In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Me and You and Everyone We Don’t Know: A Reflection on Discourse

(Trigger/content warning: religious upbringing, childhood trauma)

The past week has provided the opportunity for a lot of unexpected self-reflection. While a guest at Feministe, I am navigating more exposure, and more feedback, than I’ve ever experienced. Most aspects of this have been wonderful and fun. Predictably, some parts have been harder to swallow. I had a long list of things I wanted to write about during my tenure here, but decided instead to take some time to mull over things, consider my role– as a mother, a woman, a girlfriend, a feminist, a writer!– and try to understand where I fit in, and what I have to offer (beyond clever dating tales.) Looking at my history as an example, I wonder if I might offer a point of view perhaps not often represented here, and hopefully pose some questions about education, discourse, community and our collective future.

These things happened recently, all around the same time:
1. An article over at Mother Jones discussed Louisiana’s recently approved voucher schools which will teach, among other offensive things, the cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs.
2. Todd Akin said really stupid things about rape.
3. I began to guest blog on Feministe, and my first few posts were met with significant criticism by the readership, as well as plenty of support.

Reading the article about the Louisiana voucher schools, I felt shocked and angry, sure… but I also experienced a different feeling: sympathy. No wonder people believe so many wrong things, and vote accordingly. I believed anything and everything my teachers taught me, especially in elementary school. I believed anything and everything my parents taught me, too. No wonder people are emerging from the American education system confused. How illogical and frustrating it must feel to learn things from those who you respect that are subsequently so thoroughly, vehemently disputed in so many social and political areas. It must feel like the world is unreasonable, and such a person’s sense of certainty, fortitude and defensiveness becomes at least a little more understandable.

For Todd Akin, I feel far less sympathy. He is old enough, and has certainly had enough access to information, to know better. He is in a position of power, and his ignorance is obviously far more frightening than that of misinformed children. Still, I believe there is a difference between ignorance and evil, and I think it is important to distinguish between the two, and to try to understand those we (so justifiably) disagree with. Akin represents a life-long embrace of misinformation, so often accompanied by a religious justification, which creates disastrous– perhaps even “evil”–effects, but to accuse him of having more agency than this is to miss the point, and causes a defensive backlash from him and his supporters. His crime seems to have been to actively deny obvious science and common sense in support of a political platform that he believed appealed to his base of supporters. This is terrible, no question, and it should be discussed and criticized on its own terms, but I think we do our own battle against ignorance a disservice when we lash out with material that vilifies Akin as being devious, or of having a conscious desire to subjugate women (or even implying that these particular remarks are representative of the all-too-real Republican war on women). This approach repels those who might yet crawl out of the bubble and actually learn something.

This is where I come in, hoping to offer some personal perspective. I lived in that bubble my entire childhood. It glittered with the poetry of Psalms, with prayer candles, sweet incense, with shiny shoes on Sundays. During the week, there was home-church with casserole buffets, and there were softball games against other churches on Saturdays, and in the summertime there were “house blessing barbecues” with holy water on the door frames. Christmas was the best because that’s when there were nativity displays with the little baby Jesuses, and an Epiphany play; one year my mother tied a fluffy lamb skin onto my back and I “baaaa’d” loudly when the Angel appeared to the shepherds.

On Halloween there was a big festival; the cake walk was my favorite event because you always won if you stayed in long enough. But we actually participated in Halloween without actually…participating. Most accepted facets of October 31st were seen as representations, if not literal manifestations, of The Devil. Ghosts, witches, those glittery red horns—anything which indicated a sin (including prostitutes, dead people, and aliens)—were forbidden. Instead, every member in my family chose a saint or Biblical character to emulate. One year I was Sarah, Abraham’s wife, based on my own illustrated Children’s Bible. I thought she was so beautiful. Another year I was Corrie ten Boom, a Christian who helped Jews hide and escape from Holland during WWII. She was captured by the Nazi’s in 1944 and sent to a concentration camp. I was 9 years old that time, dressed in black and white striped pajamas.

Inside the crystal bubble I listened to Amy Grant, and learned about a world created in 7 days. I believed that Noah’s Ark carried all the animals to safety, and imagined it would have been fun with the elephants, giraffes, anteaters, horses. I also believed in the Devil and I knew if I saw or felt the presence of him or his demons, I should say “In the name of Jesus Christ, be gone!” I knew– I knew— that if you didn’t invite Jesus into your heart, you would go to Hell, the burning fire place, for all eternity. In junior high I also believed in a physical, paradisiacal place called Heaven, and in the Garden of Eden, and in the huge importance of virginity. I loved summer camp in the Sierra Foothills, which included “Speaking in Tongues” as an activity (after archery, before rock climbing). Youth group was my favorite night of the week, where we played tag football and ate pizza with a hip pastor who taught us how to be good disciples of the Lord. I dreamed of becoming a missionary.

But before I could become a missionary, or a Republican, everything fell apart. There was trauma, and my sister could not recover. God did not save her, despite phone trees, holy water, hymns, and even sessions with a Christian therapist who suggested prayer circle exorcisms to eliminate the demons that were haunting her. Today, she still suffers from emotional, developmental, and psychological disabilities, some of which may have even been deepened by the methods intended to cure them. Soon after, my older sister became ill, and we were abandoned again; she died in 1997. The entire framework around which I had been raised dissolved away in a few short years. Reality flooded our existence. Betrayed and heartbroken, my mother walked away from the church, and she cannot sleep anymore. She struggles with guilt and confusion, especially about my surviving sister, and even a little about the way my own life has developed; as a good Christian woman, she loved her neighbors (John 4:7), but by doing so, inadvertently put her children in danger.

My adolescence was riddled with the chaos of grief, confusion and transition. I ran away into the arms of a 17-year-old boy who taught me about skateboarding, and Sublime, and keg parties, and how our parents just don’t understand. College offered further escape; I loved my classes at UC Santa Cruz and University of San Francisco, drinking up History of Consciousness, Psychology, Women’s Studies, Theater, Philosophy. Yes, I even turned my hair into dreadlocks, desperate for something– anything– that would differentiate me from who I had been for the first 16 years of my life. But it wasn’t enough; finally, cocaine and ecstasy and all-night dancing filled the confused space where I felt a different, more dynamic personality should have gone. I’d been cheated out of experience and information during my childhood, and I was determined to overindulge as recklessly as possible.

And then, right before the self-destruction overwhelmed me, I was pregnant.

It is hard to articulate tragedy as awakenings, and difficult to re-examine a life within the framework of “what if,” but for the sake of argument, I’m proposing we do so (my pregnancy turned out not to be one of these tragedies… but at the time, it certainly felt like it might be). If those things had not happened in my family and in my life, would I still have Jesus in my heart, espouse Pro-Life rhetoric, and teach my daughter about Noah’s Ark and God’s rainbow promise? I think it’s fair and honest of me to admit that, although I am an intelligent woman, the answer could easily be “yes.”

So, for better or for worse, I feel like I can almost understand a person like Todd Akin, and my heart certainly lurches out to those children in Louisiana. I can understand how much these beliefs mean to all of them, and I am so sad and frustrated when I see these no-doubt misguided, misinformed but nevertheless deeply entrenched beliefs manipulated by politicians for the benefit of the upper class. (Cool speech, Paul Ryan.) Contemplating my role, and my unique position as someone who straddles both worlds as part of her identity, I am left wondering how to bridge the gap between “us” and “them.”

Until very recently, I was too consumed with responsibilities to find much time for furthering my own education. Now that my daughter is older and my life has stabilized a bit, I feel I am re-entering the world with an eagerness to learn and a hunger for information and justice. Part of this experience has been the newfound willingness to say “I don’t know!” And part has been to accept who I am, and to not be afraid to step forward as a writer and participate in forums that intimidate me. Like this one.

I have a suspicion that I am not the only one out there (here). Whatever their path, there are people who are presently curious, who deserve the benefit of the doubt, who want to learn. And even amongst the people who “aren’t” willing, there are those who might learn if facts were explained to them without incredulity and sarcasm. I know I’m not the only person to come late to the education party; certainly, late is better than never…right?

I want to be particularly clear about a few things, just in case I have given the wrong impression: I do not believe my life has been any more of a struggle than anybody else’s, I am not trying to position myself or anybody else as being owed a course in sensitivity and diversity, and I do not think the personally negative comments a couple of my posts received are indicative of the overall tenor at Feministe specifically or of a progressive ideology in general. I don’t wish to be perceived as a victim in any way, or as someone above hostile feelings when it comes to subjects that are very personal to me. I am simply writing as a person who wants very badly to help progress the tolerance and mutual respect within our country and our world, and as someone that is very concerned about the disparity opening up between “the left” and “the right” (if you’ll allow me to be a bit reductive). I feel so lucky to have been exposed to this blog, and feel even luckier to have been given the opportunity to express myself so thoroughly here. But still, I’m nervous that some aspects of my Feministe experience so far reveal the ways we instinctively interact with the beliefs and expressions of other people, and how that response can potentially harm the conversation more than help it.

So, a few big questions.

How do we talk to the people who were educated incorrectly– who have Religion or Religious-based textbooks to support the wrong facts, who vote and behave accordingly– without putting them on the immediate defense? How do we encourage curiosity and welcome questions that may hurt/annoy/enrage us? How much intolerance are we willing to tolerate while we attempt to progress the conversation? How do we differentiate between hateful intolerance and ignorant intolerance, or does that differentiation matter? Is the element of religion too large to combat with information, exposure and conversation? Will this gap in our society eventually close on its own, as we are on the “right side of history,” or is it up to us to actively bring the conversation to the rest of the world’s population?

I have no clear answers myself… I know this post is imperfect. I envisioned it as a conversation-starter, and hope that’s the spirit in which it will be taken.

To the comments!! (?)


196 thoughts on Me and You and Everyone We Don’t Know: A Reflection on Discourse

  1. This is terrible, no question, and it should be discussed and criticized on its own terms, but I think we do our own battle against ignorance a disservice when we lash out with material that vilifies Akin as being devious, or of having a conscious desire to subjugate women (or even implying that these particular remarks are representative of the all-too-real Republican war on women). This approach repels those who might yet crawl out of the bubble and actually learn something.

    This makes me think of a conversation I had with my best friend (who isn’t strongly involved in feminism or politics) just days ago. He was talking about how angry he was about how a few conservative people he knew would talk about just the most absurd things. He said, “I just can’t take people seriously when they talk about how so-and-so wants to destroy America. Yeah, you may not agree with a person, but they’re not trying to destroy the country. They probably have better intentions than that.”

    And that conversation made me think, not only about some of the rhetoric I use in political spaces, but also about another conversation we had one night where I was talking about something that seemed obvious to me (that it’s possible big pharma would prioritizes symptom-helping medicines over cures), and he said, “Uh, you do realize you’re starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, right?” (and yeah, it was getting there a bit, I’ll admit). So I said, “No, look. Let me tell you about an actual study that was done, but the company withheld the results because it didn’t look good for them…”

    And he got so angry at the idea that doing something like that was even possible. He thought for sure that something like that would be illegal. It really pissed him off. And a year later…he’s still not really any wiser about these things. Honestly, he only engages in politics because his new job requires lots of interaction with people complaining alternatively about their medications not being paid for and how Obama is ruining the country with socialism.

    But I think my friend is sort of the person you’re talking about. He just can’t believe that people don’t act without good intentions. And he really hates confrontational-style dialogue that demonizes people; it becomes that ‘conspiracy theorist’ language to him. I should say that I’m from the Mid-west, so I don’t know if this is part of that niceness/passive-aggressive attitude we get a rap for or if it’s common everywhere.

    1. it’s possible big pharma would prioritizes symptom-helping medicines over cures

      Do you have any evidence of pharmaceutical companies prioritising symptom-helping medicines over cures?

      1. Just a quick note on this – which I realize is a derail.

        Google H. pylori and ulcers for perhaps the most famous example. Many claim that there was no “undue” skepticism in the 15yrs between the H. pylori-peptic ulcer connection being made, and the NIHs intensive roll-out to MDs advocating antibiotics &/or 4-8wks of proton-pump inhibitor treatments that cure ulcers ~80-90% of the time. But let us remember our Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” The fact of the matter was people with peptic ulcers were prescribed monthly medication regimens that often ran into the hundreds of dollars, and underwent even more invasive (and LUCRATIVE) surgeries, for *relief of symptoms*. (Cite, Chan et al, Lancet, 1997 [eg]). And this was SOLIDLY in the era of big-pharm kickbacks to MDs for prescribing their meds (see the work of Jerry Avorn, MD). These MDs would *also* be the people on the editorial boards and reviewer committees for major journals and funding institutions. This was a situation now WIDELY understood as a problematic conflict of interest.

        Pharmacoeconomics is a funky sub-branch of health economics (Avorn has also written accessibly about these issues), but basically, R&D for drug development is proportionately more expensive than almost any other industry. Contributing to this is that the FDA has stricter requirements for investigational new drugs or devices (INDs, IDEs), than it does for say, new uses for already approved drugs and devices. Even if you are a drug maker outside the US, FDA approval for a new drug or device can be KEY to profits.

        “Cures” require INTENSIVE R&D, and in all likelihood INDs and/or IDEs. Treatment of *symptoms* are often a matter of finding new applications for already known drugs. We don’t understand all the *causes* of hypertension (as an eg) completely, but we’ve got a TON of meds that will lower your blood pressure. Research is ongoing for the former, but PROFIT is made on researching newer versions of the latter – particularly as drug patents expire.

      2. Didn’t we just have a post about not nit-picking? My reply was based on my friend’s reactions to certain word choices or discussions, which is the topic we’re discussing, not what I actually believe/believed at the time of the discussion (which I didn’t go into because, yup, that would be a derail). I added a few details for context because I think saying, “We had a conversation, and he was all, ‘that’s silly,'” might be a bit too vague.

        Thanks Irish and Nicole for your responses, but they shouldn’t have been necessary.

        1. You can’t possibly be serious. No pharmaceutical company would invest the money to pass the FDA trials and to market a drug that removed the need for their other more long term more expensive drugs without being forced to.

          There is a chronic history of companies burying studies where their expensive drugs do badly but if a cheap quick cure drug does badly when sponsored by an academic or human rights institution they will flip a shit about its “poor results”.

          If you can’t find a dozen examples of this burying bad studies and tanking certain kinds of drugs in a 30 minutes on google then you fail the internets.

    2. This is my first comment here, and it is off topic, but I had to reply to this.

      I have a very serious chronic illness. And in the many, many years it took me to get diagnosed, I have had to make the leap from “that is a conspiracy theory, there is no way the medical system works like that” to understanding just how screwed up our current system is.

      Doctors love to prescribe medications to treat symptoms rather than cure them (there have been countless newspaper and magazine article about this, and how “overmedicated” we are). They then prescribe more pills to treat the side-effects of the other pills. Some of this is due to their education, and some of it is due to how they are paid. And some of it is due to pharmaceutical companies.

      A lot of the medical researchers out there, and medical experts have strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry. In the case of the specific illness I have, the ties are so strong and so unethical that there was an investigation by the Attorney General.

      It does sound like a conspiracy theory- I will 100% agree with you on that. It sounds like it, and I believed it was, until I had to live it. And now it is a hopeless battle, because it is so hard to get people on my side when they write it all off without doing the research themselves.

      So it leaves me in a bind. Do I think certain politicians are out to “destroy America” or “destroy the economy”. No- I think that would go against even the most corrupt politician’s self interest. But do I think it is possible that they have pushing specific agendas because of ties to industry, or other self-serving reasons, and not because they think they are good for the country? I think it is possible. But it is hard to know for sure. So I try to stay away from guessing about motives, and stick to analyzing the affects of politicians proposals.

      1. I completely agree with you on that last paragraph, which is how I’m now trying to phrase more of my thoughts when engaging in these conversations.

        I also agree with most of what you’ve said, but that’s a discussion for another time. 🙂

  2. This is my first comment here, this was such a great post so I had to comment. I think what it all boils down to is what one hopes to gain from any interaction with someone who disagrees with you, which should lead to some reflection on how you achieve that goal.
    It’s really food for thought, thank you for that.

