It’s a funny thing…I thought Portrait of a Lady was one of my favorite novels, but I started reading it again for the tenth time or whatever it is and discovered that…it’s not any more.

Sad.

There’s less to it than I’d remembered. It’s just endless wandering around Gardencourt talking in a desultory way, and then Osmond and lots of baroque but boring plotty stuff and an annoying end. I’ve never liked the baroque plotty stuff after she marries Osmond, but I thought up through the fireside scene, where she reflects on the marriage and the awfulness of Osmond, was great stuff. Now I don’t. The fireside scene still is, but the hundreds of pages that lead up to it – meh.

Nobody does anything. They’re all rentiers. Mr Touchett was a banker, but he’s not any more, and no one else is anything. Henrietta is supposed to be a journalist, but she’s a funny kind of journalist – she writes stuff about staying in country houses – in other words she’s Henry James. That’s not journalism. Caspar Goodwood does working, but he’s offstage almost the whole time. Everybody else – bupkis. They don’t even do intellectual stuff with all that nice leisure. They just stroll up and down, and chat.

Isabel is supposed to be so great, but all she does is decline one suitor then decline another suitor then accept a third. That’s not doing anything. You could say the same of Jane Austen novels, but they’re much shorter and tighter than this one, and in a way the protagonists do do more than Isabel does. Plus it’s almost a century later – Isabel has less reason to do nothing.

It’s as if the whole subject is living in one big house or another, and who marries whom. There’s no world. There’s no action, no real thinking (apart from the fireside scene, and that is still all about The Marriage), no learning, no work, no real effort…

It seems empty now.

I get more and more ruthless about fiction all the time. It’s strange.

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

It’s a new blog or website or both (a blog is always a website but a website isn’t always a blog). Tell all your friends.

Jadehawk argues that feminism, secularism and skepticism all need each other.

Skepticism and secularism need feminism; feminism needs secularism and skepticism. The reason for this is that all three deal with removing or restricting the harmful influence of untrue ideas on people’s lives, even if each does so from a different perspective and with a different focus. And in many cases, the different perspectives can work together to achieve the specific goals of each movement better than they would be able in isolation from each other.

I would put that a little bit differently – I would say they can help or benefit each other, as opposed to needing each other. There’s less to defend that way. Since this subject is a hot button one right now, it’s good not to have too much to defend.

Alexandra says welcome.

I’m angry, you see, angry that feminists are being excluded from organized skepticism and the secular movement. There have been many events  leading up to this, but the latest slap to the face came from Ron Lindsay of CFI at the Women in Secularism conference. Feel free to read his own words on the matter or Rebecca Watson’s reaction or the tl;dr version: OMFG MEN ARE BEINGSILENCED!

I decided that I needed to stop waiting for someone else to give me a platform and that I can’t trust anyone else to have my own best interests at heart. So I asked some (wonderfully brilliant) friends of mine if they’d be willing to contribute to a blog project that has one goal: give godless feminists a place to freely discuss what they want.

Ah, there you go, it is a blog!

Bienvenu.

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

Once upon a time there was a young girl who was an atheist, but then she got better. Praise the lord.

She grew up atheist; she read Dawkins and Hitchens. Then last year, at age 19, she decided to read something other than Dawkins and Hitchens.

I started by reading Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address, aware that it had generated controversy at the time and was some sort of attempt –futile, of course – to reconcile faith and reason. I also read the shortest book of his I could find, On Conscience. I expected – and wanted – to find bigotry and illogicality that would vindicate my atheism. Instead, I was presented with a God who was the Logos: not a supernatural dictator crushing human reason, but the self-expressing standard of goodness and objective truth towards which our reason is oriented, and in which it is fulfilled, an entity that does not robotically control our morality, but is rather the source of our capacity for moral perception, a perception that requires development and formation through the conscientious exercise of free will.

Oh yes? Then where do the rigid, stupid, murderous rules come from? Why are women forbidden to be priests? Why was Savita Halappanavar refused an abortion until it was far too late? Why was “Beatriz” refused an abortion?

I looked for absurdities and inconsistencies in the Catholic faith that would derail my thoughts from the unnerving conclusion I was heading towards, but the infuriating thing about Catholicism is its coherency: once you accept the basic conceptual structure, things fall into place with terrifying speed. “The Christian mysteries are an indivisible whole,” wrote Edith Stein in The Science of the Cross: “If we become immersed in one, we are led to all the others.” The beauty and authenticity of even the most ostensibly difficult parts of Catholicism, such as the sexual ethics, became clear once they were viewed not as a decontextualised list of prohibitions, but as essential components in the intricate body of the Church’s teaching.

