So… The Edger is up and kicking. THere was a bit of a …. kurfuffle and whathaveyou about it. but. all is good. Here is my first post that I’ve put up over there. Ones in the making are….. Art in Secularism, Rocks and Fluff Don’t Work (it’ll be a good one), atheists in the media (revisted) aaaaaand… yeah. That’s all I got.

This is a response to Chris’ post: Why atheism is a rich man’s world - and how we can change it
I get it, women like being included, and that’s fine. Honestly now, it’s not like we’re excluding women in this faction. But! Before I get to the meat of Chris’ post, I just wanted to comment on a couple smaller pedantic issues:

ландшафтConstant reminders consisting of everything from TV ads to misused pronouns don’t let us forget the struggle with basic civil and social rights that women have battled, past and present alike.

Yes, and consistently feminists all over North America are using these “reminders” to slam men every chance they get. But for some reason the sexism against men is completely over looked. There are ads in the Toronto subways right now for the restaurant Moxies. I hear a couple of girls talking about how “sexist” the ad is because the woman is depicted in a pretty slut-tastic dress and all her jewelry is being pulled to the man beside her who is wearing an outfit that would make him out to be a magnet. They ended their conversation with “the guy is pretty sexy though”. … WTF?

It’s hardly a secret that there just tend to be more men in science.

So is it because our “movement” is so science oriented that there are fewer women? Maybe we should focus on the arts more in our programming to draw in a new (and possibly more feminine […stereotype alert!]) crowd? Hmm. Just a thought.

This is one of the more unfortunate side effects of “new atheism” brought up by the (otherwise exceptional) lead of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris: the “big three” of non-belief nowadays.

I’m not sure that it’s their gender that is the unfortunate thing about these three men, it’s the lack of connection with individuals and how many people can’t relate to them that is truly unfortunate. What I’d like to see is someone who can talk reasonably about religion and life – but not be full of fluff with whom I can relate to. Woman or not.

Anyway, onto my real points!

The “new face” of atheism – as it seems to be called – is indeed very white male oriented. But why does this matter? Secularism in the public sphere is a somewhat innovative fad we’re diving into. Only recently have people felt comfortable enough to leap out and declare atheism as a way to brand themselves. Realistically, it just so happens that those who had the time and money to start this whole atheistic movement were white, well-off men. But the important part, is that it happened! And that it’s still happening! Now about who is running it.

Being involved with secularism, the movement, is a privilege. It’s a privilege that many people simply don’t have. It’s like complaining that you’re soup is too hot – people with another option can do it. And it seems like the people who did have this option, were white males, so they started this new stream of atheism. And it’s that, new… you can’t expect it to be a plethora of sexes and races when it’s barely accepted by the public at large!

But that entire point is extraneous, much like actively attempting to get women involved. It’s futile. The people who are currently involved are the ones who desire to be; at this point we should be attempting to get more people in general involved, not simply encouraging women to step into the movement. If I spent my time trying to get our women volunteers more active and encouraging them to be more vocal within our groups – I’d be wasting a whole lot of time where I could be doing more productive things like giving support to our already active volunteers.

Aggressively encouraging women to get involved is just like affirmative action. We start overlooking a plethora of capable people simply to be more inclusive. We look at a group of say 10 individuals, where 1 is a female…we ask the female to do the work simply because she’s a women and it turns out she’s the least capable. I’ve just wasted all of my time and invested interest in this person who is less capable than 9 other people, but I overlooked that point because for some reason we think that having women involved with organizations makes them more successful? Makes them more appealing? Makes us look less sexist? What?

Who cares what sex we have working with us? I don’t feel like I could relate to a woman Paul Kurtz any more or less than I can relate to the male Paul Kurtz. It’s reverse discrimination, as this unwarranted need for a closer male to female ratio requires the very discrimination that supporters are seeking to eradicate.
I personally think we have bigger fish to fry than putting energy into getting women involved. To be completely straightforward, I don’t have time to wave my hand at all the women screaming at them “Hey! Look! It’s fun! And non-patriarchal!” …Because those who want to be involved are already here, and are already contributing.

There is no “anti-women” sign on any of our doors. The exact same opportunities are available to women as are to men. When I’m looking for someone to fill a position, I’m just looking for a committed body and mind, not a gender. Why not invest our interests somewhere that it makes sense, like putting time, energy and money into art programs. (By stereotypical nature this would eventually lead to an increase in women, but that’s not the point.) It’s an entire social, cultural and academic side of things that we hardly ever touch on, but where there is a market for our mindsets and thoughts. Some of your are going to argue that women add more diversity, and different thoughts. …Any number of people despite sex, age or race are going to add diversity! I have the same opinions and thoughts as most of the guys in my little secular group. I don’t add diversity.

