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

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPIC

Spillover #19

Moderator Team

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPICThe commenting period on the 18th #spillover thread is just expiring, so it’s time for a new one. Some reminders:

  1. #spillover is part of our comment moderation system for keeping other threads on-topic. It is intended as a constructive space for tangential discussions which are veering off-topic on other threads. This is part of our blog netiquette, which has the general goal of making it as simple as possible for commentors to find discussions focussed on topics of particular interest without entirely stifling worthwhile tangents of sorta-related or general interest. #spillover is also a space for those ongoing/endless disagreements and 101 issues that just keep on popping up.
  2. Commentors are encouraged to respect the topic of each post and be proactive regarding inevitable thread-drift in long threads: we hope that commentors will cheerfully volunteer to take off-topic responses into #spillover so that each post’s discussion gets room to breathe and tangents can be indulged in a room of their own.

More detailed outline/guidelines were laid out on Spillover #1.
The Moderator Team will enforce topicality where necessary, and off-topic commentors who ignore invitations from others to take their tangents to #spillover are one of the reasons commentors might consider sending the moderators a giraffe alert.

102 thoughts on Spillover #19

  1. So… I just read a post at Pharyngula about a Shakesville “hate site” and I’m not sure what to think. On the one hand, obviously any abuse or harassment of Shakesville mods is totally uncalled-for and wrong. On the other hand, I don’t think a tumblr dedicated to criticizing another site is intrinsically bad. Any thoughts? Too much inside baseball drama?

        2. Actually I guess I did read those threads but didn’t realize they were on here for some dumb reason. At any rate, I guess my only feeling is that Pharyngula commenters are the worst.

          1. Pharyngula is a space that takes some getting used to, and that thread did not show some of the regulars in the best light. With issues they’re more familiar with they’re some of my favourite people though.

      2. Pharyngula is a space that takes some getting used to, and that thread did not show some of the regulars in the best light. With issues they’re more familiar with they’re some of my favourite people though.

        I would not want to get used to such an abusive, cruel space with such a hateful bunch of people. That thread was gross, and the fact McEwan, Mardoll and CaitieCat regard the Pharyngula DudeBros as heroes for savaging us is even worse.

        1. That’s a crude caricature of the Pharyngula I know. I’ve been reading PZ at various newsgroups, bulletin boards and blogs for 20 odd years now because of the quality of his writing and the robustness of the challenges his readers make in comments, both for and against his points. It’s far from a Dudebro place, although it had a Dudebro contingent ten years ago, but PZ was challenged about letting dudebro crap stand, and he listened and changed his commenting policy and posted more often about social justice issues, and bigoted/essentialist slurs of any kind are no longer allowed to stand (that is why the Dudebro Wing of Atheism has made PZ one of their emblems of manginity and White-Knighting, because he’s supporting anti-harassment policies etc).

          There are people on all sides of this with whom I’ve had many positive online interactions over the years, and every one of us has had our share of occasional mis-steps, thus I’m not inclined to try and lay down some hard bright line here about who is right-right-right and who is wrong-wrong-wrong. A lot of people are hurting and pointing fingers and I don’t think much of it is constructive in any way at all.

        2. Perhaps the Pharyngula you once knew has become a cruel caricature of itself. That thread doesn’t just “show some of the regulars there in a bad light,” there is no lighting arrangement that can make that warthog of a site look like a palomino, judging by the attitudes and behavior of the “regulars” in that thread.

          1. I still read Pharyngula regularly, mostly lurking but still comment there several times a month on average. I know exactly how Pharyngula’s modes of operation have evolved over the years. You are the one who has made a judgement that you know all about Pharyngula based on a single thread.

    2. Continuing the discussion: after Mardoll left her tearful plea to “stop harassing her”* over at DtSKA, I found a perfect example of her bullying that we’ve objected to, and her hypocrisy.

      By the way, this nasty response was to a commentator who thought the c and b words are hurtful, not reclaimative.

      Liss has already responded to you better than I will, but since you started off by replying to me, I will give you my full and reasoned response:

      If there is something here you find hurtful, don’t fucking visit.

      http://www.shakesville.com/2013/05/i-get-letters.html#comment-898433403

      tigtog, this is exactly why we’re angry and upset. Can you see why we’re angry? And then she has the nerve to play victim? After bullying people who made a good faith comment?
      I agree with with them fwiw.

      1. tigtog, this is exactly why we’re angry and upset. Can you see why we’re angry? And then she has the nerve to play victim? After bullying people who made a good faith comment?

        Sharon M, I can see why everybody involved in this at both DSKA and Shakesville is angry and upset for differing cromulent reasons. This is why, as I said earlier, I’m not inclined to try and lay down some hard bright line here about who is right-right-right and who is wrong-wrong-wrong.

        1. Well, you did sort of call DtSVKA “a cesspool of spiteful mockery,” which has the implied corollary that the people commenting there are feces. Then, when a few of your regulars here pointed out that THEY comment at DtSVKA, you walked that back a bit.

          By walking back a bit on your original “cesspool” insult, you demonstrated an ability to think flexibly and to change your opinion, even if only slightly, based on new information. That’s more than Melissa, Ana Mardoll, or even PZ Myers can say at this point.

          At the very least, you were willing to listen.

          1. Then, when a few of your regulars here pointed out that THEY comment at DtSVKA, you walked that back a bit.

            I already knew that some Feministe regulars were also DSKA commentors when I made that comment [eta: because DSKA has been discussed here before]. I walked the ‘cesspool’ characterisation back because I kept on reading and saw that although some threads of spiteful mockery that had been linked to were there, that they didn’t constitute as much of DSKA as others claimed.