Well sure. Once you accept one bit of handwaving you might as well accept the others.

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

Nepal has indentured girl child laborers. Slaves, in other words.

KATHMANDU, JUN 02 – At least half a dozen Kamlaris (indentured girl child labourers) were injured when police launched an indiscriminate attack on them while they were staging a sit-in at the entrance of Singha Durbar, Kathmandu on Sunday.

The agitating Kamalaris have been demanding the government investigate the killings and ongoing sexual exploitation of Kamlaris.

How rowdy of them.

Five Kamlaris including Sita Chaudhari and Sujata Chaudhari, of Kailali, and Urmila Chaudhari, of Dang, fainted during the police attack . Some of them have suffered fractures of their bones and head injuries during police intervention.

The injured have been taken to Anamnagar-based Annapurna Hospital and Bir Hospital for treatment. They have been staging protests for the past four days demanding an end to the violence perpetrated on Kamlari girls.

And their protests were rewarded with more violence. Them that’s got shall get.

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

Don’t miss this article by Leo Igwe on his week at a witch camp in Ghana.

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

Yemi has pointed out a petition you can sign. (I don’t say “we” because I signed it yesterday.)

President Goodluck Jonathan: Don’t sign the JAIL THE GAYS bill into LAW

Petition by Nigerian LGBTIs in Diaspora Against Anti Same Sex Laws

Nigeria LGBTIs in Diaspora Against Anti Same-Sex Laws unequivocally condemns the passing of the Same sex Marriage Prohibition bill by the Nigerian House of Representatives. The draconian bill was passed in a voice vote on Thursday 30 May, 2013 by members of the House of Representatives. The bill stipulates a 14 years jail term for same-sex marriage and 10 years imprisonment for public show of same-sex affection. The approved bill also stipulates a 10 year imprisonment for anyone who abets a gay person, witnesses a same sex marriage or advocates for LGBT rights.

Nigerian LGBTIs in diaspora against anti same sex laws believes that the Same Sex marriage Prohibition bill is a blatant violation of human rights of Nigerian gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals. It is a shame that such draconian bill was passed unanimously in both Nigerian Senate and House of Representatives.

Nigerian LGBTIs in diaspora against Anti Same Sex Laws affirms that LGBT rights are Human Rights. As stated in our position paper on the Same Sex marriage Prohibition bill, the homophobic bill violates fundamental human rights that are guaranteed under the Nigerian constitution and various regional and international human rights laws that Nigeria has ratified. Thus this Bill contradicts parts of the Nigerian Constitution.

The same sex marriage prohibition bill if signed into law would encourage the political and social harassment of people for their actual or imputed sexual orientation. It would also stifle the rights to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association through the proposed ban on organizations that support Lesbians and gay rights.

This draconian bill if signed into law would further affect Nigeria’s Human rights records. Individuals and state institutions including the police force are already using the unsigned bill as a license to intimidate and harass citizens based on their actual or suspected sexual orientation. The passing of this bill gives official validation to the harassment of sexual minorities.

Sodomy law is a relic from British colonization. The British parliament and many of its former colonies have since repealed the law. Why is Nigeria clinging to this antiquated Sodomy law? Nigerian LGBTIs in Diaspora holds that the argument that any sexual act or relationship that deviates from the standard heterosexual norm is against African culture is using “culture” to sanction the erasure of dialogue about alternative sexualities and to condone homophobia, therefore constituting a form of cultural violence. A society that stifles sexual and gender identities discourages the recognition of human dignity.

If consenting adults decides to enter into a committed lifetime relationship, the state should not criminalize their relationship. It makes no difference whether the couple is gay or straight, what matters is that they are adults in a consensual relationship. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is not the business of the law.

Nigerian LGBTIs in Diaspora urge President Goodluck Jonathan not to sign this homophobic bill into law. Dear president Goodluck Jonathan, do not assent a bill that infringes on the human rights of Nigerian Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and Transsexuals. The bill is against the spirit of the Nigerian constitution which you swore to uphold. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and Transsexuals are citizens, not criminals. Do not criminalize our sexual orientation. Nigerian LGBTIs in Diaspora against Anti Same Sex Laws affirms that LGBT RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS and every Nigerian deserves the same right every other Nigerian enjoys irrespective of class, sex, gender or sexual orientation.

We call on all progressive Nigerians to oppose the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition bill. This bill erodes our hard fought for constitutional human rights including Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association.

Nigerian LGBTIs in Diaspora Against Anti Same-Sex Laws urge the international community to stand in solidarity and support the human rights of Nigerian Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and Transsexuals. LGBT rights are Human Rights. Stand up for Equal rights for ALL.