A social movement such as secularism is equal opportunity. If there are women out there pining to save the world from religion, teach other about science education or explore the paranormal they’re more than welcome to come on it. But I’m not going to waste my time convincing them that it’s okay to do that.

Picture of Tara Smith who blogs at Aetiology.

Picture by the wonderful photographer Lindsay at Majikthise

It’s pretty hard to avoid the topic of Yearly Kos while cruising around the blog-o-sphere this weekend. I myself didn’t go. I originally had a ticket, but ended up getting a job that required me to be around and I didn’t feel like spending the money on the bus for 16 hours to get there. I haven’t actually been reading all that much but I’ve come up with a couple of thoughts surrounding Yearly Kos.

There are things in this world that bother me. I’m not usually a complainer, nor do I find it productive to criticize people who are trying to make a difference. But Kos bothers me. The “organization” as a whole bothers me. Mostly for two reasons, it’s ability to deliver false hope and it’s inability to be fair to women.

The people at Kos generally have one big thing in common besides all being liberal commies - they blog. Many of them, in fact, think that one day they’re going to be huge big bloggers like Kos and are going there to network and get solid advice on how to make it big. But really, all their getting are panels of ill informed people who basically got lucky. On top of this, they think coming together is going to make a big different. But really, who is going to start paying these big salaries? It seems as though people are a little too involved with the idea of the proletariat, either that or they’re going to start sucking the money out of Google ads in a week.

There are a few problems here - people spend too much time blogging and end up with little result. I blogged non-stop for a year and developed a pretty good readership, but they sure as hell weren’t going to start sending me money. This new method of blogging, linking, is just so ineffective. People think that if they create a post that just links to someone else, and they add one or two thoughts of their own that they’ve created a really great post. But really they’re just conforming to the masses of what everyone else writes about. When I think of the “big blogs” I see some common traits. They all have a solid subject that they stick to. They all have fantastics writers. They all write posts that come out of their own heads, not just links from other people (feministing the exception, but women only go there so that someone else can think for them… ) And finally, they all have a hint of personality. (Oh, and many of them have books - which helps)

Now when I read the smaller blogs I see links, topics all over the board, unoriginal writing and nazi control of the comments. But very few of the little blogs are going to change. The problem with picking a subject and ceasing the linkage is that all of the sudden - you become *gasp* an individual. But bloggers are so painfully striving for any ounce of main blog-o-sphere acceptance. They’re willing to blog just like the big leagues and agree with them on all their points and bow down and kiss their feet just for a link. And this weakens the entire liberal blogosphere as a whole. You want a strong blogosphere? Have your own voice and be willing to fight with people on your own side.

So why does this link to Kos? People are there because they see the success of Daily Kos, so if you go to their conference you’re going to be up to par with the “intellectual masses” of their “movement” instead of staying at home coming up with real ways to create a unique voice that will actually be heard. Kossaks are all the same.

The reason I wanted to go to Kos was to see Chris Mooney - btw - not to become a big time blogger. My time with him will come.

Next - women. Have you heard of the BlogHer conference? Believe it or not, it is the biggest conference from women on the blogosphere. The BlogHer conference invited all presidential candidates to either appear or… send surrogates. Edwards and Clinton both sent surrogates. Edwards sent his wife. And then you look, apparently, a week makes a monumental difference in making presidential candidates available because at the Yearly Kos convention, a gathering of bloggers whose main attendees appear to be white and male, all of the candidates showed up… in person… together even!

Alright, alright, that’s not really the fault of Kos - but Markos being a sexist pig is. Gordo has blogged about it before. Gordo isn’t the only one to have written about it, and it’s not even just in the past year… it’s been going on for yeeears. Read the following for more:

Godless Liberal Homo
Skakes’ Sister
Echidne
Shades of Grey

“Yeah, but Katie… Yearly Kos isn’t held by Daily Kos” … Seriously, THEY HAVE THE SAME NAME AND MARKOS IS LIKE IDOLIZED! After the earlier sexist out break at the beginning of the year I was convinced that the feminists of the blogosphere wouldn’t even step three miles close to the Kos convention - but turns out the majority of them were there for a panel. Using the exact same defence of “It’s run by different people” …

Sure, the thing may not be planned by Daily Kos, but they’re affiliated - closely. When you think Yearly Kos - you think Daily Kos. Yearly Kos is the child of Daily Kos and while Markos may not be the one running the show - he’s running the name. It’s too bad all the women had to jump at that chance for stardom while completely leaving their ethics behind them. And the really sad part is that they’re not going to a) convince anyone of anything or b) get any new followers because they people that are they already agree with them, already want to be their friend and already follow their every move for hours upon hours on the net.

Anyway, that’s my rant on Kos.

cross-posted at appletree

Lately I’ve been reading a lot online about sex positivism. I attempted to write about it before, but I wasn’t too happy with the post that came out of it. To get myself going I started talking about the 4 young women around me aged 17 - 20. All of them claim to have “sex positive” views on life, and to test this I asked them how often they masturbate. They all answered quite openly with answers ranging from “everyday” to “once every two weeks”. 