            I do aim to tailor my beliefs to the available evidence, always. Like anybody else, I sometimes don’t notice various confirmation biases misleading me, but I apply bias-checks regularly to minimise such errors in the long term.

            A pattern I’ve noticed in several communities/movements where people become dissatisfied with the actions/opinions of a prominent figure/org: the more one viewed that person as a hero/model/leader, the more that disillusionment turns to bitterness and backlash against both one’s previous esteem and often against the person’s entire body of work. If we were all less likely to lionise people who happen to have a gift for expressing ideas that we find appealing, we’d all be less disappointed when they fall short of our standards, and still be able to recognise the worthwhile contributions they’ve made while holding them to account for their failings.

  2. I’m posting here to hopefully begin a discussion over an earlier disagreement. The person I spoke to has not arrived yet and may not.

    In particular, I’d like to talk about why it’s so easy to go for the snarky, gotcha move, rather than really talk about nuance and complexity.

  3. I’m not really sure how this works, so please pardon.

    It bothers me how many people have a beef with organized religion. I only mentioned that fact on the main page because Quakers have a difficult time expressing what they believe to the outside world. Because I am very happy being a Quaker, I want to express pride at the good things we have done over time.

    The Religious Society of Friends has an impressive history of social reform. Women’s rights are only one aspect. I know that I can worship and be supported with whatever causes I might choose to adopt. More importantly, Quakers could be a home for someone in need of it, and I want to make sure he or she is aware.

    None of this is asking for a cookie. My self-esteem is high enough that I have no need for empty praise. I can understand why some people would take my original statement as a desire to be praised when no praise was due, nor necessary.

    I want feminists to thrive and I want Quakers to thrive. Both are needed and necessary, but if we keep our light under a bushel, we’ll be invisible to many.

    1. Personally I think there is a lot of pushback against Christianity in particular because it has often been/and is still destructive and damaging to many people.

      But perhaps the pushback you received was more because of the way your phrased your comment – as if the Quakers had ‘true’ equality before feminism. Also I can’t read gratuitous_violet’s mind so will not try to respond for them, but it’s as if there is a kind of – ‘well if only people were part of my religious group they’d see the error of their way’ mentality to your post.

      Saying that in the UK the Quakers have been one of the best denominations with regards to Equal Marriage for instance, so I think we can still appreciate the good that religious denominations are doing – but this isn’t really the point of the post.

      1. I started off phrasing what I wrote the wrong way. It was a little flippant, and if I had to write it over again I would. I didn’t mean to imply that surely if one was a Quaker, then they would be on the right path.

        I’m not out to judge people for not being Quaker or being religious. I mainly meant that religion and women’s rights are compatible in many ways. Being a Friend goes well beyond women’s rights. I was hoping that some might recognize that it’s entirely possible to be religious and also be feminist.

        There are no true feminists. Again, I should have worded that differently. The thing about identification with a religion or a feminist group is that both challenge the believer to learn and continue to grow.

        It very much bothers me to hear sharply negative commentary about Christianity from people who have never opened the Bible once. I wouldn’t participate in feminist discussion if I didn’t have at least a minimum basic understanding of the context, or had read at least one book by a prominent feminist voice like bell hooks.

        1. No probs Comrade Kevin.

          I’m sure many people here would not deny that you can be religious and also a feminist. But at the same time the question of compatibility is one that has been debated in depth by many religious and non-religious feminists. I think it’s important to be careful about the implications of your statements – because many people have not found institutional religion to be particularly welcoming or free from bigotry and prejudice.

          And finally I don’t think one has to read the Bible (although I’m not sure why you assume people haven’t) to criticise Christianity and its effect on the world.

      2. I’m a liberal Christian and not a conservative one. There is quite a bit of difference. If a group of feminists visited my Quaker Meeting, I doubt they would find much that was objectionable.

        They might think that the Worship was weird, of course. I’m only trying to put my beliefs and convictions out there. Quakers speak from the way the Holy Spirit influences them personally, and know that making presumptions for the beliefs of others is not accurate.

    2. Hello! Actually, Matthew hit the nail on the head in my absence. I honestly have very little quibble with the substance, but rather with your flippancy and complacency. It really came off like “well, ladies, I joined the right religion and sprung from the darkness into the light as a fully-developed feminist who needs no more growth or development!” Which in light of your comments in this thread is obviously not what you meant, so I honestly apologize for reading you so uncharitably. In the past, however, you have made comments on this board that were also smug and preachy, so I’d strongly caution you to edit anything that has the slightest whiff of “look, I’m doing feminism RIGHT!!” on a feminist board. I sincerely believe your heart is in the right place but you gotta work on your angle.

      As to religion in general, I’m too fried to tackle your big questions right now because I just got home from work. I’ll try later. I just wanted to let you know I’m not flame-and-flouncing.

      1. Do you remember when you became a feminist? Did you have one of those click moments, where suddenly the light bulb went off? The same was true for me with Quakerism.

        My intention was not flippant, but I know now that I need to make my comments in a different way. I will always be learning about Feminism. I will always be learning about Quakerism. I will always be learning about Christianity.

        I take part to be stretched and challenged, much as many of you have here. Which is to say I take no offense. As for earlier comments, I can only respond to what has already been said and posted. The funny thing is that I’m not searching for validation or a sense of doing it the right way.

        Mainly, I’m trying to open a new dialogue and to say to all who are skeptical of religion, that not every single faith group is the same. That doesn’t mean I expect people to convert, but it does mean options are available.