  3. Here’s what I reckon.

    Start by telling them to check their privilege, or asserting that they’re “dripping” in it.

    Then tell them that unless their grasp of the terminology used by sociology departments in North American universities is perfect, they’re bigots. But you’re not going to tell them why, because that’s “101” stuff, and it’s their responsibility to learn about it for themselves.

    Remind them that if they disagree with any of the tenets of the “social justice” movement their view is irrelevant, and indeed further evidence of their bigotry, which is of course grounded in their privilege.

    Be sure to accuse them of myriad ‘isms’ wherever possible. If this upsets them, because after all they don’t think they’re bigots in their hearts, explain that marginalised people are righteously angry while privileged people – that’s them – have white women’s tears. What about men? Ah. Tell them they can’t call themselves feminists: explain that there is such a thing as an ally, but it’s presumptuous and problematic of them to even want to identify as such. Only the very best of men are allowed such status, and it can only be conferred by a feminist herself, and then only temporarily.

    Nah, you ain’t going to persuade many people that way. But unfortunately those are the core tenets of the far left blogosphere. If you’re not prepared to compromise on perfection then you’ll remain on the fringes, the mainstream will ignore you, and politically you’ll achieve nothing.

    1. So much for Eve’s point that sarcasm and rudeness isn’t particularly helpful.

      Eve’s post was really good and powerful and written in a spirit of generosity and openness. Let’s stick to that sensibility in the comments.

    2. If this has happened to you, it is probably because you jumped in to a social justice space whose primary focus is not the newly initiated. If every social justice forum allowed itself to get bogged down in 101-level arguments then we would never get around to talking about ideas that are even remotely complex. It is not unreasonable to expect a basic understanding of social justice from people who wish to join more advanced discussions than ‘is sexism a problem?’

    3. If you go into an established space and have no idea what the fuck is going on and flail around demanding people cosset you like a child, you’re going to have a bad time.

      And this isn’t Social Justice–I’ve seen the same thing happen at my fan-series blogs, at my Japanese fashion blogs, at my fanfiction blogs, my cosplay blogs. When you enter an entrenched, well-rehearsed culture that people have organized their lives around, whether it’s dressing in Harry Potter costumes or talking about racism, you better be prepared to be quiet and observe the local community.

    4. Person, listen, I’ve been there. Those words you typed sound an awful lot like the words I would have typed several years ago when I first stumbled into feminist discourse on the internet. The commenters who are noting that this is an established place with established rules, customs, and terminology are dead on. This is NOT the place to learn about “the basics” anymore than stumbling onto a basketball court mid-game is a good place to learn the rules and theory of basketball. You can learn an awful lot, though, by watching, listening, thinking “Huh, that’s not the way I see it; I wonder why they see it that way?”

      I’m not even asking you to toe the party line, whatever that is. Just check your own ego at the URL when you come to a place like this and listen until you DO understand the basics, until your only comments won’t be ridiculously simplistic and naive. Everyone starts out naive. Everyone. But the good news is, you don’t have to stay that way, and you don’t even have to agree with everyone once you’ve learned the ropes. You just have to understand where they’re coming from, why they feel, act, and respond the way they do. Then you can contribute to the discussion without people coming down on you. And strangely enough, you’ll probably feel a lot more welcome around places like this, a lot less victimized, and that might even change your opinions on a few things.

      Just a few legitimately-trying-to-be-helpful thoughts.

      1. “Huh, that’s not the way I see it; I wonder why they see it that way?”

        This alone would make so much difference.

    5. What about men? Ah. Tell them they can’t call themselves feminists: explain that there is such a thing as an ally, but it’s presumptuous and problematic of them to even want to identify as such. Only the very best of men are allowed such status, and it can only be conferred by a feminist herself, and then only temporarily.

      Nice straw man. There aren’t any special requirements for men to be feminists. If you believe that gender inequality and patriarchy are harmful to society and you want to create an egalitarian society based on mutual respect, then you are a feminist.

      1. That’s actually not true. Because feminism is so broadly defined, there is absolutely a large portion of feminism where men cannot be feminists, and especially not self identify.

        Feminism is like religion in one specific sense:
        Denominations. Feminism doesn’t have 10000 recorded denominations, but it certainly has a few hundred. Many people who post what the OP of this comment thread posted ran into a completely real group of feminists who believe those things.

        Telling people they argue in bad faith and are ignorant and bigoted because they describe a real experience they had is not helpful. And if you don’t care if its helpful then fine. Its still not helpful.

        Many people I know, women as well as men, were interested into getting into social justice stuff, but they got immediately smashed for whatever reason Maybe a blogger or commentator had a bad day. Maybe they accidentally went to a community that wasn’t 101. Maybe certain communities are just more intense.

        If you immediately get trashed that way, its quite understandable that you would be less likely to want to engage in the future.

        If you haven’t been integrated into a social justice space before, its not that unlikely that you will pick a poor place to jump in. If you don’t know anything, its hard to know where to go at first.

        I’m a radical ideologist. I was warned and informed before I ever posted here or on any other blog. We have a sort of intro or seminar for people who want to discuss things in a different part of the social justice movement. Because if you are used to our spaces and their particular style, some other places may seem hostile or hard to navigate.

        This is directly on point with Eve’s post and indeed the concept of privilege in general. People who are taught different things than you are not aware of how your world operates. You can blow it off with how you are too tired of 101 and how you reserve the right to be nasty to someone who doesn’t know any better. But then you can’t say that if they really cared about, in this case, feminism, one person yelling at them for something they didn’t know was wrong wouldn’t put them off. Well it does put people off. Sorry if you can’t admit that.

        For a specific group of people even admitting they care about social justice is hard. So if the first thing that happens is that they get smacked down, how else do you think they will respond? First impressions and all that.

        Telling someone about 101 spaces is good. It helps them. Yelling at them is bad. If you can’t deal with 101 stuff, ignore it. Wait for someone who isn’t burnt out to handle it.

        Hell, make a form post with links and just copy paste it. You don’t even have to think about writing out a post. Its highly unlikely a newbie would realize you form lettered them until after they had already drunk the Koolaid.

  4. How do we talk to the people who were educated incorrectly– who have Religion or Religious-based textbooks to support the wrong facts, who vote and behave accordingly– without putting them on the immediate defense?

    We don’t. Instead, I advise discussing weather or sports or vacation spots.

    Religion isn’t the same as politics; you can’t try to convince these people that their beliefs may not be totally correct and/or completely healthy. They’re addicted to the worst kind of dope–and they’ll only get clean if (and when) they choose to. We have no say.

    1. To a certain extend, I agree with you. There isn’t a lot of point talking with someone who is intolerant about what they are intolerant. But I would say there is a point in talking to them…

      As Eve demonstrated, the increasing tolerance is personal experience. It doesn’t all have to be devastating. Knowing, interacting with, even liking and respecting people who are more tolerant or *gasp* people who are pro-choice/LGBT/liberal/etc. is the first step.

      Which, I might add, is a good reason to avoid interactions that encourage people to be defensive — going on the attack just encourages them to hold onto them all the harder. Sure, there are occasions to call people out for being offensive, discriminatory, etc. and asserting your right to exist/think as you do is important. But I don’t think beating people over the head with differences in thinking is the best way to go about day-to-day interactions.

    2. Religion isn’t the same as politics; you can’t try to convince these people that their beliefs may not be totally correct and/or completely healthy. They’re addicted to the worst kind of dope–and they’ll only get clean if (and when) they choose to. We have no say.

      No, you just have to approach them the right way. You can’t go all-guns-blazing on them and tell them that they’re ignorant and/or evil because of their beliefs. Instead, you should just approach them with empathy and patience, listen to them when they tell you why they believe the things they believe in, and go on from there. That way, you can encourage them to question the validity of their beliefs in a non-confrontational and peaceful manner.

    3. Discussing religion, or religion infused politics, is indeed treacherous ground, but I disagree that such conversation is never constructive. My step-father comes from a pretty extreme evangelical family. They all decided, prior to meeting my mother and I, that we were going to hell because we’re not Christian, and their opinion was confirmed when they saw me reading *gasp* Harry Potter. I really got into it with my step-father’s brother, but I was able to hold my own because I am extremely well-versed in the Bible, thanks to 7 years at a conservative Christian school. I think, and this gets back to Eve’s question, that being able to speak their language (i.e. using the Bible to refute or challenge their opinions) can be an effective way to engage conservative or religious people in conversation and begin to chip away at their prejudice. After 10+ years of contentious but mostly respectful conversation, my step-father’s family has, grudgingly, confessed that I’m probably not going to burn in hellfire.

      1. That doesn’t really sound like you’ve convinced them of anything that changes their politics, though. I’m not willing to devote years of my life to convincing people that I’m not going to their hell; what does it matter to me?

        1. Actually, some of the younger family members have changed their politics. I’m not saying that I’m solely responsible for that or suggesting that we all need to have 10 year long dialogues with people. (I certainly wouldn’t have made such an effort if these weren’t people that I saw regularly and with whom I had to maintain a decent relationship.) I am saying that being patient and having respectful dialogues can have an effect.

        2. And I really don’t care if they think I’m hell bound or not, but it was really disturbing when my 6 year old niece informed me of my fiery fate.

        3. Thats the scariest part about the jesusfreaks. Some little kid tells you you are going to hell but they don’t even understand what they are saying. Its just repeating adult behavior.

          Man I could probably start a huge mommywar here going off about religious indoctrination being abuse, maybe another day though. Still that explains that incident where an atheist child was violently beaten by 3 12 year old children of pastors. Because when you tell a child something their first decision is to believe it and not examine it critically as they may have if you told them the same thing when they were older.

        4. Man I could probably start a huge mommywar here going off about religious indoctrination being abuse, maybe another day though.

          Doooo iiiiiit…. ;D

        5. Matt, you sound like my husband.

          His sister is a very conservative Christian and we are decidedly not (we are both atheists and pretty lefty). We went to her church a couple of years ago for her kids’ baptism and he was *really* upset by how her kids were acting and praying so intensely and so worried about not pleasing God and maybe going to hell (and the kids were very up front about those beliefs). He wouldn’t say anything to his sister and there is a sort of unspoken rule between them and us that we only talk of very superficial subjects in order to avoid conflict, but he was upset by it. The whole 2 hour drive home I was subjected to his rant about religion being child abuse.

          Honestly, if I didn’t insist that he at least stay friendly with her, because I want our children to know their cousins and because I want her children to know that we are available and around if needed, he’d probably cut off contact completely. As it is, he barely talks to her at all and I’m the one who keeps communication open and makes plans to see them and the kids for holidays and birthdays and whatnot.

          But that is why I think it is worth it to be polite and to at least be willing to talk. Because even if we never get the sister-in-law and her husband to change or admit that facts are in fact actual things and that maybe being gay or having an abortion isn’t the worst thing ever (and I can guarantee that we won’t), at least her kids will be exposed to people who have different ideas and experiences than they have been allowed and they’ll know that we are there for them. And maybe it will help.

        6. Yeah, well I couldn’t do that. I have some social anxiety disorder so I would prefer not to be in a social group as large as a congregation anyways, but aside from that, seeing kids act that way and watching their parents thinking they are fabulous people is physically nauseating. I would either have to leave, or fail to save my rant for the car.

        7. ks, you hit the nail on the head. My nieces are a large part of the reason that I’ve tried to maintain a respectful relationship with that part of my family- I wanted to be available if/ when they had questions or concerns that they couldn’t bring to their grandparents (their guardians). And, low and behold, guess who they came to with questions about pregnancy prevention and drug abuse? One of them asked me if a plastic bag would suffice in place of a condom. I promptly drove her to the drug store so that she could buy condoms.

    1. In a space in which there is nothing beyond 101 stuff being discussed? Of course. In a space in which there is more than 101 stuff being discussed? Absolutely not.

      1. Agreed, with the caveat that if one is *really* interested in moving your understanding forward and acting kindly and in good faith of others, you will *ask* rather than *insist* on being educated, and have the decency NOT to ask the person who may have been harmed by this Ism or Ish at hand to be your educator. Even in a 101 space.

        1. No true blank argument. Circular logic.

          “If you REALLY care you will do what I, an already knowledgeable member of some social justice spaces would do.”

          A really sincere person would do A, if they don’t do A, they aren’t sincere. Thus proving that all sincere people do A.

          You would do that, if you had been taught to do that. But you probably haven’t been taught that. So you won’t.

          How many people here followed what they now know as proper social justice procedure the first time they tried to get involved? I’m betting 100% of you flawless feminists, right?

          Jill still fucks up quite a bit in some of her posts and she runs a feminist blog, but some new person should 100% know exactly what to do? Please.

        2. Matt, I’m not sure exactly what it is that you’re arguing. Where have I said anything about flawless feminism? This is not even ABOUT feminism, it’s about how we treat each other when we’ve hurt each other UNINTENTIONALLY – in the blogosphere, in real life, what have you.

          I AM presuming that participants are engaging in good faith – meaning that you’re in this hypothetical 101 social justice space NOT for the purpose of shit stirring, or scoring points, or whathaveyou.

          Let’s use the ever popular step on foot analogy –

          I’ve accidentally stepped on your foot.
          You’re telling me “Ow, that fucking hurts, get off my foot.”
          What does the decent, not asshole person do? They get off your foot, right? Usually with some version of “Oh, I’m sorry”, right? PROBABLY, they do their best to try not to step where your feet are again, right?

          What kind of person am I if I choose THAT MOMENT to interrogate you about your foot pain? Or continue to argue that your foot doesn’t hurt THAT MUCH? Or to argue that I am NOT in fact stepping on your foot?

          If I do any of THOSE things, you, and the world are justified in thinking me a fucking asshole.

          Treat people on the internet like they are real, and like their pain is real, and like you have a DECENT HUMAN OBLIGATION not to keep fucking hurting them. EVEN IF AND MAYBE ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU *CAN’T* FEEL WHAT *THEY* ARE FEELING.

        3. Stepping on someone’s foot causing them pain is something the vast majority of people understand. How many people out there form organizations and societies to deny the pain of having your foot stepped on?

          I got my foot stepped on by a horse. The horse didn’t automatically get of my food when I said goddamn you stupid horse get off my foot. Because it didn’t know any better.

          Your comment makes perfect sense if you already have experience in social justice spaces. But not if you don’t.

          Stepping on feet is not a valid analogy. People stop stepping on your feet because they believe that having your foot stepped on hurts. They already agree 100% with you. The burden of knowledge is miniscule in foot stepping on compared to social justice.

          When a little kid climbs or jumps on me I might say, hey stop that hurts, but since they don’t know any better they might not stop. Or they may say, but I am really small, how can that hurt?

          If I say that someone’s loud party is keeping me up or hurting my ears, they might not believe it was that loud. They might argue that in their world loud parties are allowed. They might tell me a story about how they stood right next to the speakers at a Metallica concert.

          So if someone says something they don’t think is bad to say, and you say it’s bad, they are going to ask you why.

          I someone tells me I’m Atheists go to hell, and I say I am an Atheist and that is mean or hurtful, because you know, giant lake of lava I will burn in for all eternity, their first response is NEVER, oh I am sorry, I won’t say that around you or that they no longer believe it. They will likely not Google Atheism to try and understand why that hurts me, or whether to change their opinion. And they will likely not go to an Atheist 101 blog either.

          Asserting moral superiority with ideological privilege isn’t a good idea. Eve was able to admit that if she hadn’t been blasted out of her bubble she would still believe what she did.

          Apparently you can’t say the same. I suppose you would be a morally upright person under any and all circumstances.

        4. Children and non-human examples are specious.

          If I am going about the world not believing other people when they tell me that something hurts, then the problem IS NOT my unfamiliarity with Social Justice 101. It may indicate a profound lack of home training, it may indicate that I am in fact an asshat and just do not CARE about other people, but it is NOT about “I don’t understand why $_X thing was $_ist”.

          If I argue *against* when other people say “Hey, this is an example of $_Showing Ass, and please stop”, rather than trying to understand, I can throw whatever tantrum I choose, but no one is under any obligation to prioritize my education over their own feelings and well being.

