greg?

      “There were overtures, by me, of others with whom I disagreed. But those emails and overtures generally turned into harassment, twitter accounts designed to harass other people and nothing else, entire blog networks designed just to either harass or ridicule feminists.”

      The confabulation of criticism of feminists (the clique of feminists that inhabit FTB, Skepchick and A+, as opposed to the feminists they describe as “gender traitors” and “chill girls”) and their ideas, with the antics of trolls and crazies is a deliberate tactic employed by the FTB/Skepchick/A+ brigade, with Ophelia Benson the number one practictioner. Feminists are NOT above criticism, and Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Svan, etc. will continue to be called out when needed. FTB/Skepchick/A+ are like a religious cult, and Watson and company are prophets that thou shalt not ill-spoketh of.

      “There is a large part of this community that does not want new,
      thoughtful, and yes, somewhat aggressive feminism to have any power at
      all.”

      If “aggressive feminism” is the type of bullying and vindictive nature displayed by you guys, you’re right, the community does not want to see it. That is why a large proportion of the atheist/skeptic communities oppose you. That is why you got a hostile reception at TAM. You don’t like it when the pushback pushes your way. The community has plenty of feminists doing good work without joining your little cult. It’s a pity that so many of them have to put up with so much crap from you and your fellows bullies.

      “They just hide behind anonymous masks and attempt, explicitly and with great vigor, to drive individuals out of the community.”

      You have “doc-dropped” someone. You have threatened someone. Your fellow bloggers have forced people out of conferences and the community. In fact you harass anybody (in particular women) if they don’t share your agenda. It is so funny seeing you, Greg, come out with this stuff.

      • bluharmony

        Yep.

  • DavidGaliel

    Generally agree with a good post. Just wanted to point out (critical, IMO) historical mischaracterization. MLK, Jr. didn’t believe “passive demonstrations were a good idea”. Nor did the myriad of atheist, agnostic and freethinking leaders of the civil rights movement. Pacifism is *not* passivism, and civil rights struggles were anything but passive.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      You’re right. I meant pacifism actually.

  • http://bigthink.com/blogs/daylight-atheism Adam Lee

    What I’m asking is that we all agree that the movement should be diverse and the disagreement is on how we accomplish this.

    Personally, I absolutely agree that the movement should be diverse. But I regret to say that I don’t think everyone agrees with this.

    I don’t think there’s any significant number of people in the skeptical community who are explicitly racist or sexist, who deliberately seek to drive out women or minorities. But I do think, because I’ve spoken with a fair number of them, that there are people who think of diversity as a kind of optional extra: if it happens, great, but if the movement stays largely white and male, that’s fine too.

    It’s easy to come across people like this. For example, if you suggest that we should make an effort to diversify our movement by, let’s say, taking special care to invite more women and minorities to speak at our conventions, you’ll undoubtedly hear from people who decry that as “tokenism”. If you suggest that we should talk more about social-justice issues with a skeptical connection, like the existence of implicit bias and how this might affect representation in politics or the media, you’ll certainly hear from people who say that this is outside the legitimate realm of skepticism, that it’s taking time away from the real issues of debunking creationism and UFOs.

    What I’d like to see everyone agree on is that paying no attention to diversity is a great way to keep our movement mostly white and male, just as ignoring religion is a great way to ensure that the numbers of atheists will remain low. If you want a certain outcome, you can’t just wait and hope it comes about on its own; you need to take steps to make it happen. I don’t think this should be a controversial argument, but as long as it is, I’ll keep making it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      Adam, I don’t believe we significantly disagree. The areas where we do are not deal-breakers. I know 99.9% was too high of a number. I HOPED that wouldn’t get nit-picked. I was trying to make the point that the majority of us agree even if that majority is more like 90%..

    • http://twitter.com/brian_carnell brian_carnell

      “For example, if you suggest that we should make an effort to diversify our movement by, let’s say, taking special care to invite more women and minorities to speak at our conventions, you’ll undoubtedly hear from people who decry that as “tokenism”.”

      I don’t agree with or even begin to understand that argument, but do you think people who would decry such efforts as “tokenism” are racists or sexists?

      “If you suggest that we should talk more about social-justice issues with a skeptical connection, like the existence of implicit bias and how this might affect representation in politics or the media, you’ll certainly hear from people who say that this is outside the legitimate realm of skepticism, that it’s taking time away from the real issues of debunking creationism and UFOs.”

      When it comes to UFOs and debunking creationism, you’re going to have a 99% agreement among skeptics (I do know skeptics/atheists who believe in UFOs or bigfoot or some other such idea, so it is not going to be universal).