        Smug and preachy was not how I thought I was coming across. When a person is expressing anger and consternation, I rarely know how interject my own opinions.

        I think some people are projecting their fears upon me. If we could meet together face to face and resolve our difference, I bet we’d make lots of progress. Sometimes the internet isn’t always good with subtly and nuance.

        But above all, I consider you all to be allies, and if I didn’t feel that way, I wouldn’t waste my time. I’m not a troll and I am capable of listening. If any of you want to see where I’m coming from, I’d be glad to e-mail an essay or two.

        Mostly, I want to make sure that religion and feminism have an alliance, so that they both will be make more effective. When I go to the bookstore, it depresses me that women’s studies books are pushed off to a corner. I see few men ever linger for long in that section. I want to ensure that this isn’t the case in the future.

        1. Mainly, I’m trying to open a new dialogue and to say to all who are skeptical of religion, that not every single faith group is the same. That doesn’t mean I expect people to convert, but it does mean options are available.

          You keep saying you’re not proselytising, but in fact that’s exactly what you’re doing. There’s no real difference between what you’re doing and what some evangelical Protestant does when he asks “have you heard the good news?” They don’t say they “expect” you to convert either. But they want you to. And you’re doing the same thing, and I don’t think this is the place for it. Especially with an audience that you know includes Jews and other people who don’t purport to be any kind of Christian already.

        2. I have Jewish friends, Muslim friends, and those with no religion at all. My Muslim friend has a respect for Jesus, and makes a point to see the parallel passages between both Abrahamic religions in the Bible and the Koran.

          I am sharing what I believe and how I worship. If you need a means of comparison, liken this to a college 101 introduction to organized religion. At no point have I wanted people to believe as I do. I want to partner with you and maybe expand the definition of ally.

        3. If you need a means of comparison, liken this to a college 101 introduction to organized religion.

          That is incredibly condescending.

        4. Comrade Kevin, you seem to assume that those of us in this commentariat are critical of religion out of an ingnorance or lack of experience and religious education

          I’d wager that a good number of the religion-critical here are so precisely because of their experiences and religious education and have come to the conclusion that it amounts to so much horse puckey.

          You are addressing people who have actively been oppressed and marginalized in the name of organized religion and claiming that they just haven’t found the *right* religion. I agree with Donna L that it IS proletyzing and I agree with Matthew that it is incredibly condescending. It’s also potentially triggering.

          I’d suggest knocking it off, already. If you want to preach the wonders of Quakerism and all the fabulous things it has done for women, maybe your own blog is the place to start.

      2. One final request.

        Some have mentioned that my past comments rubbed them the wrong way. In future, please bring them to my attention immediately. I’d rather we come to a mutual understanding than hold onto old grievances.

        I am almost certain that when we talk this out sufficiently, we will find lots of common ground. It was never my intention to push anyone’s buttons. I’m not a troll, but I am a reformer.

  4. Some who take part in feminist discourse have had experiences that were repressive, but we’re not all that way. I respect their opinions, but there comes a time when a person processes their past and moves on. It’s a very natural state of closure

    I myself could talk about my childhood of abuse from now until tomorrow and let it consume my thoughts, but I don’t. And neither do I hate children as a result. I’ve put things aside as a means of coping and surviving. Some people hold grudges against religion for years and that makes me very sad.

    I think that reading the Bible is essential in understanding the arguments of many. And it also shows how some have quite deliberately manipulated meaning and language to suit their own ends.

    I have a very warm group of fellow Quakers with whom I am pleased to spend time. As I said before, if I didn’t have an understand of feminist theory and feminist opinions, I don’t think I could truly make arguments that held water. I want to be taken seriously, and without understanding more clearly, I would not.

    I’d ask others who are critical of Christianity to cite specifically what they found objectionable. My father was taken by my grandmother to holy roller churches because she was chronically sick and wanted to be healed by faith. None of it worked and my father found the people there extremely upsetting.

    1. I disagree with your point about people holding grudges against organised religion. A institution is not a person. It is not owed forgiveness or the benefit of the doubt. It should be held to a higher scrutiny due to its power over wide swaths of people. The reasons a person disagrees with Christianity doesn’t necessarily have to do with the exact words in the bible. I would argue that a person that has never read the bible has a better understanding of the reality that religion encourages. That individual is focused on the actions of religious people and quality of life in areas controlled by a religion not the dogma.

      1. I see what you mean.

        George Fox, who founded Quakers, memorized the entire Bible. The reason he did this, is that he could make his own judgments upon the Bible and see things as he wished.

        To me, it starts with the individual and goes from there. I happen to believe that the Bible ought to be read individually and individually applied. We have Testimonies, and these are to be applied individually.

        For example, the Testimony of Equality has been interpreted as a validation of the equality between men and women. That’s how I see it myself.

    2. I’d ask others who are critical of Christianity to cite specifically what they found objectionable.

      Your heart may be in the right place, but I can’t believe you’re serious. You’re getting into real “No True Scotsman” territory. All I have to do is cite the way Christianity has been practiced for the last 2000 years, and how many murders and how much hatred it’s been responsible for, even if you’re just talking about my own people. Never mind the rest of the world.

      I am not required to cite to the Christian Bible itself, even though there’s plenty in there that’s objectionable, beginning with (1) the way it was deliberately written, long after the fact, to make it appear that Jesus and his life fulfilled prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, and (2) the way that it appropriated and incorporated the Hebrew Bible, and twisted every word of it to make it appear that it foreshadowed Jesus.

      Is that good enough? Do you really think I care about the niceties of your particular doctrine?

      And, yes, intentionally or otherwise, your earlier comments very much came across as a kind of proselytization.