          Mark, this feels like ish to me, ish with a decidedly Ist-soup aroma. The dynamic here is EXACTLY the kind of thing I DO NOT believe anyone has to subject themselves to. But in the spirit of the OP, I will drop an educational link – perhaps you’ll benefit from the words of a cis white guy. May I direct you to Mr. Scalzi:

          http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/16/you-never-know-just-how-you-look-through-other-peoples-eyes/

        5. I have read Scalzi. I don’t think you are required to educate people. But I disagree that the child example is specious. The animal one might be.

          Plus there is a difference between the reactions. Sending someone a link or more than a link, or just ignoring them is not the same as being hostile to someone who doesn’t know better.

          I point you to the title of the Scalzi article. And on to more fruitful discourse.

        6. I dislike the foot-stepping analogy because it’s a poor comparison, partially for the reasons pointed out, but also because it ignores context…so I’m used to seeing it used as a justification when things have gone a little overboard. It’s like…yeah, it’s reasonable to point out to someone that they’re stepping on your foot. But how you do so, what a proportionate response is, depends a lot on the context.

          Some asshole deliberately steps on your foot, hard, at a rowdy bar? “What the fuck is your problem, asshole, you’re stepping on my foot!” would hardly cause anyone to bat an eye. Even getting a little physical at that point would probably not have anyone clutching at their pearls, although we could debate the wisdom of such an action.

          On the other hand, that response would be pretty extreme if you were in your best friend’s wedding party and the person you were sitting next to stepped on your foot while giving a toast.

          The pain’s the same….but intentions and circumstances do matter. Luckily, adults are, as a whole, able to tell the difference between the two and act appropriately when such things occur in real life. And I think that’s something that’s often erased when these things flare up.

          I remember my first encounter with the foot analogy (and the tone argument! Two for the price of one!) It started with someone saying that they didn’t like the use of misogynistic slurs or the incitements to real-world harassment (especially because the target was only tangentially related to the Big Horrible Thing that blew up that corner of the internet.) Immediately, people jumped up to earn their cookie, and turned a lot of the misogynistic invective on that person. And so both arguments have always been a little tarnished in my eyes. It was not the best introduction I could have had to the online social justice community. In retrospect, it’s become clear that the people who participated in that are the outliers. But yikes, all the same.

  5. I too was brought up in a religious household, and even though I was never very good at belief (and haven’t had any for several decades), I have remained fascinated by religion. On an online forum, I used to engage with religious people on all kinds of topics. We were usually best off discussing theology. Politics was just crazy. Even when we were more or less communicating, no minds were ever changed. The best I could do was present my views in a calm and rational manner, making sure they knew that I respected them as human beings.

    I recall from psychology studies that it’s about five times harder to dislodge a belief than it is to acquire it in the first place. So it’s really an uphill battle. I have a feeling that no amount of talking ever caused a person of faith to lose that faith. Rather, circumstances in their own lives sometimes cause them to re-evaluate. Sometimes.

    Respectful communication. That’s the best I can do. You do it well!

  6. Eve, I love this post, and I think you make a lot of really fantastic points — especially at the end, with your questions about how to be effective activists. I think what gets tricky is that ideally, of course we would all be open to people looking to learn, and we would answer questions with care and patience, and we would have discussions that included the clueless-and-willing-to-learn but excluded the bigoted. But in reality, that’s exhausting for many of us who write about this stuff or do social justice work or live in the body of a woman / a person of color / a person with disabilities / a gay person / etc. I would love — LOVE — to be a patient, question-answering person about all of these things. But at the same time, I have a hard time finding it in me to engage when the 6,000th person comes to Feministe and leaves a comment on an abortion-related post saying something like, “But abortion kills babies”

    They may be well-intentioned and I may be able to convince them if we just dialogue for a while. But that dialogue will be a major suck on my time and energy, and it’s a dialogue I’ve had a lot of times before, and that they can research elsewhere if they’re so inclined (and I realize they probably are not). Again, I think you’re right that in an ideal world, I would have that conversation. But more often than not, to preserve my own sanity (and to have any free time) I roll my eyes and delete that comment.

    I also think — and this is a movement-wide issue — that we (“we” being progressives, not you and I) differ on how we perceive peoples’ motivations. These lines about Akin illustrate that well, I think:

    I think we do our own battle against ignorance a disservice when we lash out with material that vilifies Akin as being devious, or of having a conscious desire to subjugate women (or even implying that these particular remarks are representative of the all-too-real Republican war on women). This approach repels those who might yet crawl out of the bubble and actually learn something.

    I actually do think that Akin has a conscious desire to subjugate women, and I do think that those remarks are representative of the War On Women. Do I think Akin would say, “I want to subjugate women”? No. Do I think he absolutely believes that women are fundamentally different than men, and are purposed to serve men, and be helpmeets to their husbands, and because of their natural femaleness are more nurturing and less strong and better suited in the home than in the boardroom, and that life was better when there were a great many social barriers in place to keep certain classes of women out of the traditionally male public sphere? Yes, I do think that Akin actually thinks that. I do think much of the “pro-life” ideology (among its leaders moreso than its followers) centers around hostility towards women’s agency and not actually a desire to save fetuses (case in point: 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out of the body; if pro-lifers really believe that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a three-year-old child, why aren’t they doing anything about that? Sure, it’s God and nature taking their courses, but if a disease were killing 50% of all three-year-olds, surely we’d be doing a little research or something, right?). I think that if you dig a little bit into pro-life groups, you see the same themes repeated over and over — that abortion and birth control are bad not just because they kill babies, but because they’re part of a culture shift that redefined women’s roles and is bad for “the family” because the family unit is no longer a head-of-household husband, a servile wife, and as many children as God gives.

    Do I think that every person who identifies as pro-life believes that? No. I think there are a lot of pro-life individuals who have bought the whole “baby-killing” thing. But I don’t think Akin’s comments came from ignorance. There is a long history of pro-life groups denying that women can get pregnant from rape — Akin didn’t come up with that himself. It’s part of a strategy that’s all tied up in hostility towards female agency and attempting to return us to traditional gender roles. I actually did read it as malicious, given its context.

    Given that — that many of us are going to interpret behavior differently, that we approach these things from different histories and contexts, that there’s probably no single correct interpretation — can we even say that there’s a line between ignorant-ignorance and bigoted-ignorance? I think there is, I just think it’s really blurry sometimes. And some of the places where I think it’s bright — like Akin — others don’t.

    As a slight aside, I also want to expand upon what Igg said upthread about 101 spaces: Is there some value in having spaces online where people can have more complex and advanced discussions of social justice / feminism / politics without being expected to explain 101 stuff constantly? Answering basic questions is a drain on all of our time and resources; it’s no doubt a good thing, but it means that then we don’t end up having the conversations we’re more interested in having, and that are beneficial to us. It seems to me that there exist lots of other places on the internet where, say, complex discussions of foreign policy or in-depth arguments about video games go on; I don’t show up to a gamer site and pop in to say, “But you guys don’t you think that playing violent video games is really bad?”

    Alllll of that said, this isn’t intended as criticism — I think your post is 100% correct, and the discourse in a lot of progressive spaces is not particularly good for convincing anyone of anything. I just wonder how to balance these ideals with our own limited resources (time, patience, energy) and our desire to have more advanced discussions, as well as very different histories and knowledge bases that lead us to have wildly different views on whether someone is commenting out of ignorance or out of hate.

    Thank you for this post. I think it asks a lot of questions that need to be asked, and starts an important discussion.

    1. Do I think he absolutely believes that women are fundamentally different than men, and are purposed to serve men, and be helpmeets to their husbands, and because of their natural femaleness are more nurturing and less strong and better suited in the home than in the boardroom, and that life was better when there were a great many social barriers in place to keep certain classes of women out of the traditionally male public sphere? Yes, I do think that Akin actually thinks that.

      I think you’re totally right about all this– I think he does too!– and I suppose we only find ourselves in disagreement about the root cause (or maybe not even that). My guess, which could well be off the mark, is that he has adopted these feelings based on a religious and moral conviction that was hammered into him at a much younger and more impressionable age. That in no way excuses his ongoing stupidity or his destructive ideals, but to me it does impact the way I think about him. In Akin’s case, I harbor no illusion that we can talk him out of his sense of morality… I just think he’s an interesting and frightening case study regarding the extremes that such an MO of anti-education and anti-science coddling can lead to.

      In part, it’s a difference between “conscious” and “unconscious,” and I know that there’s often another very blurry line between the two.

    2. Yeah, this is basically where I’m at.

      In my own experience, I’ve been suckered and drained many times by people who claimed they wanted to change their mind and challenge their existing views, only to find out that they just wanted to argue and felt that I was obligated to change their minds for them, which is impossible.

      I’ve since taken a policy, even with my very closest dearest friends, that I will give them links and resources (and occasionally through sharing my own stories, if relevant), but I will not argue or debate with them, even in a friendly way. I learned to change my mind on my own, through reading and lurking. No one could ever have changed it for me.

      I’ve had people who have contacted me for just such information, so that they could do their exploring on their own, sometimes years after we disagreed over just the same issues.

      For me, it was a road I walked mainly alone. I didn’t ask questions (because the questions I wanted to ask I often later realized were just as reflective of my ignorance as the knowledge I thought I had) so much as just listen to what people were already talking about. Their framing and the questions they were answering were just as important to me as what they actually shared. Their anger, pain, and even hostility and bitterness, were just as instructive as their hope, joy, and passion.

    3. I think your post is 100% correct, and the discourse in a lot of progressive spaces is not particularly good for convincing anyone of anything.

      I disagree.

      When I became acquainted with this website many years ago I never claimed the “feminist” label. It’s not that I was anti-feminist, it’s that I just didn’t think about it. Of course, I believed in equal rights and the lot, but I never felt the need to have a label (and I may have preferred humanist then if I was to be labeled). At that time, I didn’t pay that much attention to politics. Now I do pay attention in part thanks to this site, and I am a proud feminist (and proud atheist in parallel). I see how important it is to be forthright with these goals/ideals/etc and not take it for granted that of course the world will come around to my totally normal lazy viewpoint.

      Long story short: This website will probably not change the minds of right wing individuals, but it can maybe sway people in the middle and solidify views of those who are on the left, but uninformed, (former me).

      I read the comments on most of the posts (even when they drive me crazy) because I know there is a chance for me to learn something.

      1. Thank you for the feedback, lurker. It’s easy to forget that your experience also happens. I think bloggers and writers end up in this weird space of thinking they aren’t particularly effective because the vast majority of the feedback we get is negative — people don’t tend to email you or leave a drive-by comment just to say “this is awesome,” but they will email you or leave a drive-by comment to tell you how awful you are. So I appreciate your thoughts and perspective.

        1. This is important. I change my ideas based on stuff that happens here, however much certain people consider me a troll or arguing in bad faith. But this isn’t “What Matt Learned About Social Justice World” so it would be weird for me to come on and make big posts about how much my thoughts have changed. I know sometimes people do that on feministing, because they have a community blogging section.

          For instance I changed my mind, 2 weeks later, about whether there is a duty to disclose for trans people entering a serious relationship. I still think it would be ideal for them to do so, but I understand why they wouldn’t.

          Another issue is this, if I would have made a post about that, I have seen when people do say they changed their minds, posters in the group about whom their mind has changed will often make a sarcastic comments, or more, such as “Well thank god we have your permission now.” I know that that discourages people from speaking up about changing their minds because I used to do that as part of my atheism as did others and I saw the results.

          I mean, people still have a right to respond that way, but it certainly adds to the illusion that 101 conversations are fruitless. Along with the time lag before your mind changes its pretty deadly combo.

          Its still understandable that feministe isn’t a 101 space, but its also still true that many possible social justice adherers have been put off because of certain behaviors exhibited here, and that I don’t think they are terrible people for doing so, it makes me grateful I was given foreknowledge of how and why certain posts would be received.

        2. I have had a similar experience (and I have emailed some bloggers to tell them this) in that I used to be moderately conservative, in the “Feminists for Life” mold. Various life events led to me spending a lot of time on the internet, and articles on this blog and others were often linked to. Some of the anti-101 attitudes made me recoil and quit reading for awhile, but I had a pretty strong ethic that it was right to listen to any good-faith arguments against my position, so I kept coming back.

          Anyway, my beliefs have come around to a very social-justice oriented perspective. But I still have a hard time finding good things to share with people who still hold the beliefs I used to, because of the way things are worded and the opposition to 101 level people. I do know some 101 sites, but they mostly don’t cover current events, which is harder because those are the sorts of conversations on my Facebook (or whatever) that I often want to contribute to.

      2. @lurker: A very good point.

        For some, it is just preaching to the choir and for some it is just meaningless effort, but there is always everyone else. It is not hopeless.

      3. Same goes for me. I rarely comment because I rarely have anything to add to the discussion but I have learned a lot here.

      4. This website will probably not change the minds of right wing individuals, but it can maybe sway people in the middle and solidify views of those who are on the left, but uninformed, (former me).

        When I have arguments about trans issues, with people who are clearly speaking from malice and/or bigotry rather than from good faith lack of knowledge, I never expect to change those people’s minds. Instead, I’m usually directing my words at people out there who might be reading what I say who are sitting on the fence or unsure of how they feel, and try to remind myself (especially when I get discouraged about such arguments) that maybe I’m helping somebody like that understand trans issues or trans people better, at least, or perhaps actually to feel more trans-friendly.

        1. I’m a total lurker and just had to write to say just how much I’ve learned from what you’ve written over the years, DonnaL. I wouldn’t say I was hostile to trans issues, but I had a lot of casual bigotry and misconceptions about trans people that I didn’t even know to identify as such until I started reading feminist blogs. And your writing has always stood out as so eloquent and heartfelt and I’ve always been so impressed at how much you’re willing to share of your life even in the face of some really ugly comments. And the more I’ve read of what you’ve shared, I feel like I’ve come to understand trans issues much more, and try to act as an ally. So thank you for all your comments over the years – I am SURE I am not the only lurker whose eyes have been blown open by you!

        2. Thank you, Claudia; that’s definitely one of the very nicest things anyone has said to me here. I especially appreciate hearing once in a while that that all that time and effort hasn’t been a waste.

          Although I do have to add that I haven’t actually been commenting on Feministe for years; I began less than a year ago (although I started commenting on Shakesville a little while before that). Maybe it just seems like years, given the ridiculous number of times I’ve commented — I don’t think I’d want to know exactly how many! (There’s a private trans-related message board on which I’m a moderator and where I’ve posted about 10,000 comments since June 2004; I’m sure I’ll never reach that here. But it’s still been a lot.)

  7. As a slight aside, I also want to expand upon what Igg said upthread about 101 spaces: Is there some value in having spaces online where people can have more complex and advanced discussions of social justice / feminism / politics without being expected to explain 101 stuff constantly? Answering basic questions is a drain on all of our time and resources; it’s no doubt a good thing, but it means that then we don’t end up having the conversations we’re more interested in having, and that are beneficial to us. It seems to me that there exist lots of other places on the internet where, say, complex discussions of foreign policy or in-depth arguments about video games go on; I don’t show up to a gamer site and pop in to say, “But you guys don’t you think that playing violent video games is really bad?”

    To some extent this issue depends on how one thinks Feministe fits into the larger online landscape.

    I would fully expect to be dismissed if I wandered into a site focused on advanced strategies in Mass Effect 3 and started asking “So, can some one explain to me what this whole ‘computer RPG’ thing is about?”

    I would expect more charitable treatment if I asked a similar question at a general video games site.

    I’ve tended to think of Feministe as closer to a feminist “General video games” as opposed to “For advanced Mass Effect 3 fanatics only”.

    1. I’ve tended to think of Feministe as closer to a feminist “General video games” as opposed to “For advanced Mass Effect 3 fanatics only”.

      Yeah, it’s closer to general than hyper-specific, but Feministe is also not a purely 101 space. We write with the understanding that most of our readers identify as liberal/progressive, and that our readers are committed to social justice and women’s rights. That’s part of the reason why I encourage kindness and giving the benefit of the doubt to guest bloggers — if they’re here, they may be imperfect in some ways, but they’re on board with the basic mission. But does that shift when a commenter is not on board with the basic mission, even if that’s out of ignorance and not hate?

