This happened. The British Humanist Association publicly posted a Happy Humanist Day message on Facebook:

A humanist is someone who does the right thing even though she knows that no one is watching.

[Random bolding theirs.]

A good message, right?

Ah no, not so fast. There’s a problem.

Jane Brown Why the she? Big mistake to be so gender specific.

Did your jaw hit the floor? Mine did.

“She” is gender specific, in sharp contrast to “he,” which is not.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Anyway, happy world humanist day.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Someone’s been arguing with me about Tim Hunt on Twitter on and off since yesterday. He started off a little aggressively but it became a conversation after that. He cops to some empathy for Hunt because he cringes at things he said himself ten years ago. Ok, but that’s not a reason not to criticize what Hunt said, or a reason to call that criticism “witch hunts” or “lynch mobs.”

His latest pair of tweets, last night, is interesting.

Atticus_of_Amber ‏@Atticus_Amber 13 hours ago
@OpheliaBenson Super successful people often live in a bubble. Their own fault; but they’re often unaware of it until they get a rude shock.

@OpheliaBenson My view is that we should be administering more of these bubble-breaking “rude shocks”, but the shocks should be less lethal.

Well the shock wasn’t actually lethal – Tim Hunt is still alive. He lost three honorary positions – and yes that is a steep price to pay, but at the same time, such positions are based on merit, just as non-honorary ones are. They are awarded for reasons. They’re not a right, and they’re not a permanent unconditional possession. His Nobel prize is a permanent unconditional possession, if I understand it correctly, and that wouldn’t be withdrawn unless he were exposed as a fraud or similar. But the honorary position at UCL and the one at the Royal Society and the one on the European Research Council’s science committee were all merit-based and, clearly, not irrevocable. They were revoked because Hunt was seen as not meeting their criteria in some way. They’re allowed to have criteria. The positions did not come with tenure – they were not tenure-track positions. Academics of all people know the difference between tenure and no-tenure. Hunt didn’t hold those three positions as some sort of permanent right, and he lost them because he publicly expressed contempt for women in his field, women per se, women as women. If he’d expressed contempt for other races, or Jews, or Muslims, I doubt we’d be hearing about lynch mobs.

But the more interesting point is the one about the bubble. What is that bubble exactly? What is that bubble that super successful people live in?

It’s the bubble in which people don’t say anything when you talk sexist or racist shit. That bubble.

That means it’s the bubble in which everyone else who has to live in that bubble – the one where super successful men get to talk sexist and/or racist shit – are left to put up with it, because people don’t want to challenge Mr Sir Professor Important FRS.

That’s a bad bubble. That bubble sucks. It’s a very pleasant bubble for Mr Sir Professor Important FRS, but it sucks for everyone else. It sucks hard for the underlings – the people of the wrong gender and the wrong race and the wrong nationality.

So a shock to that bubble is a good thing. That bubble needs a shock – and not a mild soft gentle shock. Of course the shock should not be literally lethal, but then this shock hasn’t been that, so that’s ok. But should it be forthright, and warm? Yes, it should.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Well this is a useful thing to have.

Via Hayley Stevens

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

This is a nice change from surly pig-headed anti-feminist science dudes – A Mighty Girl on another mighty girl.

Dubbed the ‘Malala’ of Syrian refugees, 16-year-old Mezon Almellehan goes from tent to tent each morning to encourage girls in her camp to go to school. “We have the right to attend school and I feel I have a responsibility towards the community,’ Almellehan told the Malala Fund. ‘As a girl, I can find friendly ways to convince a girl to continue with her studies.'”

Today marks World Refugee Day, an annual observance to raise awareness of the plight of the nearly 60 million refugees in the world today — more than any time in recorded history. Like four million of her fellow Syrians, Mezon fled from her war-torn country with her family and now lives in the Azraq refugee camp in Jordan. According to the UN, half the world’s refugees are children like Mezon.

Last year, Mezon had the opportunity to meet Malala Yousafzai during the girls’ education activist’s visit to the Zaatari refugee camp where Mezon was living at the time. Malala was so impressed by Mezon’s passion for education that she invited her to be one of her guests when she received the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway last December.