      1. I don’t think Comrade Kevin is actually prepared to hear honest critique of Christianity itself, although of course everything you say is true.

        CK, if you are, I recommend reading the book (not watching the film) Constantine’s Sword. It goes beyond the cop-out criticism that Christians behave badly against their own religion, and examines the roots of Christian antisemitism in the New Testament and other classical Christian sacred texts. I think it would also be good for you to do this because you will be exposing yourself to the opinion of someone with whom you cannot immediately argue — give yourself time to digest what he has to say.

        1. Friends, I want you to see where I’m coming from. Religious groups are losing membership and I’m trying to do my part to make sure we don’t lose more. My Meeting is peopled mostly by those who are middle aged or older.

          I’ve put together a young adult group that has really been helpful to others. I’m not seeking to win souls, I just know that Quakers are a helpful avenue for many who may not even know that we exist.

          Likewise, as a feminist, I want our numbers to grow. My mother’s generation adopted a feminist platform in overwhelming numbers. We have become a niche interest of a sort, and again, I think there are people out there who are feminists and don’t know it.

          And there’s also a lot of misinformation to correct. So both of my dominant identities have the same problem. I don’t seek to convert anyone to what I believe, but I do think I should be able to offer it to someone and let he or she decide about participation. That’s all.

        2. Friends, I want you to see where I’m coming from.

          Given that “Friends” is what Quakers call each other, I would prefer it if you didn’t address me that way. I’m not your friend, and certainly not your Friend!

        3. Maybe religious groups need to lose memberships. Especially religious groups that colonized a country and wiped out the indigenous religions. At least religious groups today are losing memberships in a natural manner. Could be worse.

        4. It is true that religion was used as an excuse for conquest. But religion is more complicated than a lust for gold. There are always the voices of conscience who sound the alarm and are often ignored. Like humanity itself, it’s a mixed bag.

        5. Yeah, those voices of conscience were still attached to bodies that were sitting atop stolen land. Quakers exist in the US and Canada because a genocide allowed them to come here.

        6. Read this.

          [looong summary snipped by moderator]

          If you want to read more, I have the whole essay.

          [Moderator note: please just link to such essays in future with a tweet-length summary and leave it at that.]

        7. Pheeno, consider Nantucket, where the English settlers were largely Quakers from the beginning of the 18th century. As explained in Nathaniel Philbrick’s In the Heart of the Sea at pp. 5-6 and 8:

          “Typically a whaleboat’s crew was comprised of five Wampanoag oarsment, with a single white Nantucketer at the steering oar. . . . By the beginning of the 18th century, English Nantucketers had instituted a system of debt servitude that provided them with a steady supply of Wampanoag labor. Without the island’s native inhabitants, who outnumbered Nantucket’s white population well into the 1720s, the island would never have become a successful whaling port.”

          By the early 19th century, however, “Nantucket’s large Wampanoag population had been reduced to a handful by epidemics.”

        8. I’m aware. We were a steady source of a lot of things for settlers. You see how it turned out.

        9. [Moderator note: I was trying to do you a favour by trashing the first submission of this comment, because it's stoushbait city and you obviously have no understanding why. You need to take a break from posting here until the morning at least, and seriously think about what you are trying to achieve by this witnessing. ~ tt]

      2. Just wanted to say Donna L that I’m sorry i didn’t distinguish ‘Christian Bible’ from ‘Hebrew Bible’ up-thread. It’s a 101-error and as you’ve mentioned this a number of time before I’m sorry! Matthew

        1. TigTog, thank you for your perspective.

          Let me get right to the point. If something that another person brought up offended me, I would no longer wish to speak to them. I kept the dialogue going because people kept responding. I would have known to put space between myself and someone else who was clearly not interested.

          I’m not a mind reader. It is true that my faith is important and there are many other outlets where I can speak at length about it. It has been a dream of mine to reach people of faith who are feminist. My Quaker work has me struggle with people who are religious, but have been led to believe that religion in any form is inherently toxic.

          So, for anyone who I engaged in conversation in the midst of this thread, if you had told me to back off, I would have. It’s the automatic assumptions about me that I find most hurtful. People rushed to judgement as though I was an Evangelical trying to win souls for Jesus.

          I tried to avoid cheap shots and found a few directed my way. To me, examining the way we feel about religion is a mirror to the soul. Through observation, I saw the unvarnished truth. I would hope that in the future, we are kinder to each other. Part of being a Quaker is not rushing to judgment and trying to see that of God in everyone

          I’m not asking people to find the one true way. I’ve never found it myself. No Quaker is. We’re a mystical faith where God shows himself in unexpected ways. I was trying hard not to imply that only one way worked. Quakers are supposed to see God through their own individual ways, which sometimes makes it hard to reach unity.

          I only responded to people who went out of their way. Had they ended discussion there, that would have signaled the conclusion. But they kept at it and kept approaching me.

        2. If something that another person brought up offended me, I would no longer wish to speak to them. I kept the dialogue going because people kept responding

          That’s because people are critiquing you, and then you are ignoring every point they make. Why should people be silenced by you?

          So, for anyone who I engaged in conversation in the midst of this thread, if you had told me to back off, I would have.

          They did – repeatedly.

          To me, examining the way we feel about religion is a mirror to the soul. Through observation, I saw the unvarnished truth. I would hope that in the future, we are kinder to each other. Part of being a Quaker is not rushing to judgment and trying to see that of God in everyone

          Important to you; irrelevant to others.

          Had they ended discussion there, that would have signaled the conclusion. But they kept at it and kept approaching me.