      1. I agree that a site like this might not be the best place to attempt a dialog with some one who is genuinely not on board with the basic tenets of feminism.

        I think there is a bit of a problem in that people don’t really agree on what counts as “101”.

        Responding to a post about sexual assault with “helpful” suggestions about what people should or shouldn’t be wearing or where they should or shouldn’t be walking? Definitely failing feminism 101 IMO.

        Not being up on all the latest, hippest jargon? Not 101 in my book. But obviously there’s disagreement about this.

  8. I love this post, and I rarely if ever comment but I’d like to commend Eve for this post. Like her, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church. I began questioning those beliefs after I was molested by a trusted Christian friend when I was 15.

    Now that I’m a full-fledged feminist heathen, I still cringe when I hear the generalized attacks on Christians. Even though I am also exasperated by the use of religion to exploit conservative voters, I know first-hand that many Christians, despite the ignorance of their belief system, are at heart sincerely good people who strive to be decent human beings. They are people I know and love. Yes, they are misguided and often just flat-out wrong. But the ever-present threat of damnation in a lake of fire FOR ALL ETERNITY is a pretty fucking powerful disincentive to critical thinking.

    Religion is dangerous precisely because it wields its power via fear and oppression. It is a tragedy, really, that it still holds sway over so many people in this day and age. But to simply demean and dehumanize those people is not going to show them the error of their ways but only reinforce their viewpoint.

    I wish I knew how to bridge the gap. There’s no easy answer but I do know that this is a very important discussion and I’m glad you posed the question.

    1. There has been some research done that says a new idea that hits 10% adherence is well on its way to eventually being dominant. So in that sense atheists have reason to rejoice. Also the advance of science and cohort replacement are shouldering much of the burden. And even better, religions being so damn conservative is screwing them over. The church lost so many people over its response to the child abuse and its ridiculous positions on women’s rights. All it had to do was bend its position a little bit as it has done in the past, and poof, 10% of Atheists would disappear. Up to like 30% if the other denominations also made changes.

  9. My previous comment got messed up, so I’m starting over here:

    First, thank you thank you for writing this. I talk about this kind of stuff a lot on my blog, and like you I grew up in the bubble. I left the bubble during college and watched as everything fell apart. The trouble is, the people in the bubble only see the world through the bubble, and the bubble is built such that any information entering it is distorted and refashioned.

    Next, constructive thoughts:

    First, you have to remember that all this is linked into community. For people in the bubble, questioning some aspect of the bubble means getting kicked out of it. If you become, say, pro-choice, your salvation will be questioned, your friends may reject you, and your church – which may be your main source of community – will view you as a heretic and baby killer. The whole system is set up to keep you within a given system of beliefs and to resist questions or critical thinking. Asking questions can be dangerous to your well-being, and the consequences of asking questions are huge. I…have no idea how to fix this.

    Second, what allowed me to first take a look outside the bubble was a friend who challenged my beliefs in a quiet, persistent, and non-judgmental way. He didn’t tell me I was crazy when I argued for something crazy, he just asked questions and pointed out contradictions. And he did it so nicely that it never felt like a threat. I was an introspective person willing to consider his questions and play around with ideas, and, well, the rest is history. But his demeanor and the way he went about this was crucial. Change isn’t impossible, but it does take time, openness to considering new ideas, and a huge amount of patience.

    Finally, I just have to say that the culture wars can at times be thoroughly depressing because I can’t for the life of me figure out how to fix them. I’ve been on both sides, and the lack of an ability to understand – most primarily by the right, but also sometimes by the left – is astounding. The two sides speak different languages completely. The divide is huge, and fixing it is no simple matter.

    1. Must (or even should) the divide be fixed? I agree the culture wars are depressing, but would instinctively look for an amicable split rather than a bridge at this point.

      1. Yes, it is important to fix it. There are plenty of people hurt by conservative Christianity, whether it’s LGBT people, people with mental illnesses, women, etc. And those people are going to be born into such religious families, and hurt before they can leave, even if there’s some sort of “amicable split”.

        1. In the ideal, possibly. I was thinking (as a G who had to Defeat the Bubble unassisted) that the CR has staked out a position that just doesn’t allow for a fix, and that attempts to compromise end up becoming just wasted effort that causes far more pain all around, or can’t succeed even from the beginning because some issues just don’t allow for rational compromise.

          You’re obviously right that people would be hurt before they could leave, but even with that taken into account, the pain of trying unsuccessfully for a fix decade after decade is just getting so much worse that, if there were suitable rumspringa-like provisions in place to provide a general understanding that people would be able to find the right places of their own, I’d probably be thrilled if the US were to divide into six or eight smaller countries. No amount of perceived progress ever feels safe, and security is one of the things I’d like to see in the possession of the rising generations.

      2. We can’t have a split. The churches control too much political power, so they can force their will on the rest of us. We have to get rid of them. With logic, not like, you know, a crusade to slaughter them or something.

    2. Note: I deleted your previous post to help streamline things.

      (For those who are curious: it was a double/repeat post.)

  10. The bigger issue is who gets to define the “101.”

    Is “dreads on white people is appropriation” 101 or not?

    Is “not talking about aromantic asexuals in a post about dating is erasure” 101 or not?

    A lot of the 101 examples I’ve seen here are not close cases at all – almost to the point of strawmanning.

    I think what Eve was talking about is the notion that a lot of 101 gatekeepers are self-appointed. Where they draw the line is often arbitrary and can be interpreted as silencing.

    1. I couldn’t agree more. I think that a lot of non-101 conversation gets shut down with cries of “this isn’t a 101 site!” and that’s a bad direction for a site to go.

      It’s gotten to the point that if anyone knows a thing, or thinks they know a thing, everyone is automatically expected to know it and is a bigot if they don’t. That’s fucking ridiculous.

    2. Yeah, I see a lot of stuff both here and on other social justice/feminist blogs that makes me go “have you taken a 101 class recently? Because, seriously, this shit is not in there, not even for 5 minutes. There might be 5 minutes of it in the 437 class, but even then, it’s really not enough to debate the various sides and make someone integrate that thought into their everyday framework.” It also tends to portray feminism as way more monolithic than it really is and having basically made up its mind on a lot of things that it actually hasn’t. “This is my 101″ and “I can’t believe that feminism as a whole hasn’t agreed with me already” isn’t actually the same thing as “this is 101.”

  11. So I’m really hesitating to write this because I have a feeling that I’m going to get jumped on for even suggesting that religion is not 100% evil, 100% of the time, but I think that liberal branches of religions can really help here. I can only speak for my own community, but even as the far right Orthodox Jews have become even more restrictive, the vast majority of Jews, even Orthodox ones, have become more liberal in their practice.* And I very much believe that you can get further by showing that, hey look, it is possible to live a religious life while also being a feminist or while also being progressive than by trying to get people to abandon their beliefs altogether. Some of the best conversations I’ve had about feminism have been with Orthodox friends who were like, hey, what *is* it that you believe? Why *do* you participate in traditionally male rituals? What’s up with that? And a lot of them have had feminist click moments resulting from those conversations. Obviously, some beliefs have to be wholly abandoned, but if you can show that the core can be maintained, I think that it gives people more options.

    * Unfortunately, more and more Jews these days are also voting Republican, but that has to do with other crap, mostly concerning Israel and alliances with the Christian Right.

    1. Shoshie, I am so, so glad you wrote this. I completely agree that you can maintain belief in the core values of your religion and be feminist and liberal. Use your mind to use your soul.

      I love reading what is posted here on Feministe, but it does irk me how often I read that religion is always a problem.

    2. No, I think you’re spot-on, Shoshie. I’ve been thinking a lot about why I still identify as Hindu, and part of it, I realise (probably most at this point) is to stake a claim that THIS corner, MY corner, of Hinduism is as intersectional as I can make it, fuck you very much – and then to defend that claim with knowledge and teeth. And, while I don’t get the opportunity to discuss with many really orthodox people right now, I think I’ve been the cause of a few feminist click moments, and anti-racist click moments, with it.

    3. Thanks, Shoshie. I don’t have a lot of energy for getting engaged in the conversation today, but I did want to thank you for putting this out there and helping me feel not so alone on this issue.

      1. I was more speaking to an overall trend towards political conservatism and hawkishness vs. this current election cycle, though it’s possible that the trend is stalling out. Or people just don’t like Mitt Romney. =P

    4. Most of the Jews I know went Atheist because of reform Judaism. Just because, if you have to change core beliefs that much, why even bother? We have a lot of Jewish discussion here, before racial integration and white flight my town used to be referred to as Jew City. Jewish people still make up like 30% of the white population.

      According to my Jewish friends a large proportion of the Reform Jews who were born post 1987 become Atheist or non-observant if they prefer not to self identify Atheist around their teen years.

      Most of them still do Bar/Bat Mitzvah, I’ve personally been to 3, plus a couple more where we only came for reception, but the primary focus is the parties and the gifts, at least on the kids side.

      Central Reform Congregation in St. Louis had a big scuffle with the Orthdox in the area because they had elected a woman rabbi. That was where we went for one of the Bar Mitzvah’s of my then BFF and it was a big topic of discussion. Once adults were safely out of earshot there was a big discussion about liberal and reform movements.

      The standard Atheist feeling about Reform/Liberal religious groups is difficulty understanding why you would want to stay with a group that didn’t respect you. This is especially important because of the Atheist narrative of coming out and in many cases escaping or running from religious families who often employ violent discipline. Certain Atheists therefore view the church as something to dislike intensely or hate and so they have trouble with the idea of wanting to be more included or get positions of authority.

      If you are already a member of a reform/liberal group then that feeling is likely to be less intense because you never got beaten for saying you didn’t believe in God.

      Its not that all religion is evil per say, but that it seems somewhat pointless and frivolous to do all that work to become a liberal denomination and hold on to beliefs that are from books written 2000 to 5500 years ago. I would say that most Atheists don’t really worry too much about Jews because when was the last time a Jewish politician or religious official worked hard and succeeded at passing anti-women, atheist, PoC or other such legislation.

      At Atheist nexus though there are a few posters who are super conservative and even pro life, and some are far more militant with regards to Religion. You might say that Atheism in that sense is comparable to second wave and Rad feminism in relation to religion.

      However we support people who were really damaged by religion the same way you would support a PoC who was justifiably mad at white people.

      You may have mansplaining, but we have libsplaining. Note that I personally am not saying that rape culture is comparable to religion culture, they are similar in concept but not necessarily intensity, although many atheists, especially who lived in conservative religious communities, do feel that their intensity is similar.

      The existence of liberal religions provides quite a bit of cover for really conservative denominations. And liberal religions are just as guilty of casual anti-semitism and anti-atheism as white people are of casual racism and men are of casual sexism.

      Now to be fair, Jewish people do have a legitimate reason to be worried about some militant strains of atheism, since they are not a dominant religious group. But a lot of christians make the same comment, about being reluctant to post christian stuff, and that’s just ridiculous. 4 years ago there weren’t even any openly atheist people in the national government because it would be a political disaster to admit it.

      1. Fantastic points; I’m so tired of people –especially Christian people– acting like being religious means you’re “oppressed” by the mean old atheists. We’re disagreeing with you from a place of oppression in this world; don’t get confused about who holds the vast majority of the power.

        And there’s a lot of pushback against liberal-type religious people because it sounds like apologism, and it provides a nice cover for the not-at-all liberal religious assholes. It inevitably sounds like “but I’m a good man/white person/capitalist/pro-lifer!”

        1. For the record, I don’t think I’m oppressed by atheism– I think I’m oppressed by antisemitism and Christian centrism. And atheists can totally internalize and perpetuate antisemitism and Christian centrism. Being atheists doesn’t make them immune.

          But, whatever y’all, I really don’t have the energy for defending my existence as a religious feminist for the 38273rd time.

        2. Because they built a Guantanamo Bay for Christians? Let me know when you can hook me up with a reference to that.

        3. Yes. Atheists pick on Jews more than other religions. That’s why a simple google search locates like 15 articles and forum debates from Christians whining about things like:

          “Why don’t Atheists ever go after the Jews?!!!” and “Why do Atheists always pick on Christians?!!!”

          More than 50% of Atheists I know ARE Jews. In fact the President of the American Atheists is a Jew. And this is in a country where like 80% of people are Christian.

          Furthermore, some prominent Jewish writers assert that based on their experience, which coincides with my own, something like 30-50% of Jews in America are Atheists. So yes, tell us how Christian centric we are. Plus Jews as considered the number 1 most accepting religions community for Atheists. Your chances of receiving violence or shunning or shaming are significantly lower if you are coming out Atheist to Jewish family as opposed to Christian or Muslim.

        4. Shoshie, speaking of confirmation bias, I know Safiya isn’t Christian. But me and Bagelsan already said we were talking primarily about Christians.

          But go on, straw man me about something I didn’t say, I’ve gotten that from religious groups for years. I can take it.

          Plus, arguing Gitmo is pretty oppression olympics IMO.

          There would be a Gitmo for us if an atheist organization ever launched massive terrorist attacks, or made threats of nuclear conflict, even if that group was overseas and not at all personally connected to us.

          It just so happens that that didn’t happen, and the Jesusfreaks know they couldn’t get away with an Atheist detention zone without some sort of solid threat they could sell to the conservative base.

          Nevertheless smaller christian groups do incite violence against atheists, atheists do get beaten by parents for questioning god, and atheists property does get vandalized.

        5. Let me know when they build a Guantanamo Bay for atheists.

          You know that atheism is a crime in some countries, don’t you? There have been ‘Guantanamo Bays’ for atheists (heretics) for centuries. Not to mention that the people behind the actual GB are hardly a cabal of godless heathens.

          I hate this oppression olympics bullshit. More than one group of people can be oppressed at the same time. It isn’t a contest.

        6. Shoshie, if you’re gonna keep insisting that liberal religion does some good, I’m gonna keep pointing out that it also does a lot of harm. And yeah, for the record, half of the atheists I know are Jewish and the others are half Jewish.

        7. Oh for fuck’s sake.

          Nowhere did I say that Jews were targeted by atheists in particular or that atheists only complained about Jews. What the fucking fuck how would you ever interpret my comments that way? I said that atheists can be influenced and internalize antisemitism and Christian-centrism. Just like fucking everyone else in our antisemetic and Christian-centric culture. Just like women can be racist or homophobic or sexist. Being part of a marginalized group doesn’t make them immune to oppressive messages from the dominant culture.

          And Matt, talking to me like you understand Jewish culture better than I do is some fucked up bullshit. I don’t care how many bar mitzvahs you’ve been to or how Jewish your town is. Furthermore, considering you and Bagelsan wrote generally about religion, even though you did leave a special place for Christianity, are you shocked that I might be a bit put off, as a religious feminist?

          Bagelsan- I’m willing to have a reasonable discussion about the ways in which liberal religion perpetuates harm and how to mitigate that harm. But having my belief system compared to rape culture (wtf!) is not going to promote that reasonable discussion.

        8. I didn’t say what you said I said. Straw women.

          I was talking about how much of Atheism is connected to Jewish people and culture. I am no more anti-semitic than you are. Having a big Jewish presence in my area is part of what makes it such a good place to be Atheist. As opposed to the god awful rest of Missouri.

          Atheists are portrayed incredibly similarly to feminists with the being loud and angry and whiny and selfish. Liberal religious apologists create the same environment where atheists can’t speak up because liberals won’t believe them and conservatives will slather the hate on more. I believe there was a big survey and such done as part of submitting some documents to the UN about atheists mistreatment in America. And some hundreds of people reported in about feeling like it was unsafe to speak up because liberal religious people give the benefit of the doubt to conservatives over Atheists.

          America may be christ centered, but its even more religion centered. And that includes all monotheistic religions as well as some others.

        9. I’m atheist as all get out and I have tons of internalized Christian-centrism. That shit is hard to shake, and I firmly recommend giving the side-eye to any atheist/agnostic who claims to be free of despite growing up in a Christian household.