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

I’ve been watching the video of the Pharyngula hangout yesterday. I’ve paused it at 38:45; so far it’s been all about Women in Secularism 2 and a little bit about the upcoming Dublin Empowering Women Through Secularism conference. Interesting conversation, and frustrating to watch, because I intended to participate but first there was a glitch with Google+ and then a Windows update crashed my computer twice so I had to do a restore, which took forever, so I never got there.

Nick Gotts is going to the Dublin conference. That’s good!

There’s a lot of discussion of how very unfortunate it is that the (huge amount of exceptionally) good stuff about the conference has been totally swamped by talk about the one bad part. It’s ironic that the one bad part was the work of the CEO of the organization hosting the conference. No, ironic isn’t quite the right word, is it. Incompetent? Treacherous? Never mind the attendees and speakers for the moment; it’s so unfair to the CFI staff. All their hard work, undermined by their boss, for…for what? I still, honestly, have no idea.

Well, part of this overshadowing is because the videos aren’t out yet. I did try. I did several hooray posts. Jason and Kate liveblogged. But…

Jadehawk pointed out that even the CFI website (I think she means the blog) did this – there’s nothing about the conference except Ron’s three posts. (I think Fidalgo reported on it, but in the daily roundup of news, not in a separate post.) If I’d been on the hangout I would have pointed out that the same is true of the RDF site – all it had about the conference the last time I looked was the same three posts by Ron. That’s a very bizarre choice. The conference really was not about Ron or his posts. It’s very peculiar to post those and nothing else – and by “peculiar” I mean “hostile.”

So how about some positive again. I paused it where I did because it was the end of an enthusiastic discussion of Rebecca Goldstein’s talk – how brilliant it was, how bowled over everyone was by it, how much it mattered. (See what I did there?)

It started because Nick Gotts asked Jadehawk about it – if she shared the enthusiasm he’d seen all around. Yes she certainly did. The idea of “mattering” connects with everything. PZ said it was a good example of why philosophy is good and why we need more of it, and that the “mattering” idea made a lightbulb go on for a lot of people.

Exactly. That’s why I was having that gesture-laden conversation with Dave Silverman: because we were talking about the relevance of mattering to how we talk to and about theists. He was enthusiastic about Goldstein’s talk in the same way everyone else was.

At the time, you see, Goldstein’s talk somewhat blunted the impact of Ron’s talk. It came later the same afternoon, and at the end of the afternoon, so on that day (or that evening), I think, the bad part hadn’t completely overshadowed the good. It was mixed. It was “North Korea” that tipped the balance.

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

I’ve liked a lot of Wendy Kaminer’s writing. I’m Ok You’re Codependent is very sharp and amusing. Sleeping With Extraterrestrials was disapponting, I thought, because it was way too cautious and apologetic, but still it was of value.

I don’t like her new piece in the Atlantic on sexual harassment though. She’s very libertarian, so it’s predictable, but…I don’t like it. I don’t like the way it dismisses harassment that’s not violent.

In a joint letter to the University of Montana, (intended as “a blueprint” for campus administrators nationwide) the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Education’s Department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) define sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” verbal or nonverbal, including “unwelcome sexual advances or acts of sexual assaults.” Conduct (verbal or non-verbal) need not be “objectively offensive” to constitute harassment, the letter warns, ignoring federal court rulings on harassment, as well as common sense. If a student feels harassed, she may be harassed, regardless of the reasonableness of her feelings, and school administrators may be legally required to discipline her “harasser.”

Note may be. Twice. Not is, not are, but may be. Well? Is that just obviously absurd? If a student feels harassed, she may be harassed? There’s such a thing as context.

They are also required to promulgate detailed policies parroting the DOJ/OCR definition of harassment, as well as procedures for reporting and prosecuting alleged offenses: “Federal government mandates unconstitutional speech codes at college and universities nationwide,” the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) accurately declares:

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America’s campuses by order of the federal government are:
• Any expression related to sexual topics that offends any person. This leaves a wide range of expressive activity—a campus performance of “The Vagina Monologues,” a presentation on safe sex practices, a debate about sexual morality, a discussion of gay marriage, or a classroom lecture on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita—subject to discipline.

• Any sexually themed joke overheard by any person who finds that joke offensive for any reason.

• Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

The way that’s worded, the first two sound excessive, but I’m not sure I trust FIRE to be accurate about the wording. The last one though – yes, and? This isn’t something overheard or said to everyone, it’s a personal approach. People are allowed to object to some kinds of personal approach. People don’t have a “right” to ask strangers for sex.