          They critiqued your views, and disagreed with your interpretation. You kept responding while ignoring their valid objections to both your points and the language you used.

        3. I don’t mind be criticized if it leads to greater understand. I admit I may not comprehend completely the issues that often confuse me.

          If you want me to back off, then why continue to engage. The kept popping up, wanting to make a point with me. And I didn’t mind the opportunity to engage in further discussion.

          I really don’t see myself as ignoring the view of women. I wish someone would have put me under his or her wing and show me the ropes. It’s difficult to say. No one ever pulled me aside and told me to adopt a different perspective. When you don’t really have a clue of what comes next and what is needed, your hands are tied

          I have a write to disagree, but I also have a right to free expression. I think women have a right to be involved in the same way as men. If this means that women have greater rights, then it’s deserved.

      3. Here’s the thing. I’m not asking you to think as I do. There are Quakers I know who have converted and had little to no religious teaching when they were brought up.

        I have talked to people who were shocked at what the Bible really says after they read it for themselves. That’s what I mean. I recognize all the ways that Christianity has been destruction, but I think there’s great worth in the text for those who find it useful.

        If it does nothing for you, then that’s your right.

        1. Cringe…

          I have talked to people who were shocked at what the Bible really says after they read it for themselves

          Oh I had that moment when I read in John 8:43-44 about how Jews are the children of Satan and lie and murder like their “father.”

        2. “His blood be on us, and on our children.”

          —Matthew 27:24-25

          If you want something more comprehensive, see http://thejewishhome.org/counter/AntiJewishNT.pdf

          Also please read Constantine’s Sword, as Yonah recommended. (I know that an entire book has been written recently devoted to the proposition that St. Augustine was actually a friend to the Jews, but I’m skeptical — wholly apart from the fact that, as Carroll points out, Augustine is largely responsible for the survival of Judaism in the Christian world, by means of his theory that a “saving remnant” of Jews had to preserved in order, among other things, to provide living witness of their perfidy. And, regardless of that, the bulk of the book remains largely unchallenged.)

        3. It is a miracle that the religion of a persecuted Jewish sect spread and grew the way it did. I am capable of looking at the big picture.

        4. Kevin FYI: I began reading the Bible for myself at age 10. It led me to ask questions in Scripture class that were deemed trouble-making. I ended up declining to be confirmed at age 11 and my attendance dwindled to nothing shortly afterwards, largely (but not entirely) because I never found a compelling rebuttal to Epicurus (341–270 BCE):

          “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
          Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
          Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
          Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

          * * *
          Given how often you’ve brought your faith up in comments here it is obviously very important to you and you find your fellowship with others who share that faith empowering. Congratulations on finding that for yourself, but I’m firmly in the camp of there is no One True Answer for everybody. I find a great sense of empowerment/gratification as as part of an entirely secular music-making community, and while I encourage anybody/everybody to stand up and sing/play with others any time they can (does wonders for endorphin release), I know that not everybody is going to want to tread that path, and that continuing to urge somebody who has declined more than once is going to end up being insensitive and eventually intrusive upon other forms of companionship we could be experiencing.

        5. Christianity is a Jewish sect. The writers of the Synoptic Gospels were Matthew, a Jew and tax collector, Mark, a Gentile and Luke, a Gentile and doctor.

          I’m afraid in all my years of reading the Scriptures, that I don’t see evidence of Anti-Jewish bias. Jesus, in particular, saves his ire for the Pharisees, who are the Jewish priestly class. But he has nothing but pity for his own kind and even the cursed Samaritans.

          Foolish people have blamed the Jews for crucifying Jesus, but that is not fair. It was a combination of forces who envied his power and the crowds that followed him everywhere. Christians still read the Old Testament, which Jews read as their holy book.

          For anyone who feels rejected by organized religion, I can understand why fear is very prominent.

          1. the Pharisees, who are the Jewish priestly class

            No, the Sadducees were the priestly class who controlled the Temple in Jerusalem and held aristocratic secular power as well. The Pharisees were non-aristocratic laymen who believed that worship outside the Temple was equally religiously valid. The two groups were political rivals in pre-Diasporic Jerusalem based on differing interpretations of the Law and the best path forward for Israel in a world dominated by Rome. Following the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans, Sadducaic Judaism collapsed.

            Perhaps you should read some ancient history books to gain a better understanding of the world that gave rise to the Gospels.

        6. Foolish people have blamed the Jews for crucifying Jesus

          No. Christianity as a whole has done this and used it as an excuse to persecute and murder Jews for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. You don’t get to hand-wave that away as “foolish people.”

          I’m afraid in all my years of reading the Scriptures, that I don’t see evidence of Anti-Jewish bias.

          I echo tigtog in suggesting you take a look at history.

        8. Some suggestions for reading Comrade Kevin. I’ve taught anti-semitism at University level. To echo EG this was not just ‘foolish people’; it was part of and fundamental to Christianity and its existence.

          Christian Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Middle Ages: A Casebook edited by Michael Frassetto

          Feeling Persecuted: Christians, Jews and Images of Violence in the Middle Ages By Anthony Bale

          Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity By Jeremy Cohen

          Gender and Jewish Difference from Paul to Shakespeare By Lisa Lampert

          Anti-Jewish behaviour and thought was ingrained within medieval Christian society, literature, theology and law.

        9. I’m afraid in all my years of reading the Scriptures, that I don’t see evidence of Anti-Jewish bias.

          I can think of only two possible explanations for this statement. Neither is flattering to you.

          Jesus, in particular, saves his ire for the Pharisees, who are the Jewish priestly class. But he has nothing but pity for his own kind and even the cursed Samaritans.