        10. What about second or third generation atheists and agnostics though? Does one have to be indoctrinated into another religion to be neutral? Would American Jews or Muslims of Hindus have tons of internalized Christian-Centrism? What about American Atheist Jews?

          Just as Shoshie was offended to be included in the monotheistic religions as part of oppresion, I suspect that telling atheists that they are christ centric is liable to ruffle some feathers. Indeed it could be construed as an erasure of the large Jewish Atheist population to claim that Atheists are christ-centric. Your comment certainly shows how christ centered you are in that regard when you call atheists christ centered. Projection much?

        11. Liberal religion like Shoshie’s Judaism (which happens to be Conservative Judaism, ironically enough, but never mind the details) “does a lot of harm,” Bagelsan? I’d love to hear your explanation of that one.

          And for those denying that atheists often approach Judaism from a highly Christiancentric viewpoint (at least culturally), your memories are remarkably short. Go back and read the Simone Weil thread, where a very specific example of exactly that just occurred, with amblingalong sharing hir brilliant insights on the so-called Old Testament vs. the New Testament, and I very specifically pointed it out. Hey, it happens sometimes even with Jewish atheists. It’s hard for anyone to avoid absorbing the Christiancentric attitudes and assumptions inherent in Western culture.

        12. Well the republicans used to effectively be the democrats. Its always amusing to trip up conservatives with that.

          I would never refer to the Torah, I guess specifically the Tanakh, yay for listening to friends talk about their bat mitzvah I guess, as the Old Testament while speaking to a Jewish person. I don’t really use the words old testament in general even arguing with conservative evangelicals.

          However, strawman, the contention was that all Atheists are Christian-centric(the as promised wording going forward). One personal experience example doesn’t justify applying that context to all other atheists.

        13. Matt, nobody’s neutral. Nobody in the US is free from Christian centrism or antisemitism, even Jews. And, really, you clearly have no interest in actually understanding my perspective, because cleeeeeearly you know everything about what it is to be Jewish from your friends. So, really, just fuck you and fuck every conversation on this blog that even touches on religion. I’m just done. This is why I was hesitant to post in the first place.

        14. Many atheists display christian centrism. And some also display a rage directed purely at a single denomination too so their christian centrism is relatively harmless. Not all atheists however do display this trait.

          Just because I don’t use the very specific exact phrasing you use every single time I say it doesn’t mean I don’t understand the concept.

          I used the proper spelling previously in that same fucking post. Sorry that its the internet and I left off a few letters one freaking time. Clearly displays my non-understanding a a complex issue. Totes.

          You don’t want atheists to smear all religion with the same brush, but you insist on generalizing atheists with a specific trait.

          Its a classic joke that many atheists know the bible better than most christians, often ex divinity students. Some Jewish Atheists know the Torah, in the sense that it means the whole body of Jewish law and its teachings, better than most religious Jews. Some atheists were even pagans, and not in the new age sense, and some atheists were Buddhists, or still are, since technically Buddhism doesn’t conflict with atheism. Some atheists don’t live in a Christian nation. At least then you must concede that not all atheists are christian centric…

          I grew up in St. Louis. That doesn’t mean I perceive all baseball through the eyes of a cardinal fan.

          At best I will concede to christian influenced, or christian aware. No matter how much you personally feel I am christian centric, which you can’t possibly know since I rarely get into extensive atheist debates here, that doesn’t make it true. amblingalong is a christian centric atheist, that doesn’t make all atheists christian centric.

        15. The straw women are out in force today it seems. I never said I know every damn thing in the world about Judaism. I referenced the effect of Judaism on atheism, and argued against a specific use of the words old testament by a specific person as defining all of atheism. I will happily concede that I am at least as anti-semitic as a practicing conservative jewish person or even a reformed jewish person.

          But you have absolutely told me that you know more about Atheism than me, so even if I claimed to know more about Judaism than you we would be even.

          You are not an atheist but you know that me and all the other atheists are christian centric. That’s not even subtle, that’s a blatant claim to knowing more about atheism than an atheist.

          Indeed I am not at all weary of hearing about those damn mean atheists picking on those poor religious people.

          You are not interested in knowing about my position at all either, you already decided, so fuck you and now we are both fucked. Equality in action.

          Religious centrism is just as valid a pervasive and endemic problem as christian centrism. And just as all atheists by living in America are pervaded by a general sense of anti-semitism, all religious people in America are pervaded by a general sense an anti-atheism.

          I could see after a few posts that replying to shoshie instead of starting a new comment thread was going badly, and I regret that, but I still stand by what I’ve said.

        16. Liberal religion like Shoshie’s Judaism (which happens to be Conservative Judaism, ironically enough, but never mind the details) “does a lot of harm,” Bagelsan? I’d love to hear your explanation of that one.

          Have you heard of the google? This isn’t an Atheism 101 blog, yanno.

        17. America may be christ centered, but its even more religion centered. And that includes all monotheistic religions as well as some others.

          I have to disagree with America being religion-centric, as opposed to Christian-centric. There are relatively few people who would go “Oh, you’re pagan/heathen/Santerian/Sikh/Muslim? Well that’s cool, because you’re religious.” Most non-Christian religions (and some Christian denominations) are vilified by large portions of the population. And when other religions are acknowledged & accepted (often in somewhat-liberal environments), it’s often in an erasing “oh, they’re all really the same” fashion.

        18. “– but you’re behaving particularly childishly when you refuse to discuss what you mean in a subthread of a post about the importance of dialogue! It’s mind-boggling, frankly.

          Also, on the meat of what you’re saying -”

          No cognitive dissonance here for ya? Typing those two paragraphs next to each other? :p

        19. Credentials aren’t really relevant, atheism isn’t an institution after all.

          Its pretty common in social justice for the same system to serve two goals. Liberal religion can be both a transitional or end game state for previously more conservatively religious people.

          It can still support a religious culture of oppression. They are not mutually exclusive.

          The real world doesn’t give a fuck about morals or ideas or beliefs.

          Dichotomies are primarily a human invention. One person can be both good and bad at the same time. If we want to use such simplistic terms.

          That is why I prefer the analogy of rape culture in a feminist context, because a lot of feminists already understand that idea, which is fundamentally similar to to the way liberal religion works.

          People often claim that their religion is central to their identity or helps them deal with life. Well misogyny does the same thing. The fact that this upsets many feminists is not the fault of the atheist. Just as rape culture or pervasive anti semitism upsetting other people are not the fault of women or jewish persons.

          I think you can be a racist, of any kind, episcopalian and still be a feminist. I think that Shoshie disagrees that anti-semitic people can be feminists. Bagelsan disagrees that a religious person can be a feminist.

          A serious problem in feminism is the one true feminist wars being based on each feminist’s personal identity. Hence the label of identity politics. Hence my comparison of feminism to christian denominations.

          A recent issue in Atheism is being Atheist+. This has to do with many feminists and also PoC being upset with old white rich dudes having most of the power.

          I would argue that race and religion are Feminist+ issues.

        20. Religions invented by old British civil servants are treated exactly the way they deserve to be. As silly. All religion is silly, but some are just really silly.

          As far as America not being religion centered, Jewish people are treated as less disruptive and dangerous than Atheists. Even the pretty crazy crap gets more shrift than Atheism. Islam is treated poorly right now for a specific reason. That the reason is ridiculous is not relevant.

          If you are either not Atheist, or don’t live somewhere besides the coastal states, the amount of hatred for Atheists may not be that apparent to you.

          The distinction between non-christian and and christian and theist vs atheist may not be perfectly equal, it may not be large enough to affect your life, but its still there.

        21. @Shoshie – though you may get tired of defending your existence as a religious feminist, I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of reading them. I’m glad you do (at least when you have the energy) because I think the conversation is much richer for it.

      2. And Matt, if you don’t even notice or understand the difference between Christian-centrism and “Christ centrism,” you clearly have no comprehension of what Shoshie is talking about, or what I’m talking about. Christ.

        1. I left off some letters. Big deal. Do you mean if I don’t know the difference that she imputes to a few extra letters? Christ is often a stand in for christians. There are also other meanings for christ centered. But honestly, didn’t we just have a discussion over ridiculous nitpicking?

          I will use the entire word in the future, with upper case letters. Does that meet with your approval?

        2. My point is that the two are not remotely the same; it’s neither ridiculous nor nit-picking, and that your insistence that atheists don’t display Christiancentrism indicates that you don’t know what it means. However you spell it.

        3. Actually, I had no idea what he meant until he explained it, because the two do have different meanings.

          By the way, I am not arguing that all atheists, even all atheists from Christian family backgrounds, necessarily speak from a Christiancentric viewpoint, just that it’s common, and it’s something that should be guarded against.

          After all, as I’ve pointed out many times, I’m a Jewish atheist myself, and yet I’m aware that the influence of Christianity on popular culture — with respect to attitudes towards Judaism and many other things — is sufficiently pervasive that it’s easy for anyone to absorb.

        4. I had to think for several seconds before I could figure out what YOU were talking about with regards to christ centered having a different special meaning. I’m not up on all the hippest christ apologia these days.

          I’m still not sure if you meant christocentric as opposed to christ centered or if they are the same thing.

        5. OK, briefly, assuming that you’re actually being serious:

          Christiancentric, rather obviously, is a term used as a criticism, like heterocentric.

          Christ-centered and Christ-centric are almost always used as positive terms, usually by evangelical Christians themselves, if the Google results are any indication.

          In addition, the former is usually used in the context of discussions concerning the pervasive influence of the Christian religion on socio-cultural attitudes and assumptions. The latter has a much narrower meaning, having to do with consciously centering one’s life around Jesus, that kind of thing.

          Is that sufficiently clear in indicating why I suspected that by using the two interchangeably you didn’t really understand what the former meant?

        6. And, of course, I’m still waiting for Bagelsan’s treatise on the great harms caused by liberal religion.

        7. Well, regardless of what you thought, I initially didn’t understand what you thought the latter meant.

          Do I believe in miscommunication on the internet? Yes.

        8. I actually went into it a little bit already, DonnaL, but more to the point, do you know how to use google? Because Atheism 101 is kind of about how religion is harmful (yes, even the “liberal” forms.) And this isn’t a 101 blog last I checked.

        9. That’s an patently absurd comment, Bagelsan. This is not an atheist blog. The “101-level” argument, therefore, is entirely inapplicable, and you don’t get to rely on it to avoid justifying your broad generalizations. If it were, I could simply tell you to use google to remedy your profound ignorance of — for example — all forms of Judaism. Including those for which it’s possible to be, simultaneously, an atheist and a practicing Jew.

        10. Um, I am an atheist and ethnically half-Jewish. I don’t need to google it. And if this “isn’t an atheist blog” then why is it a race and class and trans blog? People here are expected to educate themselves on what they’re ignorant of, yes? Why are you asking for spoonfeeding?

        11. Some things are a little bit more related to feminism, and intertwined with it, than others, Bagelsan. I don’t see how it’s possible to call yourself a progressive feminist, for example, without being anti-racist. It’s entirely possible, however, to be a progressive feminist without being an atheist.

          More to the point, I’m an atheist myself, as I’ve said a number of times. I’ve self-identified as such since before you were born, most likely. I am quite sure I know at least as much as you do about the harms wrought by religion throughout history; I’m the last person you should be calling “ignorant.” And, yet, I strongly disagree with your assertions about the supposed “great harm” caused by liberal religion in general or progressive, feminist Judaism in particular. I don’t buy it, and I think your position trivializes opposition to religious bigotry, and I’d like to hear more than generalized platitudes and directions to Google in response.

        12. Ooh, ageism too? Nothing but good can come of me trying to engage you, clearly! 9_9 But I’ll try:

          Frankly, I don’t think there can be such a thing as “feminist” religion; it’s too steeped in patriarchy and it has, as it’s entire premise, the idea that some mythical being has the right to arbitrarily direct one to do or not do things. Like the oh-so-liberal practice of washing after menstruation or staying separate from men or covering up your skin or having an obligation to have children; none of that jives with my feminism, and even the pretense that some people flimsily uphold of being feminist and religious is damaging because they become (willingly) shields for the more oppressive folks whenever religion is criticized. They say “well I’m not like that!” and derail the conversation into “OMG don’t question my identity!” whenever religious views (and their accompanying social views) are critiqued. It’s a silencing tactic that religious folk use, and it’s a way for them to dodge the responsibility they share for the oppressiveness of religion as an institution.

        13. I don’t know whether you are a child, Bagelsan – I may well be younger than you, as I’m only in my early twenties – but you’re behaving particularly childishly when you refuse to discuss what you mean in a subthread of a post about the importance of dialogue! It’s mind-boggling, frankly.

          Also, on the meat of what you’re saying –

          I don’t think I would so readily agree that liberal religion serves as a shield for fundamentalist extremism and abuses. I would reposition it, actually, as an escape hatch by which people who simultaneously have a spiritual life of some sort and yet who also believe rationally in the egalitarian politics of the social justice movement.

          One of my closest friends – really, my best friend – grew up in a liberal Christian denomination. He was vaguely pro-life through adolescence, but as he got to college, encountered different philosophies and politics, and met his future wife, he underwent tremendous changes in philosophy. He is not a priest (as he once wanted to be) but he is married; he is supportive of feminism and social justice in general; he has an open relationship with his wife because he values her freedom; and he has managed to hold onto his belief in God.

          Atheists, let us remember, are not the only people who have been persecuted by religious majorities. Anne Hutchinson was driven out of the Massachusetts Bay colony and persecuted by puritans not because she was an atheist, but because she was an early feminist Christian. Quakers for centuries were brutalized and oppressed in the US and in England – and the Quakers have been at the heart of some of the most important social justice movements in modern history, from abolitionism to the anti-war movements to feminism.

          And before you ask me for my creds, I’m an atheist, the child of two atheists, each of whom are the children of two atheists. There is no one to whom I am blood related who believes in any God at all. We’re vaguely culturally Christian, but so far divorced from actual practice of religion that I remained baldly ignorant of basic facts of Christian belief and practice (what baptism is, what the whole grape juice and crackers thing was about) until I got to college. I’m as atheist as any of you.

      3. Bagelsan, since the green space was being filled up I split this into a new red post:

        Atheism is the purview of old privileged white men don’t you know. We aren’t really oppressed, thus the religious don’t need to have any knowledge of atheism. They can assert whatever they damn well please, define our atheism for us, and do all sorts of things that we must never do to either christian or non christian religions.

        Shoshie knows more about my atheism than I do, so its totally cool for her to tell me its christian centric even though she is neither a mind read nor an atheist.

        1. That was simply a response to your calling me “ignorant,” Bagelsan. All it means is that I’ve been an atheist for a long time, specifically since childhood. You could be 70 for all I know!

        2. I think you need to be careful here. I do think its possible to be feminist without being atheist since feminism isn’t a particularly defined ideology. Its a large group of ideologies, which of course is comparable to Christiandom in that way 🙂

          I’m not a feminist for instance although I could technically self identify as one because the philosophy I subscribe to has a lot in common with it, but I am an atheist.

          I do think its a pretty common belief that liberal religious people are acting really strange in trying to reclaim a religion built not just on patriarchy but all kinds of kyriarchy. Nearly every religion has a long history of bigotry, violence towards non-nuerotypicals, women, gender non-conforming persons, different racial groups, every other religion and so forth.

          Religion is also in some sense a waste of human energy and nearly every benefit of religion is available from secular sources.

          Aside from UU pretty much most liberal religions as well as liberal practitioners of non liberal religions create an environment in which people refuse to believe complaints, especially from children, about religious abuse.

          The idea that liberal religions in the institutional sense, and liberal religious people in the personal sense refuse in many cases to make spaces for children who don’t want to be involved in the church is abhorrent to me. It has also resulted in violence and emotional trauma for some of my compatriots. However shfree shows us that even atheists are not immune to this harmful idea.

          My other problem with liberal religion is that liberal religious figures are still given the “benefit of sanctity”. The same liberals who would go after a sports coach or teacher for abusing a child spend an enormous amount of time trying to let their priests/pastors off the hook.

          That the religious liberals refuse to argue for removal of the RCC’s tax exempt status, and also the evangelicals, post child abuse scandal and blatant attempt to control American politics is just one example of the harm they cause.