It’s easy to understand why federal officials might believe they’re on the side of the angels. Their new “blueprint” on sexual harassment, detailed in the University of Montana letter, was occasioned by the University’s reported failure to address alleged assaults, on and off campus. The trouble is, officials have focused on stemming insults as well as assaults. They’ve adopted the popular, “progressive” belief that arguably offensive, unwelcome sexual speech is the moral equivalent of unwelcome, abusive sexual acts and a virulent form of discrimination.

Not the moral equivalent (I don’t think that’s a real belief, I think she made it up), but not necessarily trvial, either. Suppose it’s hundreds of insults every day? What then? Would Kaminer agree that that is a form of discrimination? I would hope so, but it doesn’t look that way.

Who will benefit from this system? Not educators who hope to foster critical thinking, not students seeking intellectual instead of bureaucratic experiences, not parents whose tuition dollars support unwieldy student life bureaucracies, and not those administrators who value academic freedom and the university’s traditional educational mission. The Obama administration’s bureaucratic dream is an educational nightmare. Who will benefit from this system? Equity consultants, for sure.

Ugh. What bullshit. Critical thinking does not depend on freedom to insult. Yes, certainly it depends on not treating everything as an insult, and on not treating disagreement and debate as an insult, but it does not depend on total limitless freedom to insult and degrade and harass. On the contrary – a “freedom” like that is inimical to critical thinking. People who feel beleaguered and attacked are not in a good state to do critical thinking. The people doing the harassing aren’t either.

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

There was one bit late in the Fincke-Vacula conversation, toward the end, when Vacula got desperate to find diversity issues that his enemies had neglected, in order to demonstrate that…I don’t know what. It’s all just bullshit, because they forgot one? They’re just showing off and don’t actually mean a word of it? They say one thing but do another? I don’t know. Anyway he flailed around and then oh hai he found one. “Asians!” he exclaimed.

Asians?

Oh really?

Asians like the Bangladeshi atheists for instance? The ones addressed and greeted in that group photo before it was photoshopped for a “joke”? The ones disappeared from that photo for a “satire”? A “satire” that Vacula praised?

Or perhaps the famous novelist from Bangladesh who writes for this very blog network?

All the South Asian writers and activists I’ve published and written about perhaps, such as Tasneem Khalil, Meera Nanda, Gina Khan, Gita Sahgal.

Alexander Aan perhaps? I think he was mentioned here a few times.

Must try harder. Fijians? Laplanders? Ex-Amish vegans living in Palm Springs?

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

Via Feminist Law Professors – a student teacher is fired for being photographed in what looks very like a bathing suit top.

[Theresa] Illgen, 23, appeared in a front-page photograph in the Las Cruces Sun-News wearing a bra and appearing to motivate those who marched to educate students, and the public, about the issue of rape culture and victim blaming. The national march typically includes participants who dress in skimpy clothing who peacefully protest against excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance.

“I didn’t know the picture would be published,” Illgen said.

What picture?

(image credit: Robin Zielinski/Sun-News, here)

You could see hundreds of women dressed like that on any popular beach. You can’t help seeing countless pictures of women dressed like that on advertising all over everything. So…why on earth was she fired? Because the garment covering her breasts is called a “bra” instead of a “bikini top”?

Hello, ACLU?

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

According to a few sources (but only a few, so I’m not sure how reliable they are), El Salvador’s Health Minister approved a C-section for ”Beatriz” yesterday, a day after the Supreme Court ruled that she could not have a life-saving abortion.

The Health Department hasn’t given a day or time for when Beatriz will deliver the baby by Cesarean section, said Morena Herrera, a member of the Feminist Collective for Local Development, an organization that has been supporting Beatriz.

“She is going through all the medical exams to be ready for surgery,” Herrera said.

I hope it’s not too late.

H/t PatrickG.

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

Remember that photoshop I posted on the More documenting the harassment page last Saturday? The one taken from the photo Adam Lee took of us FTBers holding our signs of solidarity with the Bangladeshi atheists? That Reap Paden changed to signs spelling out our love for “Justin” [Vacula]? That Vacula reposted on Facebook?

Now Vacula has done a blog post about it; he’s that proud of it. That proud of erasing an important and (one would think) meaningful message to fellow atheists who are under attack in a theocratic country, for the sake of making a stupid, mean joke about people who dislike being harassed by Vacula.

He stole the photo, too. It’s not his to post just as it wasn’t Paden’s to alter and post. He posted it without attribution and without permission. It’s Adam Lee’s photo. That is not a nice thing to do to a fellow atheist and activist.

He titles the post “Don’t satirize feminists, but happily draw Mohammad?”