          Perhaps, as Tigtog points out, you should learn who the Pharisees were before you opine on whether there’s anything anti-Jewish in the Christian Bible. As for the “pity” to which you refer, I would suggest that the vast majority of the Jewish people didn’t want it and weren’t interested in it. Then or now.

      4. A capital F friend should be capitalized. It’s the first letter of a new sentence. If I said “How are you, Friend”, then that would be very different.

        I don’t expect to be your friend, though I would be if you wanted it.

    3. Wow. I come back after buying some flu medicine and realize I hadn’t seen this second comment. Donna and Asia already covered everything much more politely than I’m now feeling, but let me add this:

      1. Implying that critics just haven’t read the bible is not only irrelevant, as Donna pointed out, but also really condescending. (Recovering catchecism student here).

      2. My specific criticisms of Christianity run the spectrum from “complete incompatibility of central dogma with my personal ethos” to “my long line of friends, relatives, and acquaintances molested by priests over the years.” (Recovering Roman Catholic, here!)

      3. You seem to be under the impression that my discomfort and unwillingness to “get over it (really?)” affects your faith. It makes you “sad.” Tough. I’m a recovering host-adoring, rail-kneeling, rosary-in-two -languages-reciting recovering Roman Catholic. I’m so sorry the Vatican is making your Christianity look bad. Maybe you should take it up with them and leave the rest of us the fuck out of it.

      1. I never intended to come across as condescending. Maybe I get a little exasperated with members of my own Meeting who were never raised with the Bible. Some of them focus more on environmental causes.

        Quakerism’s language and conduct completely comes from the Bible, so understanding Quaker process requires Bible study.

        I really don’t think your anger is justified, though I seek to understand your perspective. Listen, if you are a recovering Catholic, fine. I’m sorry that you’ve experienced the challenges you have. And I don’t think your views have anything to do with my own.

        Honestly, you would make an excellent Quaker. I count many friends who left the Catholic Church. Some are still upset. Some have gotten over it. Some aren’t sure where they stand.

        I think I’m getting some blow-back based on perception. I want this to be a safe space for everyone. I think we’re talking past each other here.

        To conclude, I’m not asking to convert anyone. That runs contrary to what I believe. But it does bother me when our membership deceases, much as it bothers me feminists are no longer the force they were in the 1970’s.

        I meant to challenge people in a positive way, and drawing anger was nothing I meant. I’ve shared parts of myself and my faith on previous comment threads because sometimes there’s no good way to introduce oneself and one’s opinion’s. I’d like this to be a safe space where people of all faiths can comment as they choose.

        Once more, I’m not out to convert. I’ve read many books, and I am quite willing to listen. I am sorry that even introducing this topic to the board created anger. I am not angry now. I want to know how I can help, if people desire it, and I’m fine with an in-depth discussion with anyone who wants to take part.

        1. Honestly, you would make an excellent Quaker.


          To conclude, I’m not asking to convert anyone.

          You don’t see how the first statement contradicts the second?

        2. It was a very innocent statement. What I meant is only that I Worship with many people who have a religious path they left. Several of them are former Catholics.

  6. Everyone takes bits and pieces of Scripture and spins them out to say what they want them to.

    In Galatians, it is written that there are neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. We are all one in Christ Jesus. That is why I believe in women’s rights as do other
    Quakers.

    If anyone wants to talk to me about this or anything else, please contact me. Cabaretic at gmail dot com

    2. Even the quotation you give is triumphalist in nature. It’s remarkable how obtuse and self-satisfied you are being. You’re the one who asked people to “cite specifically” what they “found objectionable,” and of course you have failed to respond to any of except by referring to “bits and pieces” and “spins.” Shame on you.

      Unless you (and people like you) actually educate yourselves, acknowledge how fundamental anti-Judaism is to Christianity, and stop relying on platitudes, condescension and dismissiveness in responding to criticisms of Christianity and the Christian Bible, there can be no basis for talking about anything with any of you.

    3. If what you say about Quakerism is true, I am actually pretty sure that your fellow Quakers would be utterly horrified to hear about your exploits trolling feminist forums, “promoting” their cause even when asked not to, and being completely dismissive of the reasons offered by women here as to why they are not interested in your religion and not interested in hearing more.

      1. I think they’d be quite happy for me. Our founder deliberately interrupted Church of England services to scream out his own opinions. With time, other Quakers did the same thing.

        This was why they were in jail all the time.

        Some Early Friends went naked for a sign from God. One prominent preacher rather unwisely decided to reenact the arrival of Jesus into Jerusalem by riding into the city of Bristol on a donkey.

        I’d say I’m in good character as a Quaker.

        1. It’s not the disagreements I object to, because that happens to each of us. Discussions begin that way. It’s that I have been turned into a target from multiple perspectives. Certain people don’t like me, so they’ve tried to trap me or disregard my opinions. Oddly enough, this is exactly what happened to Jesus. And the reason to read the account of his trial and death is that humans still conduct business the same way today.

          It’s kind of ironic in a way. And all the while, I still don’t understand why an exploration of religion in the context of feminism makes several people see red. One woman who left a comment implied that I was somehow bothering other women, but all I’ve done is tried to very calmly speak my mind. It’s a convenient excuse to use when all you want is someone to go away.

          I never asked anyone to respond to me, but they were motivated to cut me down to size. I refused and I’m still here. I hoped for respectful, polite discussion about how religion and feminism are similar, and how we might learn from each other.

