tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post6843684477081530295..comments2023-12-29T03:15:06.560-07:00Comments on A journey to reason: The Real Problem Between Atheism and FeminismNate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-70035637917455357872014-10-23T22:12:29.631-06:002014-10-23T22:12:29.631-06:00I think it's almost completely slymepit now. T...I think it's almost completely slymepit now. The good minds have almost all given up or have been banned by him (but just the women I noticed). He should investigate where his accolades are coming from.. and why.AND find it problematic. But alas.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-54706275524983225812014-10-23T21:06:02.119-06:002014-10-23T21:06:02.119-06:00I believe that the reasons for the reaction to Har...I believe that the reasons for the reaction to Harris have been tediously explained multiple times. Completely ignoring all those reasonable and reasons explanations simply shows your burgeoning bias. <br /><br />You are welcome to have any opinion you want...every has one. :). Is this opinion of yours working to bridge the gap with atheists/feminists? Are you truly looking to understand and find common ground? Your post doesn't read that way. A few more posts like this will have your readership be entirely the slymepit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-20283604226886492372014-10-22T12:23:05.697-06:002014-10-22T12:23:05.697-06:00I never said I intended to block. I never said I intended to block. Nate Phelpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-91561481921227097542014-10-22T09:20:07.271-06:002014-10-22T09:20:07.271-06:00I have a hard time understanding that you post thi...I have a hard time understanding that you post things on facebook knowing you will end up blocking people and that somehow that doesn't lead you to question your actions from the get-go.<br /><br />After that, you fail to recognize that Marcotte is a misandry machine. She cares nothing about atheism, her goal is first herself, second women, fuck socieity, fuck all men, fuck any woman who disagrees with her.<br /><br />Have you never read anything else by Marcotte?<br /><br />Your concern regarding this piece, is wasted when directed at Marcotte, your questions should be directed to feminist organizations and any editor at Salon, Slate, The Guardian, HuffPo, or her many publishers that publish this crap. Do they understand it is tendentious bullshit or do they really believe she is a fine journalist?<br /><br />Either answer is scary.<br /><br />Seriously, though, you publish things on facebook knowing you will end up blocking people? Huzzah! A win for dialogue and thought!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-33007789748860426022014-10-22T03:25:37.130-06:002014-10-22T03:25:37.130-06:00Shorter Hornbeck -- Shut up and listen you misogyn...Shorter Hornbeck -- Shut up and listen you misogynistic dude-bro.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-23986712792871511812014-10-21T22:42:44.525-06:002014-10-21T22:42:44.525-06:00Does anyone honestly think that this article did a...<i>Does anyone honestly think that this article did anything to move our society toward resolving the real issues of feminism? Does this article give us tools for working together?</i><br /><br />Again: Marcotte's article wasn't aimed at moving society forward, or even attacking Sam Harris for that matter (four paragraphs out of 16, remember). So why are you demanding it must? I gave you <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/is-sam-harris-sexist.html" rel="nofollow">three</a> <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/on-sam-harris-pregnancy-and-sacrifices.html" rel="nofollow">articles</a> <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/09/29/why-both-of-sam-harriss-recent-comments-were-sexist-even-if-you-accept-some-degree-of-innate-gendered-behavior/" rel="nofollow">that</a> do a better job on that front; why do you continue to ignore them, in favor of a target that's much easier to take down?<br /><br />You are ignoring the advice of feminists on sexism. You are preventing them from even giving advice in the first place. As I explained in the comment thread,<br /><br /><i>Imagine you blocked all the climate scientists from commenting on your FB page. What sort of understanding of climate science would you come to, from listening only to the under-informed public or the openly-hostile/devious climate deniers? You're putting yourself on a course to become the sexist pig you loudly proclaim you are not, and for what?<br /><br />Because Sally Strange called you "a bit of an ass" for making (in her opinion) unwarranted assumptions? Those don't exactly weigh out.</i><br /><br />And this will come back to bite you in the ass, in another way. Back in the 70's, most of the feminist movement refused to listen to LGBT and anti-racism activists. They viewed them as a disruptive element, a distraction from their core focus, and chided them for being so mean and hostile. They had their own thing going, so why did they have to expand into feminism as well?<br /><br />Forty years on, those disruptive fringe elements <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:I-D4s2TMlcUJ:bitchmagazine.org/post/laverne-cox-and-bell-hooks-had-a-discussion-about-gender-and-pop-culture+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk" rel="nofollow">are now the mainstream of the feminist movement</a>. The exclusionary types found themselves slowly marginalized by their more inclusionary peers. While there are still issues and dissenters, the feminist movement has generally <a href="http://www.queerty.com/gloria-steinem-feminism-and-gay-rights-are-completely-the-same-thing-20120423" rel="nofollow">endorsed</a> and <a href="http://everydayfeminism.com/tag/lgbtqia/" rel="nofollow">embraced</a> the LGBT movement. <br /><br />And for their part, LGBT activists are increasingly friendly with feminists and happy to ally with them. An exclusionary stance would not go over well with them.HJ Hornbeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01651107851557230964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-38774051341259691132014-10-21T22:26:45.144-06:002014-10-21T22:26:45.144-06:00You do excellent work for the LGBT community, Nate...You do excellent work for the LGBT community, Nate, but when I comes to feminism....