          If a priest commits a crime he should go to jail just like everyone else.

          And yes, prominent atheists calling to arrest the pope for crimes against humanity are fucking solid. The Catholics have their own fucking country for fuck sakes. Fat chance liberal religions will ever support this.

          Atheists don’t even have a national political structure that goes back 100s of years but we had to do the heavy lifting in a lot of cases of religious abuse.

          This article:
          http://www.alternet.org/story/147357/should_i_quit_my_religion_some_questions_for_the_new_atheists?page=0%2C4
          has some solid defenses of liberal religion though, however I doubt that the writers involved would agree with rape culture or pervasive anti-semitism, and pervasive racism among everyone in America so it would be hard for a lot of feminists to use its arguments to defend their religion.

          As I believe I said in my initial post liberal religion is harmful in the same way that rape culture is harmful. Shoshie doesn’t like that comparison, well I don’t like the idea of rape culture but that’s just too bad for me because as a radical ideologist I have to deal with any theory that demonstrates real world results.

          I do think that in certain ways the prominent thinkers referred to as The New Atheists have failed the rational community with regard to social issues only tangentially related to fighting religion.

        3. Most of the atheists I have met, however, have absorbed a lot of the majority culture, ie Christianity. My family’s always celebrated Christmas, as did a number of atheist Jewish families I knew growing up. But past that, Christian morality – valuing kindness, humility, sacrifice, service, and meekness – are all ways in which EVERYONE in America, and not just those going to Sunday School, are taught how to behave. It’s been interesting for me to unpack what things I believe because they genuinely make sense to me, and what things I believe because I was told in elementary school that it was good to be humble, meek, and self-sacrificing, ideas I absorbed sans Jesus (but because of institutionalized Christianity).

          I mean, the christian-centered term came into this conversation after an atheist posted on another thread maybe two weeks ago talking about how Christianity is better than Judaism because God told Saul to kill all the Amalekites or something, treating Judaism as a static artifact rather than a religion which, like Christianity, has evolved over millennia and was not merely the precursor to JAYSUS.

        4. @Alexandra: That can go both ways. Many atheists are actually getting there through a reaction against Christianity and end up with a more negative reaction to Christianity than other religions.

          And are you really claiming Christianity as the source of modern morality? The whole concept of individual freedoms and rights are concepts of the Enlightenment, which was largely a reaction against Christianity. And with the its entrenched misogyny and intolerance it would seem problematic to defend in a feminist space.

          I was going to try to stay out of this, but the old “morals come from religion” canard really gets to me.

        5. As I have stated I prefer Judaism to christianity for a variety of reasons. Also, I disagree with being meek and self sacrificing. I am not humble is some sense either.

          My morality comes from a rationalist tradition that extends back reasonably far and isn’t based on ostensibly christian ideas or reasons.

          There is some christian influence, which was in turn influenced by Judaism though.

  12. Eve this is a wonderful post. Very thought provoking, well thought out, and insightful.

    I was raised in a very similar situation to what you describe. My family life was… not good when it was at it’s very best. I finally made my final split with religion a little over a year ago. The family that I still keep into contact with all found out a couple of months ago and things have been very difficult since then. I feel stuck in this place and I think that after years of not getting it, ironically it’s as an atheist that I understand their “hate the sin but love the sinner” rhetoric. I love my dad and my aunt dearly, but the things that they say are quite awful a lot of the time. I find that the best way to try and actually engage them is to painstakingly argue from the POV that we both want the same things, which is to see the most people as well off as can possibly be. It’s a hard thing to do, to constantly give good faith to people who really hate everything you stand for. Now, I’m not really advocating doing this, especially not in social justice spaces where there is some level of decency that is expected, but sometimes it is actually possible to win people in your personal life over by presenting them with an unfamiliar viewpoint from a person who they find to be sympathetic to them.

  13. Ms Eve: I have enjoyed your style of posting with questions at the end, and regret that things got so flooded some lines of thought died on the vine without follow-up.

    It’s brave of you to admit that you might still be in the bubble had “the system worked as promised” and you and yours received the cures/rewards to which you felt entitled. I’ll definitely agree with your indirect point that there are intelligent people on the other side.

  14. Thanks for such a thoughtful post, Eve. I don’t have a lot of energy today for conversing but definitely some things to think on.

  15. Yes, sometimes people doing and saying evil sh*t really believe they are doing good and act out of ignorance. Recognizing this can be important to understand their motivations, and perhaps we should judge them less severely because of this.

    However, as we all know intent is not magic. They are still doing evil sh*t which will affect others, and tolerance should only go so far.

    How do we talk to the people who were educated incorrectly– who have Religion or Religious-based textbooks to support the wrong facts, who vote and behave accordingly– without putting them on the immediate defense?

    It is a sad fact of life that sometimes we can’t meaningfully talk to them at all. Because sometimes there is nothing we could possibly say and no possible evidence that could make them change their minds. This is a more general issue than just about those raised in a fundamentalist environment. For very many people, once they have become emotionally invested in a certain belief, then this belief is basically no longer subject to change due to rational argument or evidence. If it happens, it is a slow process of emotional change.

    1. A friend of mine has a lot of facebook political discussions with his fellow ex Missouri Scholars Academy kids and its depressing how so many of the women think Ryan is hot, and also a cool guy who will fix America. He told me that after one time a bunch of his female friends defended Ryan he cried. Its cause they are rich white girls I guess, so they just don’t care about Ryan advocating for rapist’s rights. They just can’t imagine their lives going in a direction where his ridiculous policies will affect them. One of them even said something like that, with some fun racist undertones, nobody even batted an eye.

      1. Its cause they are rich white girls I guess, so they just don’t care about Ryan advocating for rapist’s rights.

        Jeez.

  16. No question, it is difficult to get people to imagine their way into other people’s shoes. Many forms of religion are difficult for the non-religious to understand. For those raised in conservative evangelical families, exposure to the outside world is not necessary. There is an entire alternate media world that includes news, music, film, books, comics, etc. Home schooling and “Christian schools” (evangelical, socially and racially homogenous), church-based alternate entertainment and social venues (church gyms, youth groups, hobby clubs for youth and adults), and an attitude that the only thing of interest about strangers is “are they saved or not?” all contribute to incurious but comfortable and predictable life in a bubble.

    I have no sympathy for Akin, because his job requires him to exist in the life outside the bubble. He ought to be able to Google for basic physiologic facts. Politicians do not get a free pass for teh stupid. And yes, I do believe that Akin, and Ryan, and Romney, and many other politicians in the Republican Party, and quite a few in the Democratic Party, view women as existing for the benefit of men. Conservative religion contributes to but is certainly not required in order to hold that attitude.

  17. Homework Assignment to Progressives:
    Listen to a conservative evangelical radio station, particularly to call in help shows (what are believers’ real concerns?) and to news and politics shows (what are the leaders saying?). I have done this for years, in order to understand the conservative religious environment in the state I moved to (Missouri, home of Akin).

    1. Living in Missouri is so hard. Even if you discount the UUs and live in University City where I do which is full of UU and Atheist people, full is a relative term, like 20% tops. I can’t imagine trying to live in the rest of Missouri. And boy do people hate on Missouri. If you tell someone you are from Missouri the looks on their faces is pretty painful to see.

    2. This is a lot easier for me in some cases than in others. I am genuinely interested to hear where people come down on issues of economics, for instance, but when I try to listen to conservative radio shows with callers, I often have to stop listening after ten minutes because my blood pressure shoots up so fast I can feel it.

      This is probably because we are in election season (and this whole entire past twelve months has been election season, IMHO) and dander is raised and everyone is so angry, but I am so sorry- I can’t deal with the racism and xenophobia and misogyny. I can’t. I can’t. I wish that that “let’s listen to both sides of the issue!” rhetoric wasn’t applied so liberally in debates about one person’s rights versus another person’s right to control someone else’s rights.

    3. That’s pretty much what I do here. I read this along with several feminist sites so I know “how that side thinks” and so I can protect myself in a social atmosphere where there are a lot of them so I can blend in suspiciously if need be. I do the same with different racial supremacist blogs, religious diehards and evangelicals, political outlets, and even conspiracy theorists.

      This kind of research is also a great way to get news about “non mainstream” news cus subcultures and activist groups are REAL good about unearthing news about topics that matter to them that probably didn’t make the 7pm highlight real. Some times you have to wade through a lot of falsely inferred reasoning and heavily opinionated facts but most of the time the truth IS in there if you look. Also knowing which parts of a subculture you AGREE with is INVALUABLE when used as conversation points because people will assume you agree with everything they think when really your only naming specific instances.

      All war based on deception, as such, you can never learn to much about your potential enemies.

    4. This is not necessarily as good as an idea as it seems like it should be. If you’re lacking some of the cultural knowledge (especially in how certain religiously loaded language is used), you can come away with the impression that the subculture you’re trying to educate yourself about is way more reactionary and irrational than it actually is.

      For example, when I read a friend someone on her (written for a Christian homeschooling audience) say “God was clearly looking after us and I thank Him” because the friend who was going to pick up her family from the airport and who knew they had two small children had miraculously brought two appropriately-sized car seats, I read this as “Jane thinks that it was only because her god directly intervened that her friend brought car seats, even though it’s obvious that a family with two small kids traveling by air might not have car seats with them and her friend probably just used hir common sense. WTF, Jane has gone off the deep end, and she can’t even thank her friend for being thoughtful, she has to credit her God for it.”

      However, I have been assured that what Jane really meant “I was really worried about car seats for whatever reason, so it was a huge relief to me to realize everything was going to be okay when my friend showed up with them.”

      1. Its still weird. I might expect her to say thank god, but a longer and specially worded response seems strange. Plus many Christians really would believe that car seats were divine providence.

        But also if you were thinking about it you could possibly say well, maybe its just a hold over from when people really did believe god was responsible and its just so ingrained she didn’t think about it.

        I guess its similar to the christian homeschooling movement where christians kept their kids out of school because the school taught facts, like evolution and such, and now people perceive all christian homeschoolers as having this desire.

        1. Yes, it is weird, and yes, this was written for Christian homeschoolers, and yes, she probably on some level does believe her god was involved (maybe reminding her friend to not take the car-seats out of the car, IDK). The point is that in my ignorance of how language is used in that sub-culture made me think her views were more extreme than they actually were.

  18. I have been following this blog for over a year now. I keep up with the daily updates… I am student of sociology, women’s and gender studies, in particular. The issues on this blog are interesting and important to me, but you know what? I would never think of commenting (except for this once), because one poorly worded or conceived idea is met with such hostility. I sincerely want to be educated on when I overstep my privileges as a white girl from a middle-class background. By that I mean, I would like to know why or how I’m acting on privilege rather than “GTFO with your privilege”. I guess the common retaliation is that I should have to educate myself, but how can a person restricted to communication with only other people like themselves (naiive, white, male, etc) educate themselves on how they hurt other groups?

  19. Presumably by direction to spaces designed for social justice 101. But since 101 doesn’t actually mean much besides crap that the person saying do 101 already understands personally, its hard to say. Plus if you do find such a place its likely to be failing in several areas.

    Furthermore association with people who are of some oppressed group isn’t necessarily helpful because said people might not hold the same beliefs about their condition as other people of the group.

    I suppose the standard answer is if someone says that’s offensive you go research that one issue and then decide if you agree or not. If not, prepare to get attacked anytime you post an opinion on that topic. If so, you now have 1 of 10000 issues out of the way. You will still get an intense push back on any other issue you happen to not understand or disagree about.

    The advice for that is, totally unironically, get over it. For people who are just not that into confrontation, snark, sarcasm, or insults and profanity, it doesn’t seem like Feministe is the best place. There are some moderated spaces around or 101 spaces where you have to make sure that while posting there you don’t pick up some of the issues of that specific place that are not okay. Some may be racist or ableist or something. You have to avoid absorbing that even though it may be hard to find a place to learn about any given social justice issue that is 101 enough and also not a hostile environment.

    Your other options include soloing it with books and blogs but not commenting, and maybe read some articles.

    Many activist spaces are plagued with holier than thou activists so its probably impossible to avoid some sort of hostility about 25% of the time.

  20. Let me answer your question with an anecdote (because this is me and that is what I do!)

    When I was younger and moved into my first place, I frequently had members of a particular Christian sect who would frequently knock on my door in an effort to convince me to join their church. As a former pastor’s daughter who had “gone a stray” they were determined to bring me back into the fold. For the first six months or so, I politely answered the door, invited them inside, listened to their pitch, served them tea and tried to explain why their world view was wrong headed. Knowing the bible pretty much backwards forward and upside down, I can make a pretty convincing argument for why that book is – let’s say – flawed. And I know I caused a few of them to rethink how they perceived the bible and their faith. But doing that twice a week for six months…after a while, it really got on my nerves. Because, honestly, I’m just trying to live my life over here, stop bugging me already. For the next 3 or 4 months, I took the gloves off. No tea, no hydrox cookies, no gently pointing out flaws, instead pointing out with cutting politeness all the horrific things “God” supposedly approves of (if you read the bible literally, as they did). People went away in tears and I was pleased about it. After all the pain they put me through, fuck them and their stupid fucking God. Then came the leader of this little gang of naggers, the pastor. Far more adept at arguing with heathans, he did not leave in tears, but he was forceably removed after deciding that a demon was speaking through me (keep in mind this was a more mainstream sect, not the extremist Evangelicals that I sometimes like to annoy) and attempting to grab me to take me somewhere where they could “pray over me.” You would think after that they would leave me the fuck alone (being possessed and all), but no…they decided to set up a prayer circle around me such that every week or two some person would come by my apartmen and leave a note saying that he “prayed for me” that day. At that point I stopped answering the door.

    Now maybe it possible that I could use my powers of gentile reason or even my powers of angry sacrasm to convince others to leave that particular sect…but you know what…I don’t care. I’m too tired, and too beaten from *years* of engaging with these people who make my life unpleasant to waste any more of my limited time on this planet trying to make them understand the world differently.

      1. Indeed. Most people don’t get prayer circles, usually just an annoying couple trying to get an hour of your time to tell you about their particular imaginary sky man.

      2. Yeah, it was pretty sweet. Sad thing is…it was probably done out of love. Seriously, they were worried about me. But regardless of how well intentioned they were…they were still obnoxious little fucks.

  21. Eve, I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for writing this! I think how we respond to ignorance is a central issue for feminist and other social justice blogs, speakers, etc. Each one will make their own choices about how to respond to ignorance, but I think it’s essential to have the conversation and be intentional about what our goals are and how to respond to ignorance in a way that is in line with those goals.

    In my own life, I am constantly negotiating a balance between wanting to maximize my capacity to educate others (which, on one extreme, would mean always giving people the benefit of the doubt, meeting them where they are, etc.) and doing what I need to do to be healthy and feel safe (which sometimes means I need not to hear ignorant things, or I need not to respond to ignorant things, especially if those things are personal).

    It helps me to think in terms of boundaries: I have boundaries that describe what kinds of things I will give people the benefit of the doubt on, and what things I won’t. These boundaries often align with my privileges and oppressions. For example, as a queer white cis woman, I can engage with someone about racism more patiently and forgivingly than I can engage with someone about heterosexism, because it takes extra emotional fortitude to be patient with someone when it is my own identity being attacked.

    With race, my privilege allows me to focus on educating rather than on protecting myself. But when queer issues come up, my own well-being is threatened, I make the choice to prioritize taking care of myself over educating. Often I protect myself by disengaging from conversations about queer issues without getting confrontational — but sometimes I am intentionally confrontational in defense of my own personhood, health, safety, etc.

    1. These are good points. Also, I really get what you mean about having more emotional fortitude to deal with issues that aren’t directly connected to your identity.

      I’d also put out there that this has to be a two-way street. Certainly striving to have as much patience and understanding as we personally can manage for those just entering SJ spaces is important. However, I’d also hope that those entering such spaces with any sort of good faith would try to remember that the people on the other side of the ‘net are also just that: people. Who have good days and bad days, are more or less patient, etc. And thus that they would try more than once, or lurk and read for a bit before jumping in again, instead of being completely derailed every time by the fact that people doing anti-oppression work sometimes get really sick of being stepped on even accidentally and get angry.