          But I was unable to cut through the extreme cynicism and suspicion. It reminds of a job of mine that entailed working in the inner city. A fresh-faced white kid from the suburbs was met with suspicion, until I earned their trust. I thought I could earn the trust of some who post here, but I think that issue may be larger than me.

        2. Certain people don’t like me, so they’ve tried to trap me or disregard my opinions. Oddly enough, this is exactly what happened to Jesus.

          No. Other way round. Many people find your opinions to be proslytizing and obnoxious, and so we have grown to dislike you. That’s not persecution, not matter how much you may wish to model yourself on the central figure of a death cult that has been used as the justification for mass slaughter an extraordinary number of times.

          I never asked anyone to respond to me

          Nonsense. Of course you did. You asked those who took issue with Christianity to explain how and why.

          I hoped for respectful, polite discussion about how religion and feminism are similar, and how we might learn from each other.

          That’s not been the topic of anything you’ve ever posted. What you post is screeds about how awesome the Quaker version of Christianity is. I have no interest in “learning” from any version of Christianity.

        3. First of all, I am not hurt if some dislike me. If some are entirely opposed to religion in any form, then that’s their right. But I happened to think that everyone has a right to belong, and if we are committed to the liberal idea that everyone should have a place at the table, we ought to save room for the religious.

          [further Witnessing snipped ~ tt]

          I speak frequently about my faith because it is very important to me. And I also read up extensively about feminist theory and find the two work together well. What I think some may believe is that I ought to take on a new cause. All I wish to do is show you something very important to me and how it relates to feminist issue.

          Disregard it if you wish. Love me or hate me. I still have a right to my opinion, and I’m still going to challenge people to hopefully make their peace with religion, rather than fighting it. We’re not what you think. I’m not what you think.

      2. My whole point of spending hours on this forum is to show the link between feminism and religion. The Scriptural passages that have been thrown out were carefully considered, but they’re [imputed motives snipped by moderator].

        If people really find me objectionable, then they can either write me an e-mail, or they can leave the discussion. If I’m trolling, then why do my posts end up making it out of moderation? I want discussion, but I’m getting a lot of hostility.

        1. If people really find me objectionable, then they can either write me an e-mail,

          You started this in a forum open to public view, why should anyone limit their challenges to a private exchange?

          or they can leave the discussion.

          So they should cease objecting to something they find objectionable? Why would they want to do that?

          If I’m trolling, then why do my posts end up making it out of moderation?

          Because so far, you’ve managed to just remain within the bounds of the comment policy. There are however reasons that you are in permamod, and this tendency to proselytise is a major one.

          I want discussion, but I’m getting a lot of hostility.

          Condescension begets hostility. This really should not come as news.

      3. I’m Quaker and I’m horrified by Kevin’s behaviour here, and I’m pretty sure my entire Meeting would be horrified too, for all the reasons Yonah gives. Also, I have never read the Bible and never plan to, in fact (like quite a few Quakers), I don’t consider myself a Christian. So in addition to the inappropriateness of what Kevin is doing, he’s not even all that representative. Ugh.

        1. I’ve never encountered any other Quaker who has been so boorish as Kevin’s overt Witnessing in the face of objections. I certainly don’t take his behaviour here as representative of all Friends, whom I’ve generally found to be thoughtful people who don’t hide their faith but don’t push it either.

          Kevin’s argument that feminism should be open to the religious seems to be a strawman – I know plenty of religious feminists. It’s just that the particulars of a faith’s creeds/dogmas are not especially relevant to feminist activism, because what *is* relevant is institutionalised sexism within religious hierarchies (which of course tends to be justified by appeals to traditional interpretations of creeds/dogmas, but that’s an almost universal similarity with any sort of institutional sexism, not anything special about any particular faith).

        2. What bothered me as much as what Kevin did in this thread is (1) that he did it despite the fact that as someone who was clearly a regular reader here, he clearly knew (or should have known) that there were quite a few specific people here — including me — who, given their backgrounds, would be greatly offended by that sort of thing, whether you call it Witnessing or preaching or thinly-disguised proselytisation; and (2) that he utterly refused to listen to anything anyone said, to the extent it contradicted his historical and textual assertions.

      4. Yonah:

        If what you say about Quakerism is true, I am actually pretty sure that your fellow Quakers would be utterly horrified to hear about your exploits trolling feminist forums, …

        Well, that would depend upon which Quakers. Quaker meetings vary a lot. While some are what one might call liberal, some are not all that different from your average bible-beating evangelical church. If Kevin belongs to one of the latter, I can imagine them approving of what he does.

        Even if he belongs to one of the more liberal ones, such as the ones I’ve attended (and been a member of), you’d be more likely to see a long-suffering look than horror. One member of one of the meetings in our area was very “Christ centered” as we say and no Sunday worship went by without him standing up and delivering a long message about how Christ was the only way (or something like that.)

        Comrade Kevin’s attitudes are actually not all that different from a lot of Quakers’. There’s a widespread attitude that there’s a certain moral superiority to being a Quaker and acting “Quakerly”, though of course it would be un-Quakerly to admit it. But it shows in the way they portray to themselves the 3-4 centuries of Quaker history. Some Quakers do, indeed, do wonderful and heroic things. But most are pretty much like any other people of their social class and background (which, in the meetings I’m familiar with, means white, privileged, and “progressive”): on the average, no better or worse. His apparent attitude that being a Quaker is somehow a substitute for knowing what he’s doing or talking about is also all too familiar.

        1. My limited experience of Quakers in meatspace is in Australia and Britain, where there is generally a much less overt evangelical culture, and the handful of Quakers I have met I tended to only know were Quakers because somebody else told me they were.