      Implicit association is a relatively new area of inquiry and likely to face a lot more questioning or disagreement than whether Ken Ham is correct. And that disagreement or questioning would almost certainly be conflated with misogyny/racism on one side, while those supporting or rebutting such criticism would be subject to ridicule on a number of levels (I believe Shermer compared IA to a witch hunt test on Twitter).

      When I read stuff on social justice visa vis atheism, the claim appears to be that just as there is near uniformity among skeptics on science issues, that the same sort of uniformity is necessary/desirable on social and political issues.

      • Adam Lee

        but do you think people who would decry such efforts as “tokenism” are racists or sexists?

        I’d rather say that they’re invested in defending and preserving a system which privileges white male voices above all others.

        Implicit association is a relatively new area of inquiry and likely to face a lot more questioning or disagreement than whether Ken Ham is correct.

        Good! Bring on the debate. What on earth is the point of having skeptical conventions, blogs, or journals if all we’re going to do is talk about issues where we already agree with each other?

        And that disagreement or questioning would almost certainly be conflated with misogyny/racism on one side, while those supporting or rebutting such criticism would be subject to ridicule on a number of levels (I believe Shermer compared IA to a witch hunt test on Twitter).

        If you expect to be called a misogynist or a racist for expressing your opinion, then maybe you should take that as a hint to reevaluate that opinion, rather than dismissing out of hand the possibility that such criticism might be justified.

  • I said it

    Piss off, racist.

  • http://www.atheistrev.com/ vjack

    I agree completely that diversity is a strength and that the atheist community benefits from being more diverse. I agree with this when we frame diversity as including gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, etc. I also agree with it when we focus on diversity of opinion.

    The name-calling is not getting us anywhere, and this applies both to calling certain Skepchick and FtB bloggers “cunt” or “Twatson” and to calling everyone who disagrees with these bloggers “MRAs” and “misogynists.” I welcome disagreement and conflict because it helps us avoid groupthink and prevents the community from being overly stagnant. But the sort of petty, juvenile name-calling is accomplishing little more than turning reasonable people off to our community.

    Perhaps each “side” in the most divisive debate we are currently facing (i.e., the debate over Atheism+ and the “FtBullies”) could agree to focus on the issues and the specific behaviors they find objectionable without demonizing the people involved. Is it too late for that? I’m not sure, but there needs to be a way to disagree, argue, and debate without making oneself look every bit as silly as one thinks one’s opponents are.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      Exactly!

    • Adam Lee

      For the record: I absolutely reject the idea that “cunt” and “misogynist” are comparable terms of abuse, or that both sides are equally at fault for introducing them to the discussion. There is nothing a woman can say or do to deserve being called a “cunt” or the other slurs we’ve seen hurled around; that is always inexcusable. But there are many things a person can say or do which make the term “misogynist” an accurate description.

      If you think that certain people have been unfairly tarred as sexists or misogynists, then don’t make vague and generalized complaints. Bring up specific examples, and I’ll be happy to discuss them. But if you’re trying to claim that those terms should be ruled out entirely, then that is effectively claiming that bigoted behavior can never be called out for what it is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

        I’m certain I never said misogyny doesn’t exist. I live and breathe. I go through life as a black woman. I’m a FEMINIST. Just because I am a bit idealistic doesn’t mean I live in a bubble and deny reality. Why would I have co-founded http://www.secularwoman.org if I didn’t see a need to promote women and counter privilege and discrimination if I denied the existence of such things?

        Don’t read things I didn’t type. It’s not possible to point out every single facet in a blog post.

        • http://bigthink.com/blogs/daylight-atheism Adam Lee

          I don’t doubt any of that, Bridget. This comment was a reply to vjack, not to anything you said. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

          Yes, sorry.. I realized that too late.. but.. just in case anyone thought wrong of me I decided to keep it. :-)

      • http://www.atheistrev.com/ vjack

        I am claiming nothing of the sort. I do not consider “cunt” and “misogynist” to be equivalent in any way.

        You’ve said the second part before about providing specific examples. The problem is that every time someone does this, they end up being labeled “troll,” accused of “attacking” someone, and all sorts of other nonsense. And then people continue to ask for examples. It does not seem to matter how many are provided.

        Bigoted behavior should be called out for what it is. But calling a person a misogynist, a sexist, or a racist is quite different from labeling a specific statement as misogynistic, sexist, or racist.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

          Exactly!

        • http://bigthink.com/blogs/daylight-atheism Adam Lee

          I do not consider “cunt” and “misogynist” to be equivalent in any way.

          Then you shouldn’t have grouped them together, which you did when you said “the name-calling is not getting us anywhere”. That implies that “misogynist” is nothing but ad hominem abuse, rather than a term which describes a pattern of behavior.

          You’ve said the second part before about providing specific examples.