Mezon, who hopes to be a journalist one day, faces many obstacles — such as the fact that her school lacks electricity — but she remains undaunted in her pursuit of education and her efforts to encourage other girls to continue their studies. Malala has also been a major inspiration to this determined Mighty Girl: “To me, Malala is a big hero because she suffered a lot and she almost died of her injury. For me, as a refugee, this means I do not have to give up hope, which means I can get an education.”

To read more about Mezon on the Malala Fund blog, visit http://bit.ly/18Nv0vZ

Nearly two million Syrian refugees like Mezon live in camps run by UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency — to help support their efforts to save the lives of these families fleeing war, visit http://bit.ly/JOFn6A

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally a comment by MrFancyPants on But we have to wait.

A related personal anecdote.

My mother’s family is Estonian, with a tradition of Saturday evening sauna baths. It starts in the early afternoon, with the women of the family preparing a large meal while the men do whatever. Just about the time the meal is being finished, the men go into the sauna and spend 30-40 minutes there. It’s a wet sauna, so they enter into a warm, dry, very comfortable sauna room, and proceed to get the benches very wet. After the hot sauna, we men then wash up in a connected anteroom, getting that room soaking wet as well, and then get dressed and begin the untouched meal that the women had set out while the women proceed down to the sauna. The men then finish their meal, and retire to have coffee (also preprepared by the women) in the adjacent room. The women then finish their sauna to come up to what is left of the meal, and then they clean up the dishes and join the men. The next day, they cleaned up the sauna.

Growing up, I thought this was just normal. Nobody complained, and it had always been done that way. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I realized that (1) going into a sauna second, after it has already been used by another group, is not anywhere nearly as nice as entering the warm dry room initially, (2) the women did ALL the work, from food preparation to cleanup of both the dishes and kitchen as well as the sauna, (3) the men considered it their day of relaxation (which it was, because all they did was relax!), while for the women it was just another day of work.

I once suggested that the roles be reversed, and that the women use the sauna first, while the men prepared the meal. One of my uncles is a very good cook, and I’m not shabby myself, so it’s not like it was undoable. The very idea was met with incredulity–we ALWAYS did it this way before, why should I want to change it now, they asked.

I haven’t been back to participate in that “tradition” ever since, but from what I hear, my much younger cousins (and their wives) are continuing it exactly as before. Mind you, this is in Sweden, where my mother’s family has lived since fleeing the invading Russians in WWII. Sweden, which is not exactly known for being grossly unfair to women, and where my cousins were born and have lived their entire lives, making them basically culturally Swedish. It’s not even possible to make the argument that the women did the housework while the men earned incomes, because—being Sweden—both the women as well as the men hold jobs for pay. They just do all the housework and come second, too.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Guest post by Leo Igwe.

Like other countries in Africa, Zambia is a very religious nation and has the dubious of distinction of being officially declared a Christian nation by President Federick Chiluba in 1996. One need not look far to see where Chiluba got the political will to establish this Christian nation. Eighty seven percent of the population is Christian and only twelve percent profess other faiths. The number of non-believers is too low to measure. Apparently, Zambia is 100 percent religious and theistic.

But recently, the country’s religious demography has begun to change. Atheists are leaving their closets and are starting to organise. Atheists in Zambia are becoming assertive and are making their voices heard. They are standing up and identifying as atheists in public. An atheist group has just been formed in Zambia and a Facebook page has been created. It is called the Atheists in Zambia. This group is the first of its kind in the country and signals a bright and promising future for freethought in this Southern African country.

It is not clear why the members of this group chose to identify as atheist, rather than sceptics, freethinkers, humanists or rationalists. Why didn’t they choose other labels which engender less stigma?

Their eagerness to state unambiguously that they are people without God speaks volumes for the group’s vision, passion and conviction. Members want to tell the world that there are godless people in the ‘Christian state’ of Zambia. The situation in Zambia is not too different from that found in Nigeria or Ghana where almost the entire population self-identify as God believers yet atheist groups exist and are active.

Atheism is not really a recent development in Zambia. What is new is organised atheism. There have been non-religious and non-theistic people in the country for years. Atheism in Zambia may actually be as old as the country itself.

Over a decade ago I worked to establish an African Humanist Alliance and in the course of building the network I corresponded with a Zambian atheist and activist, Wilfred Makayi. He was based in Solwezi and later relocated to the capital, Lusaka.