That’s stupid. The two are not comparable. I’m not Mohammed. Stephanie is not Mohammed. Maryam is not Mohammed. Adam Lee is not Mohammed.

I hosted one photoshopped satirical image of various feminists — including Ophelia Benson of the Freethought Blogs network — on my Facebook page because I found it light-hearted, humourous, and in good taste. A friend of mine, Reap Paden, had edited signs in the image to read “We <3 Justin” – what I thought was a humourous mild jab because, in part, many in the image do not love me and instead have written dozens of over-the-top blog posts about how much of a bad person I am.

That’s not true. The posts I’ve written about Vacula have been about his relentless harassment of me.

Notice how he singles me out even here.

He notes that there was some reaction.

The moral imperative proposed — that one ought to remove a satirical image merely because one claims offense — is most unreasonable and would consign everyone to silence on any given issue because anyone can claim offense. What matters, instead, I believe, is whether one’s claiming of offense is reasonable. If the claiming of offense is unreasonable, there should be no moral imperative for one to refrain from the mildest of satire. If it is not permissible to satirize feminists because people may claim offense and be hurt, why should it be permissible to satirize Mohammad?

See above. I’m not Mohammed. The rest of us are not Mohammed. ”Satirizing” powerless obscure individuals is not the same kind of thing as satirizing long-dead prophets of bossy totalizing religions.

In addition, altering someone else’s photograph of a serious attempt to express support for beleaguered atheists in another country, to make a stupid taunting “joke” – that too is not comparable to satirizing long-dead prophets of bossy totalizing religions.

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

Speaking of being thrown overboard…Greta has a pair of terrific posts on Ron Lindsay and Women in Secularism 2. One is on the content of his talk, the other is on the context.

From the first one – on the “shut up and listen” part.

This section has been addressed at length by many other writers. But this is the place where I’m discussing it, so I’m going to address it again.

I do not know anyone — and I mean anyone — who is a serious and respected leader or writer advocating for feminism within the atheist movement, who is telling men that they have nothing to contribute to the conversation about feminism, simply because they are men, and that all men must shut up about feminism permanently.

Let me be very clear. There is an important difference between saying, on the one hand, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, you’re dominating the conversation, please let other people talk,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, it’s impossible for you to listen while you’re still talking,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, the points you’re making have already been addressed a thousand times over, if you stop talking we’ll point you to the places where it’s been addressed,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, the things you’re saying are coming from a place of privilege that you’re obviously not aware of, if you’ll listen for a minute we’ll try to explain how,” or, “Shut up for the next ten minutes, you’re doubling down on an indefensible position and are increasingly walking out on a limb that will be very difficult to walk back,” or even, “Please stop saying the particular things you’re saying, they’re harmful and demeaning and flat-out wrong, if you shut up for the next ten minutes we’ll explain why”… and saying, on the other hand, “Shut up permanently, you have nothing to contribute, we don’t want to hear anything you have to say about feminism, ever.”

Sarah Moglia and I tried really hard to tell him that when we talked to him that Sunday morning, but though he listened politely, he didn’t respond. I still don’t understand how he could think anyone meant “shut up permanently.” That’s such a caricature.

I gotta go; more later.

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

Katha Pollitt on El Salvador’s way with pregnant women.

Since 1998, El Salvador has had a complete no-exceptions ban on abortion,  promoted by the country’s powerful Catholic Church and passed with the votes of  legislators from the former left-wing movement FMLN—because if there’s one thing  right and left agree on, it’s that women’s lives are less important than  achieving political power. (Daniel Ortega made the same move in Nicaragua in a  successful bid for church support.)

There’s nothing quite like being thrown overboard by people you thought were allies. The cold water comes as such a shock…

Since the ban, the Central American Women’s network reports that over 600  Salvadoran women have been imprisoned for having abortions, including  miscarriages and stillbirths suspected of being the result of abortion. A word  to the wise: when US abortion opponents insist they would never put women on  trial for terminating a pregnancy, be skeptical.

Oh, I am.

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

Wut?

Well that’s what it says.

After a good amount of hoopla, Texas Governor Rick Perry is expected to quietly sign legislation allowing public schools to celebrate Christmas and other winter holidays plainly and explicitly without fear of lawsuits.

Why would he do it noisily? Do governors usually shout and scream while signing legislation?

Anyway, whatever. I’m not convinced there is much fear of lawsuits over celebrating Christmas and other winter holidays, but if you say so.

Naturally, not everyone in the Lone Star State is enthused about the the “Merry Christmas Bill” becoming law.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas has opposed the legislation.

“We hope administrators and teachers remain mindful that it is of utmost importance that it’s parents who teach their children about matters of faith, not public schools” said ACLU spokesman Tom Hargis, according to Austin FOX affiliate KTBC.