          Yes, I have. If memory serves, you didn’t answer it on previous occasions either. Again, if you think people are being unfairly labeled as sexists, then we need specific examples so we can understand exactly what it is you object to. Waving your arms vaguely and saying that the problem is “some unnamed people are calling some other unnamed people sexist, and I think that’s wrong” gives us no traction when we’re trying to figure out what you consider permissible or unacceptable.

          But calling a person a misogynist, a sexist, or a racist is quite different from labeling a specific statement as misogynistic, sexist, or racist.

          So it’s okay to say to someone “You consistently act and speak in racist ways,” but not “You are a racist”? That’s a distinction without a difference, in my opinion.

        • http://www.atheistrev.com/ vjack

          I’ve posted quite a few examples, as have many others. Your own comments about Shermer would be one such example. He made an unfortunate statement and said he misspoke. Your response was to classify him as joining the ranks of Clueless Privileged Skeptical White Dudes.

    • http://twitter.com/JlnFrancisco julian francisco

      Demonizing is going to be problematic. What do you call someone who coins a phrase like Rebecunt Twatson? Is it demonization to call them a misogynist?

      I agree there’s a lot of demonizing going around. It’s kinda hard to miss when there are people saying Blackford has absolutely nothing to contribute to a skepticism and others saying Watson is some kind of fascist misandrist looking to oppress all men.

      But if we’re going to call out and end the demonizing we’re going to have to recognize those criticisms that are valid even when the language is harsh.

      At least that’s what I think.Some might feel it’s unimportant or a not a priority a this moment.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

        Identify the problem yes. People that use words like Rebecunt Twatson should be ignored. That person isn’t a decision-maker on sexual harassment policies and the promotion of diversity.

        • http://bigthink.com/blogs/daylight-atheism Adam Lee

          I agree that those people should be ignored. The problem is that so many of them are determined to make themselves impossible to ignore via obsessive and persistent cyberstalking.

    • bluharmony

      It might be too late, as some people are unfairly seen as irredeemable, and a few who ought to be, aren’t. I am sincerely, honestly scared of a few people in the movement. I imagine “the other side” feels the same, and that’s fine.

      Of course I would love to see diversity in the atheist movement, who doesn’t? But the first step to getting that to happen is making the movement look inclusive and attractive, which is the exact opposite of what’s been going on.

      I will never attend a convention again, for example. There are some people I simply don’t feel safe around. If they think it’s fine to disclose my address in hate threads, or if they think it’s fine to start hate threads about me, to constantly call me mentally ill, and to try to get me fired from my job, they’re not people I want to associate with.

  • bluharmony

    I love the tone of the post and the intentions behind it, but I’m afraid it’s no longer possible. That which divides us is more fundamental than disagreement about how diversity is to be achieved, although I do agree that diversity is important to almost all of us. The main problem is political ideology. Some of us want to retain the right to question it, and don’t what to accept unproven assertions as facts. That’s the key issue here.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

      You might be true about what divides us, but I think that most atheists in general want diversity. We need to go back to what we agree upon and then try to work from there. I’m fine with people questioning. I just hate that when I question things the implication is that I ‘am okay with harassment’ (I’m not) or something else nonsensical.

      I also think that blogging about the issues is not enough. Who has reached out to organizational leaders to come up with action steps (aside from sexual harassment policies) to deal with organizational diversification? or safety? I started an org (and since resigned) to do that and just yesterday I reached out to an influential atheist to work out a best practices model for conferences, conventions and and even staff diversification.

      I’m sick of talking about it. Let’s do some scholarly research. Let’s look at examples of success and model what we do after them.

      • bluharmony

        Law school has been a success, and so has a lot of the practice of law (though there’s still a glass ceiling problem, it’s not as bad as in other areas). The same is true for med school, though again, that doesn’t always carry through to the practice of medicine. So you can look at those policies I guess…

        But it’s simply unacceptable to have known harassers writing anti-harassment policies. So again, I want nothing to do with this movement. In every official sense, I’m out. I blog in my free time, and that’s it. Also, I still support the RDFRS and Doctors Without Frontiers, both imperfect organizations, but important, nonetheless.

        I repeat, I want nothing to do with “organized” atheism, skepticism (especially FTB and Skepchick). I’m sure that makes the “feminists” happy, and they are free to enjoy the purity of their movement without me. When feminists are gleefully and intentionally destroying women and actively denying science, their goals are simply not aligned with mine.

        Diversity must include the diversity of ideas, because without that it’s a shallow goal based on nothing more than physical characteristics.

  • http://twitter.com/JlnFrancisco julian francisco

    Ok, I’m out of this thread. It’s pretty obvious with what’s going on in the atheosphere there’s no point in me howling at the wind. Thanks for the thoughtful post but … yeah

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Activism, Atheism & Religion, Women & Equality