          Online, I’ve known a few people who after interacting for a fair while have shared something which affected them deeply and for which they expressed themselves in Plain Speech, and then explained their Quaker association matter-of-factly. So again, non-evangelical.

          Your picture of an actively evangelical wing does not surprise me though.

        2. I should have stated that my experience is almost entirely restricted to the USA (I’ve attended one meeting in Cambridge UK and one in Munich.)

          There’s an entire (inter-?)national organization for evangelical Quaker meetings. Back when I was more active, they were called the Evangelical Friends Association, but they are now apparently called Evangelical Friends Church International

          Also, I just want to clarify that I’m not dissing Quakers, it’s just that they are, on the whole, not as saintly as Comrade Kevin makes them out to be.

        3. AMM, just to say I agree with your summary and didn’t think you were dissing at all — just a healthy corrective. I’m in the UK and have only ever known the unprogrammed variety of Quaker (including some Meetings in the northeastern USA) personally, so the evangelical Quakers are strange to me. But unprogrammed Quakers can be jerks too — all human after all!

      1. At the time, this was a radical statement. And it only applies to Christians. It gives me great comfort to know that I am part of what I would call the Body of Christ.

        What unifies you with other feminists? Do you have a book you return to from time to time? Do you think feminists can be male or female, white or black, wealthy or poor, able-bodied and disabled?

        If you do, that’s a universal statement of your own. What larger sense of identity guides you and keeps you feeling a part of the feminist world?

  7. I offered an e-mail option to people who might feel more comfortable speaking to me one-on-one. To me, that was giving someone else a platform to cut down on misunderstanding. My hope was that it might give birth to additional understanding, much like diplomacy.

    TigTog, if even you’re afraid that I’m proselytizing, then I know I need to explain myself. [snipped - no, you really don't. You are Witnessing (eta: in an open forum, not a fellowship gathering), (eta: public) Witnessing=proselytising. ~ tt]

    And neither do I intend to come across as condescending. It’s really tough when you’ve got five people simultaneously speaking to me. This is another reason why I offered e-mail communication, because when removed from the environment of a live thread, it’s often more effective in finding common ground.

    [irrelevancy snipped ~ tt]

    I’m not going to do anything further that might make people upset. They’re always welcome to speak to me one on one, and I think they have interesting stories to share. Otherwise, my number one priority is to stay proactive about what others believe to be my proselytizing.

      1. Kevin, I just edited my moderator note on your comment to make it clearer, but since you’ve asked I’ll expand on it here.

        Feministe is a forum open to public view around the globe, not a local fellowship gathering.

        Offering testimonies of faith here is the online equivalent of soapbox preaching on a street corner or handing out tracts at a bus station. That’s how it is Witnessing, and thus proselytising.

        We offer a weekly Self-Promotion thread. If you want to invite people to read your testimonies of faith on your own blog, you are very welcome to plug your posts there so long as you follow the guidelines.

        1. Thanks for the extra information. I am now going to abandon this thread because I have nothing left to say.

          This was an attempt mainly to raise consciousness and to get people thinking. I have at times posted to the open thread and gotten a few hits here and there.

          I wish it hadn’t taken 24 hours to learn the rules. I’m not going to change the minds I hoped I might, but I can’t say that I really would want to engage with them on a regular basis. Sometimes you have to cut your losses. I tried, and I’m proud of myself for trying.

      2. I tried, and I’m proud of myself for trying.

        If so, you obviously weren’t listening to anything but your own words, and learned nothing.

        1. For anyone who feels rejected by organized religion, I can understand why fear is very prominent.

          I’ve been a religious person, of one stripe or another, my whole life since I was a child. I don’t feel afraid, rejected by or resentful towards organized religion. I do have a whole bunch of issues, in particular anger towards the Catholic Church, the religion of my childhood, since it is directly responsible for the lose of my ancestral knowledge as the mission displaced indigenous tribal practice. I hate the condescending proselytizing of missionaries, just stop.

          You’ve demonstrated here something that really stuck me during my conversion to Judaism (I practiced for most of my adult life): Bible-reading devout Christians can be mad ignorant of the ancient Jewish world of Jesus.

        5. Steve, I take it you’ve never actually read the Hebrew Bible? Beginning with the described events around the 9th century BCE (when many think the portions relating to earlier events began to be actually composed), down through the Babylonian Captivity and continuing thereafter, it is certainly historical rather than fictional, leaving aside the references to divine intervention, etc.

        6. Rather than saying “it’s fictional,” perhaps it would be more accurate to say “all the parts which people tend to debate, outside groups of Middle Eastern historians; and all the parts which has made it an unusually famous and well-printed book; and all the parts which relate to any religion; are fictional.”

          Which, in the end, allows us to refer to it as a “work of fiction” in common parlance.

          I mean, there’s a lot of accurate U.S. military information in a lot of Tom Clancy novels, but that doesn’t make them less fictional.

  8. Moderator Note: Because Comrade Kevin is declining to take a timeout as requested by the Moderation team, his email address has been temporarily plonked and his comments will go straight to the spam bucket for the time being. This will mean that the Moderator team will no longer have to deal with several submissions an hour from a single commentor.

  9. TigTog, I’m sincerely sorry that my one-off to Comrade in the other thread has lead to so much work moderating for you. Also, this is definitely the first time I’ve seen Edited for Witnessing as a mod note, and it cracked me up way more than it should have.

    1. No need to apologise, this sort of digression is exactly why we have #spillover threads in the first place. Sometimes giving people free rein to reveal themselves warts and all makes long-term moderation decisions much simpler.

Comments are currently closed.