Hargis added that the ACLU will surely keep a close eye on Christmas festivities in public schools next school year.

Oh hahaha nobody cares what they say. Civil liberties indeed – who wants civil liberties?!

Aron Ra, Texas director of a group called American Atheists, strongly criticized Rep. Bohac as the bill was percolating through the Texas legislature, according to the Dallas Observer.

I like that “a group called American Atheists” – as if it were so obscure no one had ever heard of it. I don’t think that’s the case.

He wants teachers to randomly be able to proselytize their religious beliefs by being able to put up religious displays in their classrooms, unrestricted, without any fear of litigation.” Ra said. “But what happens when it’s not a Christian that’s doing it? What happens when it’s a pagan trying to do solstice or Saturnalia? They’re using the same damn tree and they can cite where it came from.”

Ra has also argued that the bill will marginalize students who aren’t Christian — an issue he sees as a huge problem even in the absence of the “Merry Christmas Bill.”

Ra’s organization, American Atheists, was established in 1963 and bills itself as “the premier organization fighting for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.”

Damn right. That’s why I’m a member.

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

Ah. I did a little more exploring in the comments to see where we’ve heard from “Skep tickle/skeptixx” before. It’s interesting.

The first (that I’ve found) was one last October, in the post I did on the pathetic “parody” of Jesus and Mo that is “Peezus and O.” “skeptixx” popped in to say

Funny!  Thanks the for the link to their source; I’m enjoying looking through them all.

Don’t lose hope, Ophelia – maybe you’ll “get” to say something in the next one…

Yup that’s our “Skep tickle” – that’s her sneering contempt in a nutshell.

She was much more prolific on a post I did about the horrific Delhi rape and the broader subject of hatred of women. The two are, in fact, connected, and hatred of women is, in fact, an important subject. Pitchguest and other pit creeps showed up to scream that I was making it all about me, again, and “skeptixx” joined in with energy.

20:

Are you seriously trying to draw a comparison between a brutal, fatal, physical attack and criticisms of your [fill in the blank, including skepticism] as a blogger???

Get a grip.  It really isn’t about you and your self-absorbed concerns.

Not to mention that you seem to be revising history as you go:

In spite of all the stupid lies the hate-campaigners keep recycling about me that I’m so stupid and scaredy and radfem that I see innocent emails from supporters as threats for no earthly reason (the prediction that I might be shot is never mentioned), I actually don’t spook easily.

You don’t, hunh.  “Certain people should be ‘shot’” ring a bell? http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/11/certain-people-eh/

Alice did the reality check:

Hey Ophelia – I looked at this, and it actually *is* a reference to vaccinations. She and other pro-vaxxers at TAM were signing a Jenny McCarthy poster. Check out the other pics in that album.

And you replied:

Vaccination. That didn’t even occur to me. Are these people making me a little paranoid? Looks that way.

How about actually discussing what approaches might actually help achieve a goal of actually preventing rapes?  And, pro tip, coddling your precious ego isn’t one of those approaches.

26:

Your rapier intellect has skewered my arguments, Sally Strange!  How could I ever have thought:

1)  That Ophelia’s post, purportedly about “An iron rod in the woman’s body”, being >50% about herself…would suggest self-absorption on her part?

2)  That quoting the portion of Ophelia’s post about the “prediction that [she] might be shot” then linking back to her prior post in which she expressed concern about what she saw as a threat that she (?) might be shot, and quoting the portion in which it was revealed that it was just a play on words in Harriet Hall’s signature on an anti-vaxx poster, which others also signed, after which Ophelia admitted that maybe she was a little paranoid….would be help show that, at least in that example, Ophelia did react in a “scaredy” fashion, directly contradicting her claim that it’s a “stupid lie” to use “scaredy” to describe her?

3)  That skeptics acting like skeptics – you know, actually investigating people’s claims, comparing statements from now with those from the recent past, calling out things like false equivalence…would be welcomed at a “freethought” site?

4)  That a regular poster at FtB such as yourself, presumably one who considers himself or herself to be a feminist (though in fact I do not know your history or self-description)…would, apparently simply because I’m critiquing Ophelia’s statements, assume I’m male?

5)  That working for the past 20 years in women’s health, as I have, which has in fact meant not only using the bathrooms there and not only reading the pamphlets but in fact choosing which ones we’ll post, oh and also screening women for risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) and treating women who have been victims of IPV…would teach me a darned thing about IPV?  (Which the attack in India was not; that was stranger violence.)

Silly me.  I stand corrected (not).

Oh look – she “doxxed” herself in that last item.