      From my own experience, lurking and reading is often very helpful, because you [general you] watch the same sort of thing go down a few times and your own defensiveness around the issue starts to drain away, and then you can grasp what is being said with more clarity instead of seeing it through the filter of your own bruised feelings.

  22. As a kind of agnostic christian (I am a Christian, I believe that all faith views including atheism are equally likely and valid and that all contain truth, and I see the Bible as a fallible and dated spiritual guide written by fallible and dated men) and a political liberal feminist, I worry about this a lot. This is the best method I have found:
    Bring up the problems with specific archaic views (creationism, homophobia, sexism, etc), but try to abstain from commentary on God directly. I understand that this can be difficult for the many individuals who have suffered injustice and oppression under Christians for not believing in God, but if communication and dialogue are the genuine intent, then this step is crucial. Once it becomes God, and not a specific issue that you are discussing, then the dialogue is quickly reduced to “God doesn’t exist, you can’t prove he does” and “Yes he does, you can’t prove she doesn’t” (gender disagreement deliberate), and then you won’t get anywhere. Make it about the issues. Try to open a person’s eyes about the inherent sexism, injustice, and unconstitutionality of the issue being discussed.
    As to tolerance, tolerance should be 100% when it comes to personal belief, be you any number of faiths or atheist, your right to believe what you want about the presence of god should be respected. However, attempting to force your personal belief on someone or limit their personal freedoms because of what you believe should never be respected or tolerated. Not taking birth control yourself is religious freedom, making others unable to take it is oppressive and sexist (bell hooks discusses this idea in ‘femenism is for everybody’). Call people out on confusing the two. Engage them in discussion about the difference, and why the difference is important and must be respected.
    I realize that this is far from a complete answer, this is just what I have found effective personally.

    1. As soon as religious adults let any child of theirs who requests to be left out of religious services to do so, I will be 100% tolerant of their faith. No telling a child that not wanting to go to church will result in being tossed into a lake off hellfire for all eternity.

      Any parent who forces their child to participate in religious activity, especially through physical violence or threats of damnation has voided any sort of tolerance or civility contract. I don’t care how worried about their soul you are.

      Also no withholding love and affection, no removal of all privileges, no favoritism to the religious child.

      The vast majority of Atheists are 100% tolerant of theists who keep their personal beliefs personal. To themselves and other adults who believe as they do.

      1. Well, because I love my parents and like to defend them, I’ll take a stab at this one, Matt. I had to go to church every Sunday, and go to Sunday school. But I never was once threatened with violence, nor in anything we were taught in that church led me to ever once believe that I was going to drown in a lake of hellfire if I didn’t go to church, because hell didn’t exist. That just wasn’t how they rolled. I don’t expect that my parents’ church will get your 100% seal of approval, simply because it exists, but my parents weren’t abusive monsters undeserving of tolerance for dragging me and my siblings to church every Sunday. If nothing else, what the fuck were they supposed to do with us when they went? Leave us at home by ourselves?

        And frankly, I’m okay with people believing what they want to believe. I’m glad that my parents find comfort and community in the sort of church that they do, and that their worship of some sort of higher power, as baffling and bizarre as I find it now, helps them face the unknown with less fear. Sometimes I wonder what it must feel like to still have that certainty and belief, because I think I had it once, at least I was raised to have it. It would be kind of cool, to still have that comfort of knowing that someone was supposedly looking out for you. But I digress.

        1. Well not all christian parents and churches are the same. But neither do all men sexually assault or harass women on a regular basis. This doesn’t mean that your church is value neutral.

          There are a lot of options for what could be done with kids. Babysitters, friends, older children, church daycare that doesn’t deal with biblical stuff.

          As I said earlier, I’m fine with your parents having their beliefs for themselves and for other adults. Whereas as SarahC’s example shows, kids will believe pretty much anything mommy and daddy tell them.

          Actually there is a branch of Christianity that gets my 100% seal of approval. The Unitarian Universalists. I think it was a Wisconsin branch who refunded the government for their religious tax exemption. I can be pretty damn sure they are supporting the freedom of religion in good faith.

          Using the word monsters is pretty disingenuous. Hyperbole much?

          How many times did you ask your parents to let you avoid church? Did you ever throw a tantrum and get punished for refusing to go?

          If so, your parents still aren’t monsters. Its still wrong and they still shouldn’t do it.

        2. I had to go through a lot of shit before my parents would allow me to stop attending church. Isolation, loss of privileges, extra chores… and these are very liberal Episcopalians we’re talking about.

          I’ve been told to my face that people can’t have morals if they don’t have religion. I’ve been told to be quiet, to sit apart from men, I’ve been told to cover up, all based on beliefs I don’t share. (None of these were from Christians, in fact.)

          Atheists go through a lot of crap thanks to religious people of any kind; I think I’ve run out of the benefit of the doubt, even with people like Shoshie who is otherwise a perfectly lovely person.

        3. First, this is my bad, because I should have put a trigger warning about Christian-centrism on this post. Criminy, I might even trigger the fuck out of myself, who knows.

          Well not all christian parents and churches are the same. But neither do all men sexually assault or harass women on a regular basis. This doesn’t mean that your church is value neutral.

          I never said it was. What I said it wasn’t was a church that didn’t teach of hell, which was something you implied all churches did, through punishing via hellfire if children didn’t go to church.

          There are a lot of options for what could be done with kids. Babysitters, friends, older children, church daycare that doesn’t deal with biblical stuff.

          Not an option for many parents. Baby sitters cost money, there aren’t often siblings that are old enough to mind younger ones, having friends babysit for free is asking an awful lot of them, assuming you have friends that don’t go to your church, even, and good luck finding a church daycare, on a Sunday, that doesn’t deal with biblical stuff.

          As I said earlier, I’m fine with your parents having their beliefs for themselves and for other adults. Whereas as SarahC’s example shows, kids will believe pretty much anything mommy and daddy tell them.

          Way to make common terms for parents come off like slurs. I’m sorry that your experiences with parents have been largely negative. I certainly do carry some baggage regarding my upbringing within the church environment. I’m not going to disagree with that, but none of it has to do with being taught a fear of sinning if I disobeyed my parents by having a hissyfit about going to church. And they didn’t demand that I believe, because you just flat out can’t force that shit. They just really really hoped I did, and are probably just as baffled by my disbelief as I am by their belief. I’m convinced of that now, as an adult.

          Using the word monsters is pretty disingenuous. Hyperbole much?

          You were the one who brought up the use of violence for the refusal to go to church, which I consider to be a monstrous and abusive thing, and I agree that the threat of eternal torment given to children is something worthy of contempt. But I don’t think that my parents insisting that I go to church even though I thought it was a chore, was monstrous, or worthy of that same contempt. I just want to make sure that my position is clear, and as I was the one who experienced that particular irritation, I get to make that call. I experienced no violence, no threat of damnation, Jesus was never going to be sad that I didn’t go to church, it was just my parents that were going to be peeved.

          Much in the way that they would be peeved for me pissing and moaning about doing something that they were going to do and I didn’t want to do, like going to one of my siblings’ irritating recitals. Although the worshiping was waaaaay more important to them.

          So stop making the assumptions that it is all about mind-numbing indoctrinations for all parents who drag their children to church, all the damn time. If it was about forcing belief down my throat, we probably would have looked at Leviticus, which I never ever read in Sunday school, and I never ever heard preached in Sunday services. And from what I understand, that is the pushiest book in the whole Old and New Testaments.

        4. I never implied that all churches did that, common straw person that jeefrees attempt to put on atheists. I said people who did that were bad, not all churches do that. I even named a church that has my 100% angry atheist blessing.

          Actually my problems with my parents had nothing to do with church, seeing as they were lapsed Methodists. As I said in another part of the thread, I spent more time at synagogues than I did at churches. Okay technically my boyscout troop met every week at a church and they once roped me into working at a soup kitchen. But they didn’t do very much jeefree pushing compared to some troops and it wasn’t a “church” event per say.

          Its nice that you didn’t suffer any ill consequences from going to church. The same cannot be said for many.

          As far as other activities goes, I’ve always advocated not forcing kids to do non legally mandated activities either. If your kid doesn’t want to learn piano or do sports or go orienteering and after multiple attempts to get them into it they still aren’t, leave them the hell alone.

          That’s actually a common argument used when I say kids should not be forced to go to church, poor bastards never even considered that I have a perfectly logically consistent answer for that.

          One issue I did have vis a vie parenting was my parents expecting me to have a good attitude when they forced me to do something they damn well knew I hated, and this is a common parenting attitude.

          Either force me to go or have me act like I am happy, I don’t do pretend.

          If your church can’t be bothered to host a play room for little kids who don’t want to go to services maybe they aren’t as down with Jesus as they claim anyways.

          Forcing little kids to dress up in stupid gender enforcing clothes to go listen to some boring old man talk about magical sky men is not okay.

          I’m sure some local atheists would be happy to host non religion or politics child play time on Sundays except for when one kid decided he was an atheist even though there was no discussion of it by staff and then they would get the shit beat out of them by angry fathers or get sued out of their ass because some parent’s child can separate story time from reality.

          What percent of even liberal religious parents do you think would be willing to send their kids to a no religion discussion play time on Sundays even if they had the option? Yeah right. And have some local church gossips know they respect the agency of children? As if.

          At best you might get some UU or Jewish kids.

        5. Actually there is a branch of Christianity that gets my 100% seal of approval. The Unitarian Universalists.

          Well, you’d be disappointed to know that UUA isn’t Christian. It’s roots are in Christianity, but it is not Christian. There’s no creed or mention of Christ in the Seven Principles, and the minority of UUs identify as Christian.

        6. people like Shoshie who is otherwise a perfectly lovely person.

          I’m sure she’ll appreciate the generous compliment!

        7. Well Rhoanna, as you say its rooted in Christianity. So yes it does accept atheists, agnostics, and generally anyone, but its basis was in Unitarianism and Universalism. Which were offshoots of Christianity for quite a while.

          Actually part of the reason it gets my 100% approval is its lack of specific creed.

        1. Such a great scene! Jane’s unabashed anti-Christian morality in the early bit of the novel (and her retaining her free will and questioning mind even after being so thoroughly chastened and confined by the Lowood School) is brilliant. One of my favorite novels, though Villette may be better.

  23. Great post, and discussion. As a Christian who was *not* raised in a Christian household, but converted on my own accord, I found this thread useful, especially Matt’s points about children.

    1. I’ve actually been pretty quiet about my views on child rearing. I learned my lesson long ago. But in the case of religion I am more likely to speak up.

      In my experience most atheists, especially in mixed marriages, maintain fair more equanimity about what their child ends up choosing to believe.

  24. First, I would like to take a moment for the sentence:

    I loved summer camp in the Sierra Foothills, which included “Speaking in Tongues” as an activity (after archery, before rock climbing).

    Superb. Also, excellent questions.

    The best advice I was ever given on this topic came from a rabbi, the Dean of Religious Life at my university. My then-girlfriend and I had been getting into it over religion. I was in grad school studying neuroscience and reading Richard Dawkins, and she had a homemade cross hanging from her rear-view mirror to remind her guardian angel to tag along. Somehow, we’d been dating for nearly a year before religion became a real issue.

    I tried to be nice – I really did, I cared about her a lot! – but my words came out over-heated in the fiery cauldron of my certitude that I was SO RIGHT and she was SO WRONG. There were tears. I did not change her mind. Not even a little bit.

    Sometime either just before or just after we broke up, I asked the good rabbi how I should have handled the situation, and she sighed as if I was telling her a very old story. She simply said, “I think the most important thing is kindness.” (Also she told me to find a nice Jewish girl, since they wouldn’t care whether or not I was an atheist).

    I think the best tack to take (if you have the time, the patience, the motivation and emotional fortitude whenever the chance happens to arise with any given person) is to plant the seed of an idea as kindly and gently as possible, and – here’s the kicker – give them a reason to talk to you, or to someone else who shares the same views as you do, about (whateveritis) again later.

  25. My family is about as secular as you can get – there’s no one living among my near blood relations who believe in God (who I’ve met in the flesh – I think I have a first cousin twice removed who’s a Jehovah’s Witness, but I’ve spoken to her on the phone only once in my life.) I grew up comfortable in my disbelief, well supported in that disbelief at home. Interestingly, as I became college-aged, I went through a series of faintly ludicrous flirtations with faith, because not only was I not religiously educated, my family was also fairly socially isolated within the community, and never spent much time on a basic moral education. I was taught that it’s wrong to hit people because they don’t like it, and not to steal because that’s breaking the law, and that’s really about it.

    However, those flirtations are mostly past. I am now very comfortable as a person with deep moral convictions that come from an areligious source, something which a lot of people find hard to understand (my parents don’t get why ethics is so important to me and to my brother, and I have met numerous religious people who don’t think you can have a moral system that wasn’t handed down on tablets to your ancestors or something).

    Nevertheless, I was lucky enough to have a number of genuine encounters with lovely religious people and beautiful religious philosophy, and I’m also lucky enough to have an obnoxious Angry Atheist in the family whose first conversation with his brother’s fiance devolved into him belittling her for being vaguely Episcopalian. Being exposed not only to the good and beautiful in religion, but also to the absurd, dogmatic, and intolerant in atheism, has been very useful to me in keeping perspective.

    I should note that, having spent about two thirds of my life on either the east or the west coast, religion and belief one way or another has never been an axis of oppression for me. My father had some trouble when he was teaching in Colorado Springs, but I asked him the other night – after the Simone Weil thread, actually – whether he thought atheists were persecuted in the academy more than religious minorities and he just rolled his eyes and laughed. The most traumatic thing that ever happened to me as an atheist was being witnessed to for three hours on a school bus on the way to an away game with the high school band. I rather enjoyed arguing with substitute teachers about why I should be allowed not to say the pledge of allegiance; it made me feel like a rebel.

    So yes, my atheism has been cheaply won and defended, hence it not being the core of my identity. My uncle the Angry Atheist faced real career setbacks – he does work on stem cells, and had to leave his home country for Singapore – and my first boyfriend, an atheist Jew, had some trouble with his father, who was a conservative rabbi. I think in many ways I am more psychologically akin to the vaguely Episcopalian – people who go to church for the high holidays, think Jesus is great, and otherwise live their lives without direction from the Bible. I wish all religion and atheism could be like that, it’s so restful.

  26. Hello Everyone- excuse me for not interjecting this interruption in a thread and instead jumping in HERE.

    The discussion here is incredibly interesting and thoughtful; thank you, as always, for your passion.

    I feel, however, the thread(s) which seems to primarily be about atheism/religion, have ventured away from the goals of my piece long and far enough. Please focus on the questions I presented at the bottom of my post, and my concern about discourse.

    I am on the road all day today, but will offer some more thoughts later tonight or tomorrow!

    Matt, please take a break from posting.

    Thanks!

    1. Eve: That does seem reasonable, and please feel free to just nuke the somewhat ill tempered post I have in moderation (currently 116).

      And by the way: The OP was excellent IMO.

    2. sorry didn’t see this. i will refrain from responding to anyone who doesn’t refer to me by name.

  27. So, in addition to what Eve has said in her previous comment: Matt, partially this is emphasised by the nature of threaded comments, but you’re fairly strongly dominating this thread. You may wish to consider the volume and frequency of the comments you’re making here (and by here I mean more generally at Feministe as well as on this thread), because even I’m being discomforted, and I’m both obnoxious and dudely.

    1. I very rarely comment here to compared to other discussion places I visit. I happen to be online quite a bit and the majority of my posts in this post where made while I was waiting for Heroes of Newerth matchmaking. I also made about 100 other posts on 2 discussion forums.

      On this post it happened that one of the threads was an extensive discussion of atheist stuff in which several people participated. About 30% of my posts were directed at people who specifically mentioned my name, and about another 10% were to bagelsan, and another 40% to posters who were talking to me even if they didn’t use my name.

      However, I will refrain from commenting in response to people who make posts directed at me even though that feels weird to me, if other people think that is a good idea.