Makayi worked and campaigned to promote humanism and freethought in the country. He organised events to discuss humanist and freethought issues. In one of his mails, he told me it was difficult for him to get his humanist articles published in the local media. Makayi made little progress in terms of building an organisation and in bringing a humanist and sceptical perspective to issues. But this was before the Internet was introduced.

Today the Internet has brought a lot of changes and opportunities for atheism. It provides atheists with an alternative space for meeting, community building and finding an audience. Hence I am optimistic about the future of this new group of atheists in Zambia. The Internet has made organisation and mobilisation very much easier. If atheists in Zambia cannot meet physically, they can meet online and they can remain in touch via their Facebook page and other digital services.

The main problem is that many atheists in Africa have remained in the closet because of the social and political pressures on people to identify as religious even when they do not believe in God. Africans born into Muslim families cannot renounce their faith because there are penalties for apostasy up to and including death. Consequently, they are forced to pay lip service to Allah. Of course, this is no longer religion or exercising religious freedom. It is more akin to forced mental slavery.

In most parts of Africa, atheism is taboo and being identified as an atheist is a form of stigma. The public perception of atheism is strongly negative—a prejudice that is deeply embedded by the indoctrination and brainwashing which most Africans receive from cradle to grave. Atheists are perceived as people without morals and who cannot be trusted. Many atheists are forced to conceal their atheism when they are in relationship or running for political office. Many atheists find it difficult to come out to their family and friends because they fear persecution and discrimination. Some atheists do not come out to their employers because they could be sacked if they did so.

So there are few atheists out there who are prepared to withstand the pressures and weather the religious storms from theistic family members, friends, employers and state and non-state actors.

This concern has held back atheism in Africa and contributed to the bloated religious demography in many African countries. Fortunately, the situation is beginning to change. Atheism is becoming increasingly visible in many African countries, including those countries once categorised as religious strongholds. People are beginning to realise the positive and enlightening possibilities of atheism, particularly as a resource in combating superstition and religious extremism.

The wind of atheist emancipation is blowing across Africa.

Atheists in Zambia have their job cut out for them in terms of changing attitudes towards atheists and atheism. But more importantly, they need to tackle superstition and religious fanaticism that is destroying lives in Southern Africa. Zambia is a very superstitious society. Atheists need to start a conversation with other Zambians on the existence of God, Satan, witches, demons, the potency of ritual sacrifice etc. Many people in Zambia believe witchcraft is real. Recently there have been reports of witch killing, the killing of Satanists, of albinos and the murder and mutilation of persons for ritual purposes. While atheists in Zambia fight to de-stigmatise atheism, they need as a matter of urgency, to put in place programs and activities that can help reason Zambians out of superstition, encourage critical thinking and eradicate religious and cultural practices that darken and destroy the lives of people in the country.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Dawkins called the women scientists who object to Tim Hunt’s contemptuous remarks “lynch mobs.” He should read – and pay attention to – this piece from a few weeks ago by Charles Blow.

Last week, the Baltimore police union president, Gene Ryan,compared those protesting the death of Freddie Gray to a “lynch mob.”

Freddie Gray was the 25-year-old Baltimore man who died of grave, mysterious injuries after being taken into police custody. Gray’s family, citizens of Baltimore and indeed those of the nation have questions. And yes, there is a palpable frustration and fatigue that yet another young person of color has died after an encounter with police officers.

So, there have been protests.

Aaaaaaaand of all things not to call them, you would think “lynch mobs” would be right at the top of the list. It’s not police officers who have been the historic victims of lynch mobs, is it.

So, there have been protests. But protests are not the same as a lynch mob, and to conflate the two diminishes the painful history of this country and unfairly slanders the citizens who have taken to the streets.

Because lynch mobs have been a real thing in this country, and Baltimore cops have not been their chief targets.

Maybe Mr. Ryan does not appreciate the irony that it was not the officers’ bodies that video showed being dragged limp and screaming through the street, but that of Mr. Gray. Maybe Mr. Ryan does not register coincidence that actual lynching often damages or cuts the spinal cord, and according to a statement by the Gray family’s attorney, Gray’s spine was “80 percent severed at his neck.”

And this is not the first protest of the killing of people of color where “lynch mobs” have been invoked.