29:

Mmm, I think I’ve seen this pattern before: form a circle, ignore the substance of the comments you don’t like, and start flinging ad hominems.  Tribalism for the win! 

Tribalism is it. What does she call the pit, then? Generous liberal internationalist universalism?

32:

Tell you what.  Anyone who is seriously interested in trying to prevent rape, how ’bout taking a look at this 2011 summary from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (US):  Rape Prevention and Risk Reduction: Review of the Research Literature for Practitioners (or another similar resource if you know of one), then go ahead and propose some practical approaches.  You can use the writing skills you learned in 4th grade if that’s where you learned them, or you can bring subsequent education to bear if applicable.

The studies mentioned in it are probably from the US & other western countries; if you can find any literature that might be more pertinent to India, please do present it.

The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence may not know what they’re talking about, though; I don’t see that they list,  among the measures shown to reduce the risk of rape, any of the following: avoidance of signing anti-vax posters with puns involving the word “shoot” in case someone might misinterpret it, or photoshopping people’s heads onto posters (which I’ve never done, but I understand some people have done, and I admit to occasionally having laughed at), or creating parody twitter accounts, or even skeptically questioning people’s claims.

35:

@Stacy #30   Hahaha.  In a half-assed effort not to actually have to try to address the real-life problem, Stacy insults someone on-line.

@Sassafras #29:  That’s helpful.  I had heard about that one but hadn’t previously seen that post.  But seriously??  That’s a “prediction that [she] might get shot”?

Did you see the line that actually referred to some risk of her being “shot” in these communications which purportedly were warning her to stay safe?

I’m happy that PZ was not shot (gun or uppants camera) at GAC, but that gives me scant reassurance that you will *not* be shot either way in Las Vegas.

“Prediction” is “a statement of what will happen in the future.”  This is not a prediction.  This seems like someone trying to get Ophelia freaked out with what frankly looks like either tongue-in-cheek warnings, or paranoid warnings from someone who overheard a few words and made assumptions about what it meant.  And it worked; it freaked her out.  She believed enough not to go to TAM, yet she elected not to tell the police?

Yeah, I can see how that is analogous to a woman (and to a lesser degree her male friend) being savagely assaulted by strangers on a bus in India, and how it helps prevent situations like that from occurring in the future.

39:

Mmm.  Insults supplanting evidence-based arguments, or at least that’s what it looks like.

I don’t usually frequent FtB, in part because it’s so painful to see supposed skeptics acting like this.

But anyway, since we’re here, let’s recap a bit, shall we?

Bad Jim #33:  “No iron rod perforating a woman’s intestines could ever be as important as their most precious treasured grievances.”

- I hope that makes you feel better to say & think, m’dear.  If you’ve done some important work in women’s rights, women’s health, etc, I’d love to hear about it.

Ophelia in opening post: “It creeps me the fuck out that open boastful misogyny has become so popular and mainstream lately. I think it’s strange that the vocal boastful misogynists don’t worry about this.  … I think it’s strange that so many people think it’s good to foster a climate of ragey hatred.”

- Oh, she’s not talking about her own experiences?  My bad.  It sure sounded like it.  Whose experiences is she talking about, then?  And her claim that “open boastful misogyny has become so popular and mainstream lately” – does she mean universally, or does she mean directed at herwomen she knows?  Does she mean since Elevatorgate, or is she talking about a different time frame?

Let’s move on.  So, what do you all propose to reduce rape?

Ophelia #2: “Rapists need to stop attacking women.”

- Great idea.  How do you propose taking steps to achieve that?  Like, exactly what steps would you propose?  What has been tried so far, and what evidence is there that it works?

Rodney Nelson #11 “We need to change the rape culture found throughout the world. We need to make rape as socially, as politically and as morally unacceptable as murder is.”

- Just an aside, the woman in India was raped and murdered (though the murder occurred as part of the rape; hard to know how she & her friend would have fared if rape were considered unacceptable by her attackers but other crimes were still on the table).

- “Change the rape culture found throughout the world.”  Presumably, one might go to the countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape to learn what the secrets to their success are, right?  (Understanding that under-reporting seriously impacts the official rates of this crime.)  So, you could try a site like this (hey, look!  I can use Google!): Rapes (per capita) by country to find Egypt, Armenia, and Azerbaijan as the 3 with the lowest (reported) rates.  Canada and Japan also have low rates.