      Its possible that I am used to gaming forums a bit too much where threads can run into the hundreds of thousands of posts with frequent tangential conversations and I think that mentality may be somewhat adverse to this environment.

      1. an extensive discussion of atheist stuff in which several people participated

        But guess who started the whole atheism derail, which wasn’t what this thread was supposed to be about? You and Bagelsan. (See comments 74-75 above.) Because God forbid Shoshie should say something — which was directly relevant to this thread — about accomplishing something by showing that it’s possible to live a religious life while also being a feminist and a progressive. (See comment 68.) Of course the usual suspects had to jump on that, thereby derailing the thread pretty much completely.

        1. You participated in the derail extensively. Your hands aren’t clean. Its fine for Eve to call me out as the OP and a non participant, but if you didn’t want an extended derail you could have not responded and the problem would have more or less evaporated. It takes two sides of an argument to derail.

          And I’ve never argued with Shoshie before this, and neither am I the most active Feministe derailer.

          In any case none of the other derailers got a personal shut up like I did, in fact I got 3 of them.

          Me and Bagelsan were on topic before you arrived in any case. We were talking about discourse. It wasn’t the best post to reply to maybe but we were still in the confines of the discussion prior to your responses.

          Actually if you look at all of my “many” derails you might find that certain other posters are the “usual suspects” on the other side, while the majority of the other commentators have maybe commented 1-3 times to me for as long as I’ve been here.

          Something to think about. On my side I think I should avoid ever engaging in any way with those specific posters going forward, they know who they are, since they get a free pass for their involvement while I develop a “reputation.”

          Following the previously outlined strategy I wonder how many derails we will see in the future. My guess is 0.

        2. Two small comments, and then I’ll bow out: there were already more than a dozen responses to your comment before I said a single word in this thread. The train was already well off the tracks. And I don’t recall ever accusing you of “many derails.” Have a nice holiday.

        3. Matt-

          A few tips on how to tell if you’re derailing:

          1. If your name is amongst the 10 ‘Recent Comments’ in the right column more than 4 times

          2. If you respond to this.

        4. Actually if you look at all of my “many” derails you might find that certain other posters are the “usual suspects” on the other side

          “Certain other posters”? What kind of junior-high passive-aggressive bullshit is this? What are you doing, trying to maintain plausible deniability or something?

          I just scrolled back, and here’s who’s been responding to you in this thread (I’m afraid you’re not so fascinating that I’m going to go check other threads): DonnaL, Shoshie, Safiya Outlines, shfree, Rhoanna, Alexandra. Which of these commenters do you mean, precisely? Not Shoshie, as you say you never interacted with her before. That leaves five. Who is it, in your opinion, who is being given a free pass while you are unjustly blamed? If you’ve got a beef, act like an adult.

  28. Over the past 10 or so years, my mother has become increasingly conservative in her politics. I have frequently avoided the topic entirely because it was so unpleasant–she would make a point, I would say, “Well, I think there’s more to it than that. Have you considered…?” At which point she would listen for a little bit, get really defensive, and then say, “You know, I really don’t know enough about this topic to have an informed discussion. What should we have for dinner tonight?”

    But! This morning we actually talked about politics in a way that felt, dare I say it, productive. She asked me politely whether or not I was planning to vote for Mr. Obama (she refers to all presidents as Mr.) and then listened while I explained why that was likely to be the case. Who knows if it will stick, but it finally felt like a tiny little bit of progress.

    (Side note: the atheism derail reminds me of why these conversations so often aren’t productive. )

  29. After reading all the thoughtful and passionate and interesting comments above, I must be a little off topic here and say:

    Woo! UC Santa Cruz! And a question for @Eve, on the subject of bubbles- was your family based in Northern California? I ask because I grew up in the bay area, and one of my bubbles, growing up was one in which the more conservative forms christian fundamentalism were something I’d heard in regards to far-away places (or you know, maybe possibly Southern California, because who knows what those water-hogs get up to, hah). Which is obviously incorrect, but yeah. It does make me curious. Especially because it stayed kind of a mythical thing up until I went to grad school abroad and I had a friend who hailed from Missouri. And even then, I didn’t really entirely believe her when she’d talk about her family’s religion, because I was sure she had to be exaggerating for effect. (Okay, that is not as weird as it sounds, I knew quite a few Americans at that university who frequently referred to themselves as refugees, and were happy to tell everyone they met about the hellhole that was the US, where they should never ever go lest they get shot by wandering bands of gangsters/moonshiners/republicans.) It wasn’t until I joined AmeriCorps (in Tahoe) and I had an ultra-conservative evangelical roommate from Michigan that that I met someone who was a fundamentalist’s fundamentalist *and* outspoken enough about their beliefs that I heard about it from someone who lived it. But I always wondered how much of that was that she came from a community where it was both accepted and expected- because she certainly got a lot of shit for it here- and if the reason communities like hers hadn’t been on my radar was because they were actively trying to stay out of the limelight.

  30. Loved this piece. I also came from an evangelical childhood. I attended Christian high school and later Christian college, and now, after experiencing years of religious abuse, identify as agnostic. But I’ve found it really difficult to talk about my perspective on religion in secular and feminist spaces because there is this entrenched perception that religion is universally a force for ignorance and evil. And that’s just simply not true. If I, after experiencing abuse at the hands of fundamentalists, can understand the difference between fundamentalists and progressive religious beliefs, so can everyone else. It’s impossible to have a dialogue if both sides are convinced that the other is irrational, ignorant, and antagonistic.

    My parents remain very religious, and so are several of my friends. They do often say incredibly offensive things. Sometimes I engage with them about it, sometimes I don’t. But when I do, I make sure to remember that racism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny aren’t limited to religious communities. It may be framed in religious language, but the idea of “taking the beam out of your own before point out the speck in someone else’s” is still valuable. Take people seriously. If you treat them respectfully, you’re far more likely to achieve a favorable outcome. It’s not guaranteed, obviously, and I don’t think it’s incumbent on any marginalized group to educate others about oppression. But if dialogue’s your goal, I think that’s how you’ve got to begin.

  31. [How much intolerance are we willing to tolerate while we attempt to progress the conversation? How do we differentiate between hateful intolerance and ignorant intolerance, or does that differentiation matter?]

    These questions in particular seem well suited to the Prudie letter this week from a LW planning a same-sex wedding who was disinclined to invite a particular uncle because he had been a legislator and voted for their state’s ban on same-sex marriages.

    Prudie’s response, echoed by much of the commentariat, was a knee-jerk, “Invite him,” which was actually the two-word opening sentence of her response, with little real reason beyond advancing the conversation (with an aside that indicated she considered a pragmatic vote, as opposed to one based on sincere moral opposition, to be hardly any offence at all).

    There was considerable discussion over the motivation for the vote, with several posters asserting that they would find a pragmatic vote rather worse. Hateful intolerance vs pragmatic intolerance, if you will. It seemed a reasonable topic for discussion. One thing I found most irritating was that the letter just mentioned the vote without the context of how long ago it occurred, what the uncle has said to indicate how he felt about the vote, if the LW had engaged him on the subject, or if there had been any sign of any change of mind. (Not that the vote in and of itself would not make a perfectly acceptable dealbreaker.)

    A number of straightsplainers didn’t want the LW to look “petty,” for which the most charitable explanation seemed to be that it was borne out of the idea that everyone who gets married has to suck up the thought of inviting someone objectionable. Of course, none of them had ever invited anyone who’d legislated against their right to marry. Some suggested trying to put the uncle on the spot to see if he’d make supportive noises to avoid a socially awkward moment, but that seemed a bit off.

    One woman then posted that, after much thought and research, she was opposed to same-sex marriage, but was going to be a bridesmaid in one for her close friend. She wouldn’t discuss her reasons, conflating being told she was holding a bigoted opinion to being called a bigot (though there was some of that, too). One pro-gay-marriage poster came to her defence, saying that hauling out the B word just shut down the conversation, and the thread ended in a blurry line between the right of right-thinking people to hold dissenting views, treating someone who holds dissenting views with respect and respecting the dissenting opinion. (Personally in this particular case, I think the onus is always on the anti-marriage presenter to provide what societal accommodation ze actually does support for same-sexers if ze wants to be deemed a person of general good will; all too often people such as representatives of NOM will Just Say No to marriage equality and duck the question entirely of what same-sex couples ought to do or how they should be treated.)

    A point nobody addressed against inviting is that it would make a strong point of Mr Savage’s that Prejudice Has Consequences, and that people who don’t get around homophobic ideas within a reasonable period of time after knowing a family member is out will find themselves shut out of that person’s life. I’ve tended to view that situation the other way around. If we let homophobia slide socially, won’t a lot of those in the middle come to feel it’s okay to placate the homophobes or not work on themselves to get over little anti-gay attitudes because we accept so much worse?

    Being more interested in how the decision would be reached as opposed to whether it became Invite or Don’t Invited, I found that my gut take rested heavily on the LW’s giving, as a reason in favour of inviting, not wanting to offend other family members. This gave me a little idea that the situation has been one in which there hasn’t been any “rude” discussions of issues that would disturb the image of family harmony, and that discordant elements have been smoothed over by the Tyrannous Middle, browbeating all parties into Making Nice. In light of that, my solution, not posted on Slate and of uncertain seriousness, was for the LW to contact the uncle privately along some such line as, “I assume you’d rather not come to my wedding, but I don’t want to upset people by not inviting you; is there a date on which you definitely can’t attend, and that’s when I’ll choose?” It provides an opening for some expression of remorse should the uncle be so inclined, perhaps giving the LW more of a base on which to decide; if the uncle really doesn’t want to attend, then the pair could keep the family happy without having both to get through the day upset by the presence of the other.

    1. “I assume you’d rather not come to my wedding, but I don’t want to upset people by not inviting you; is there a date on which you definitely can’t attend, and that’s when I’ll choose?”

      Oof. If plain old not inviting him has the potential to offend some family members, how much worse will it be if that conversation gets back to the family? I mean, might as well say “I don’t really have the courage to stand up to some gossip, so let me make an offensive suggestion that I assume will work for both of us and just leave it at that?”

      1. Oh, you’re probably right, but I just thought there would be something poetic about two parties in adversarial positions finding the common ground to rout the tyrants who are bullying both of them into pretending their differences aren’t serious. I was trying to match the phrasing to how well acquainted the two might be, but definitely that part of the post was a rush (as well as being an excerpt from a page where the seriousness of ideas is highly variable). I’d advocate some sort of honest conversation between the antagonists without the meddlesome tyrants involved, but the flavour of the letter suggested that it might need a dishonest lead-in in order to come about, and having so much left out meant having to make a tone guess.

        In a way, your outcome might be better for the LW; it could result in a family excommunication if it all came out and caused a big blow-up. I have such a low opinion of what for the purpose of this thread could be called conversation squelchers, who won’t allow any discourse because they’d rather have the facade of unity. Perpetrators of oppression pose problems, but enablers can be far more irritating.

  32. actually do think that Akin has a conscious desire to subjugate women, and I do think that those remarks are representative of the War On Women. Do I think Akin would say, “I want to subjugate women”? No. Do I think he absolutely believes that women are fundamentally different than men, and are purposed to serve men, and be helpmeets to their husbands, and because of their natural femaleness are more nurturing and less strong and better suited in the home than in the boardroom, and that life was better when there were a great many social barriers in place to keep certain classes of women out of the traditionally male public sphere? Yes, I do think that Akin actually thinks that.

    Thank you. One thousand times.

  33. I am finding it very hard to say what I want in an eloquent way.

    Basically, there is no “feminism 101”. Feminists on the internet want to talk with other feminists about interesting, and therefore difficult, issues. There is no space full of friendly feminists waiting to patiently and painstakingly correct the errors of new people. The feminist community IS the feminist community.

    Humans are social. People curious about a new topic are not going to read 40 hours of FAQ before they can even begin talking, if we are the ones saying that they should be here in the first place.

    The reality is just that modern feminism is extremely unapproachable. One cannot learn even its basic tenants without having to re-evaluate many, many assumptions about the world. Without guidance and assistance, that is going to be impossible for most; particularly when one’s current views are being attacked as bigoted and effectively evil.

      1. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t make non-literal statements on a message board.

        When I said,

        People curious about a new topic are not going to read 40 hours of FAQ before they can even begin talking, if we are the ones saying that they should be here in the first place.

        I had that particular site in mind. Have you looked at that website trying to consider the perspective of someone who isn’t familiar with feminism? Do you really think that individuals who have just been told that all their assumptions are wrong and need correcting are going to sit and try really hard to internalize this barrage of new ideas for hours on end before even attempting to go back into a community of people having conversations? If you do, your experiences with humanity have been much different than mine.

        I’m not saying that anyone has a duty to educate others. I’m speculating that pointing someone at that FAQ is not effective, and is not actually going to educate anyone.

        1. Do you really think that individuals who have just been told that all their assumptions are wrong and need correcting are going to sit and try really hard to internalize this barrage of new ideas for hours on end before even attempting to go back into a community of people having conversations?

          All righty. Here’s a nice digestible size for you:
          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

          or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

          and finally: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=feminism

        2. Its a running joke on many sites, such as gamedev, that no one ever reads the FAQ, ever. Never ever ever ever. There are literally a dozen threads every day about:

          “How can I make an MMO with no programming or art skills? I have a great idea and I am sure all the people who worked for years to gain the skills to make games would love to make my game under my direction even though I bring nothing to the table but a vague paragraph about some generic fantasy setting.”

          They don’t actually say that, but that’s really what they mean.

          It’s in the FAQ and you can search for one of the dozens of threads with the same question using just “make an MMO” in the convenient search box. Nobody reads the god damn FAQ.

        3. Less snarkily, msgd, as someone who used 101 resources, I should point out that if there’s a discussion going on about body image, I don’t have to read about the sexual violence statistics in Rwanda in the 1830s in order to participate. Relatively small but relevant bits of information are all anyone really needs to get the 101 context behind most conversations on Feministe, where we’re not in fact usually having extremely advanced discussions or anything. And I’ve yet to see anyone actually scream someone down for asking a non-basic question in a way that shows either a) the result of basic research or b) good faith and a relevant end poitn to their question.

          For example, on a recent thread on Jewish circumcision – a subject on which I know very little – I wanted to know a particular aspect of Jewish law (is it strictly required to be done that young?) which would make my next question (so can’t we up the age to late teenage?) relevant or not. I asked about the basics while explaining the end point I was considering. I was told immediately and very nicely that the law was in fact very clear, which rendered my next question moot. Compare that to barging in going UP THE AGE TO LATE TEENS YOU HORRIBLE DIPSHITS, which is a reasonable end statement only from a completely imaginary foundation. People being handed their asses on feminist websites are usually engaging in the latter approach, not the former.

    1. The reality is just that modern feminism is extremely unapproachable. One cannot learn even its basic tenants without having to re-evaluate many, many assumptions about the world.

      See, I don’t see that at all. Disclosure: I grew up in The Patriarchy(TM), of rural south India, didn’t know two things about feminism or feminist terminology until I was almost eighteen. Granted, I was already fairly well-read on other things and grasping a new aspect of social justice (moving to specifically gendered issues from more general caste issues and race issues and religious issues) was fairly easy, but here are my personal recommendations to any newbie:

      1) Be willing to shut the fuck up and listen before talking. I lurked on Feministe almost two years before my first comment, and Shakesville nearly that long.
      2) Be clear in your thought and willing to re-examine your beliefs. If not, why the fuck are you here? I’m religious, and I hung out on FSTDT for a while, and still occasionally read PZ Myers.
      3) Theory may on rare occasions trump, but never ever invalidate lived experience.
      3a) Your theory may be wrong. Refer rule 2.
      4) Don’t presume you know more about someone else than they do. Don’t let others assume things about you; they don’t know you like you do. Speak up for yourself if you have a point to make.
      4a) But not in a way that fucks with rule 3 or requires an absence of rule 2.
      5) Don’t be a douchebag. Seriously, don’t. Don’t make derogatory remarks about someone’s sex life, looks, gender, religiousness (different from religion itself) etc, etc.

      There. Your 101, courtesy a total Sheltered Girl Who Grew Up.

Comments are currently closed.