Fox News’s Howard Kurtz accused “some liberal outlets” of “creating almost a lynch mob mentality” in Ferguson.”

Possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee also compared Ferguson protesters to lynch mobs, as did Laura Ingraham, FrontPage magazine and an opinion piece on The Daily Caller.

In 2013, after almost completely peaceful protests the weekend after George Zimmerman was found not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Newt Gingrich said that protesters were “prepared, basically, to be a lynch mob.”

So this is a popular right-wing trope that Dawkins is using. He’s become the worst kind of hectoring reactionary shouter, shaking his fist at feminists and other “PC” types.

These “lynch mob” invocations are an incredible misuse of language, in which the lexicon of slaughter, subjugation and suffering are reduced to mere colloquialism, and therefore bleached of the blood in which it was originally written and used against the people who were historically victims of the atrocities.

“Lynch mob” is the same ghastly rhetorical overreach that is often bandied about in political discussions — including in this column I wrote seven years ago. It was a too-extreme comparison then, and it’s a too-extreme comparison now.

Nothing that political partisans or protesters have done — nothing! — comes remotely close to the barbarism executed by the lynch mobs that stain this country’s history.

Clarence Thomas notoriously did the same thing – as he was being considered for a Supreme Court seat he was drastically underqualified for.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I’m seeing this in a few places on Facebook:

Ugh.

What a horrible “tradition” to come up with – all these ways of separating people into the favored ones who get the good things first, and the others, who don’t.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

For a spot of refreshment – Taslima tweeted me one of the landscape photos she took on Sunday. It’s a view of the gorge, looking north toward Lake Ontario – I think that might be the lake in the distance, but I’m not sure. I loved this view.

It had rained like hell most of the afternoon, but had stopped at this point.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally two comments by guest on His claims work to identify women as caste-inferiors.

One

@1: It just occurred to me that the difference between the kind of interaction you describe, which is both common and useful, and Tim Hunt’s peculiar reaction to criticism in this situation is that men don’t like to be criticised by women. I know in my own work I have to be very cautious, and have developed all sorts of elaborate roundabout ways of expressing criticism, to make sure my points are heard and the men I’m criticising don’t have emotional meltdowns instead of engaging and learning as you’ve described. And this is particularly interesting in light of Hunt’s ‘women just cry when you criticise them’ thing.

Two

After writing that comment I realised something that I’m going to share here, because it’s only just occurred to me how important it is to me. A year or so ago I was in a room with a female client and a male engineer. The male engineer physically attacked us when the female client pointed out, in a perfectly calm and rational way, that he had not demonstrated how his proposals met the requirements she’d stated in her project description. I’ve only just realised that this incident has had a significant effect on my career prospects–both I and my boss are now reluctant to assign me to any project he’s involved in, and it turns out that the projects he works on are ones that I’d be interested in doing and would excel in. I’m planning to leave this job, and leave STEM, imminently, and have literally only just realised that the fact that this man threatened me, and is now indirectly keeping me from being assigned to work I’m well suited for and could use to demonstrate my skills, is part of the reason.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I’ve been meaning to get to this for days. You’ve known it for days, but I want to post about it anyway, just because. I’m talking about the fact that Philae woke up.

The European Space Agency (Esa) says its comet lander, Philae, has woken up and contacted Earth.

Philae, the first spacecraft to land on a comet, was dropped on to the surface of Comet 67P by its mothership, Rosetta, last November.

It worked for 60 hours before its solar-powered battery ran flat.

The comet has since moved nearer to the Sun and Philae has enough power to work again, says the BBC’s science correspondent Jonathan Amos.

They thought it might, but they thought it might not.

An account linked to the probe tweeted the message, “Hello Earth! Can you hear me?”

On its blog, Esa said Philae had contacted Earth, via Rosetta, for 85 seconds on Saturday in the first contact since going into hibernation in November.

…

Esa’s senior scientific advisor, Prof Mark McCaughrean, told the BBC: “It’s been a long seven months, and to be quite honest we weren’t sure it would happen – there are a lot of very happy people around Europe at the moment.”

Philae was carrying large amounts of data that scientists hoped to download once it made contact again, he said.

“I think we’re optimistic now that it’s awake that we’ll have several months of scientific data to pore over,” he added.

Sweet.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)