- Of course, to find out where your efforts could best be used, you’d want to look at the top of the list.  Congo isn’t on this list but in 2012 was said to have the highest rate in the world.  Lesotho is at the top here, followed distantly by New Zealand, Belgium, and Iceland.  So you’ll want to pack your back & off you go to the Congo, Lesotho, New Zealand, Belgium, and Iceland, to start implementing the changes you think will work!  (Whether or not you stop by Egypt, Armenia, and Azerbaijan on the way to take notes.)

SallyStrange #19 As for what will actually help bring down rape rates?   Well, according to research, the most successful rapists are repeat rapists who use drugs, alcohol, and threats of violence (rather than actual violence) to rape. They usually rape acquaintances too. Why? Because … everyone … thinks that date rape isn’t really rape because the woman must have secretly been “asking for it.” That means no more victim blaming, like Abdul was doing here. You can help out by criticizing Abdul*, who is actively working AGAINST decreasing rape rates, rather than attacking Ophelia, who is working FOR decreasing rape rates.

*Abdul Alhazred  #1 proposes arming women & repeats this in #6.  (His prison rape bit was weird.)

- All right, so we can help out by criticizing someone who is proposing deterrence by arming women.  That’s the first practical step mentioned so far.  Even if we extend it to criticizing everyone who proposes this step – presumably a relatively small number of people – how has that actually helped?

- Oh, and we can stop making any critical comments about Ophelia’s posts, because that is counterproductive (and might end up raising rape rates?  Hmm)

What did that awful slimy troll skeptixx suggest in this thread, related to rape rates? #16  “How about actually discussing what approaches might actually help achieve a goal of actually preventing rapes?”

-  Well, we have an answer as above: attack Abdul!  That’ll apparently feel useful, even if it does fuck-all to actually reduce anyone’s risk of rape.

#28 “Anyone who is seriously interested in trying to prevent rape, how ’bout taking a look at this 2011 summary from the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (US): Rape Prevention and Risk Reduction: Review of the Research Literature for Practitioners (or another similar resource if you know of one), then go ahead and propose some practical approaches. …if you can find any literature that might be more pertinent to India, please do present it.”

*crickets*

I don’t suppose anyone is interested in listing the 3 general approaches to rape prevention, and for extra credit describing the potential upsides and downsides of each, and what evidence there is to support the efficacy of each general approach?

41:

How would that make you self-righteous?  Wouldn’t it be something to celebrate?  I mean, isn’t the goal to actually help bring about changes in the world (understanding that most change occurs gradually, over years, through the efforts of many people)?

Don’t worry, there’s probably still time.  Perhaps there’s some volunteer work you could do that would help move society in this direction.  If you’re male (as your ‘nym suggests), how about joining forces with a group like this one: http://www.mencanstoprape.org/ ?  Maybe going into high schools to talk to adolescent males, help instill an understanding of rape culture and practical tips to combat the messages they get from society.

Or, no less involved but on a more individual level, maybe being a Big Brother to a boy who might benefit from your positive influence.

It’s cool that she lectures us on how to do good things while she does good things by whipping up frothing rage at me at the slime pit. She’s an example to us all.

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

Bastards.

El Salvador’s Supreme Court has said no. No abortion for Beatriz; she has to die, because she’s pregnant.

Beatriz is carrying an anencephalic fetus, which means it has no brain and is only expected to survive at maximum a few hours after birth, even if she carries it to full term.

Beatriz has lupus, worsened by a kidney malfunction, and it is very dangerous for her to be pregnant.

“The doctors are saying it’s very critical because the lupus may be reactivated and if the lupus is reactivated it is very dangerous for her health,” [her lawyer] added.

She is now 26-weeks pregnant, and every day it becomes more risky for her to be pregnant and have an abortion at such a late stage.

Bastards. Fiends. Demons.

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

A small thing, but annoying. People who say “I completely condemn any harassment and abuse” – and then follow up quickly with a much more detailed and enthusiastic condemnation of whatever it is that you, the object of abuse and harassment, might possibly decide to say at some point in the future if your nerves are shredded and there is no lemonade in the fridge.

One thing that’s annoying about that is the fact that the people who say it never actually seem to do this condemning of harassment and abuse out loud. Or in public. Or in places where people who are engaging in harassment and abuse might potentially see it. Or in places where people who are engaging in harassment and abuse would for certain see it. These people-who-say seem to say it to themselves, and then swell a bit with admiration for their own rectitude and good taste when it comes to hobbies. They never seem to say it anywhere useful when you, the object of abuse and harassment, could use a little backup or support or solidarity.

They seem to want credit for it all the same, though.

You know what? They’re not getting it. I don’t give a fuck if they condemn harassment and abuse inside their own heads. That doesn’t do me one god damn bit of good. If they’re saying it just to get it out of the way before they get down to telling me off for being so harassable and abusable – well -

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