<br /><br /><i>1. The original interview with Harris included a question about why he thought the majority of his readership were men.<br /><br />2. Ms. Marcotte referenced that question in her article, changed it to the majority of atheists, then criticized his response saying "Harris didn’t even consider that it could be atheism that has a problem."</i><br /><br />I explained this to you in the Facebook thread, Nate:<br /><br /><i>2. Her article wasn't meant to be a fisking of Harris' blog post. Marcotte spent four paragraphs of the 16 in her article on Harris, and she covered both the initial interview *and* his massive response in that span. The thesis of her article was not Harris ...</i><br /><br />and your point 2. is factually wrong. Here's Harris's own words <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2014/09/12/can-atheist-sam-harris-become-a-spiritual-figure/" rel="nofollow">from the interview</a>: "People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women, .... The atheist variable just has this—it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”<br /><br /><i><b>"First, he warmed up with the “women are humorless” gambit, declaring his “estrogen vibe” comment a joke that simply flew over female heads."</b><br /><br />Is it possible it was a joke? Isn't it a legal principal that we look at the entire body of evidence to help us decide the intent of a specific word or deed? Does Harris have a history of misogyny? In our search for REAL enemies of feminism, do we do the movement justice by automatically labeling everyone who offends us as a sexist jerk?</i><br /><br />C'mon, now. You can't be ignorant of the <a href="http://www.rebeccalynneharris.org/its-just-a-joke-and-other-things-people-say-to-defend-prejudice/" rel="nofollow">"it was just a joke!" defense</a>, used the world over to excuse all sorts of bigotry. Nor can you think that if someone was once a misogynist, they are permanently stuck as misogynists; by the same token, even if Harris wasn't known for making sexist comments doesn't automatically disqualify him from making a sexist comment now or in future. What matters most is what he said now, and in that Facebook thread, I directed you to three articles by two people that explained in much greater detail why Sam Harris's remarks were sexist. Apparently, you still haven't read them.<br /><br /><i>His acknowledgement of the importance and value of women in his life is sexist?</i><br /><br />As I explained to you in that Facebook thread,<br /><br /><i>[As Harris says,] "If you really want to know the truth about me, I tend to respect women more than men. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it’s actually an honest statement about my psychological biases." He openly admits to treating the sexes differently, without evidence, then denies he's done it *in the very next sentence.*</i>HJ Hornbeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01651107851557230964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-81649049272695905372014-10-21T19:49:23.541-06:002014-10-21T19:49:23.541-06:00The scores of commenters (most of whom disagreed o...The scores of commenters (most of whom disagreed or misrepresented my position) who weren't blocked or deleted put the lie to this comment. Nate Phelpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-49087855590001342462014-10-21T17:32:49.165-06:002014-10-21T17:32:49.165-06:00Yes, it's time to allow free exchange of ideas...Yes, it's time to allow free exchange of ideas, but delete anyone whose opinions differ from you. And people who complain about sexism should just get over it! Gah, what a complete and total misrepresentation of the FB discussion I was part of. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-83641344455385149322014-10-21T01:59:18.186-06:002014-10-21T01:59:18.186-06:00Your imagination.Your imagination.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-40351003231456732632014-10-20T08:32:50.475-06:002014-10-20T08:32:50.475-06:00Very well written. I can't think of anything t...Very well written. I can't think of anything to take issue with.noelplum99https://www.blogger.com/profile/02279159559088659959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-53619229864798585932014-10-20T07:41:41.540-06:002014-10-20T07:41:41.540-06:00"My best advice to you would be to stop talki..."My best advice to you would be to stop talking and start LISTENING."<br /><br />This is rhetorical boilerplate and gets stated in identical form over and over again. It's just telling someone to shut up. <br /><br />Sullyhttp://twitter.com/sulmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-70090107154278689662014-10-20T06:58:50.307-06:002014-10-20T06:58:50.307-06:00You cannot reason with the likes of Marcotte. We ...You cannot reason with the likes of Marcotte. We need to ignore her horrible ideas, ignore her ignorant posts, and move of with other things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-64211783322673004252014-10-20T03:07:13.185-06:002014-10-20T03:07:13.185-06:00Thank you Nate for this post.
I see the same issue...Thank you Nate for this post.<br />I see the same issues you do, and dislike the titles of misogynist/rape culture supporter, etc that seem to fly fast and free from some members.<br />That turns people off a lot, when they would have been willing to discuss issues. No one wants to be called horrible things, especially when they feel they are not those horrible things. <br /> <br />I know several women who have been called terrible things on social media, usually by people who don't know them, and I do not support this.<br />But I also do not support genuine critics being lumped in with trolls.<br /> <br />I just wish people be more generous when they converse with critics (not trolls, they are just looking to piss people off) and not assume the worst motives in them.Lindanoreply@blogger.com