They also described what ”sex positive” means to them. To these four it was being open and not having to be ashamed. Being honest and appreciating the ”wonderful world of sex”, which is most definitely a human thing. Feeling good about yourself whether you’ve slept with 4 guys or 42 and having this as an across the board thing, no double standards. Saving ones self for marriage has the problem of marrying someone who likes S&M while you like missionary… or you not knowing what you want at all - so there should be exploration so you don’t get a Hot Carl on your honeymoon.

They believe that sex negatives “need to get laid more”. They got a little side tracked on that question. … They all agreed that they had grown up in sexual homes and that their attitudues are all about how they were brought up.

For me personally, sex positive doesn’t mean having a high sex drive or slinking around in clothing that hides little to nothing. It’s not about being able to talk amongst friends about masturbation and sexual acts, although that is important, sex positivism is about so much more than that. It’s about the importance of fighting for women whose sexuality fits in and out of the box.

A big part of political and patriarchal control is limiting the sexual acts and freedom of a woman and even of men. Sexual violence against women is one of the many ways that this happens, also the negative attitudes towards escorts and strippers - people are trying to limit and control their sexuality. The key here is to create a world in which women’s sexual choices are always respected. ALL women. If they’re monogamous, polyamorous, dykes, asexuals, bisexuals, like to sleep around… etc. they should all be respected. Is that enough? I don’t think so. As well as being respected their sexualities should be appreciated.

What I loved about talking to the four women today was that each one of us respected the answers of the other. We didn’t devalue each other’s sexuality and choices instead we treated each others sexuality as the norm, no matter what the answers were. Everyone in the world shoud understand that any sort of healthy choice about sex is one that is to be respected and appreciated. By healthy I mean consentual and practiced with condoms, or other birth control and defense against disease. Men have, for a long time, been given the privilege of having a sex life that is normalized and valorized.

Samie and I are sex positive women because we believe in liberation of women and their sexualities. We believe in the importance of celebrating women and having each and every one of their voices heard. When we each speak of our personal sexual experiences and choices we’re not just talking about a small deal. We’re talking about something that many women in the world are too scared to talk about, what some women have been conditioned to be embarassed about and what some women have just completely have had stolen from them. The fact that the five of us sat around talking about our sex lives, desires and activities was liberating, exhilerating and full of such hope.

None of them put themselves into a box, one likes to explore all sexes, the other likes to dabble with multiple guys at a time, another liked straight vanilla sex… We didn’t put each other into a box. We didn’t make fun. We weren’t embarassed. All women in the world need this level of freedom. They all need to know their sexualities are down right sexy. Their sexualities are exciting. Their sexualities are interesting, honorable and most of all -completely f’n gorgeous.

That! is why I am a sex positive woman. And why I believe that every woman in the world should learn that their sexualities and desires are beautiful, normal and completely alright to talk about.

oooof assholes.

Im off to bed…I have to get up early early to go to Toronto to help Andy Pandy move from his mouse filled basement apartment to his new 12 story non-mice filled apartment. yay! but first… check this:

An explosive device was found in the parking lot of a woman’s center.

According to the Feminist Majority Foundation’s National Clinic Violence Survey, 18.4 percent of clinics across the country are targets of severe violence, including arsons, bombings, chemical attacks, gunfire, and invasion. The most recent incident comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a federal abortion procedure ban. “The extremists in the anti-abortion movement have been emboldened by the latest Supreme Court decision,” said Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “These domestic terrorists will continue to attack women’s health clinics across the country until their financial and support networks are closed down.”

Yeah you know what the exact rational response is to an act that you don’t like because it kills an unborn child? Killing people! WOO! Seriously though, this sort of thing makes me want to throw up it makes me so ill. It’s just so sad. I think tomorrow I’ll go to an abortion clinic and hug everyone that is there..

I had actually pre-ordered Jessica’s book so that I could be quick to read it and get a review up - but living in Canada the shipping is taking 2 weeks, and I already moved away from the house that it is going to be arriving to. So knowing that I wouldn’t actually get the book for like a month I went to a friend and read it. My thoughts about it are pretty much summarized here at Feminist Reviews.

 Having read Valenti’s writing on the blog – which tends to be oversimplified and, quite frankly, bratty – I was hoping her analysis in book form would show at least a tad more depth. Unfortunately for Valenti, there’s a downside to fame; it opens you up for public criticism.

If Full Frontal Feminism is supposed to be the spark that ignites young women to identify as feminists and hop on the movement train, then women are in deep trouble. Valenti writes like a feminist version of Ann Coulter, and let’s face it, Ann Coulter is hardly known for her intelligence. Flamboyant and egotistical, much of Valenti’s commentary is trite, at best.

I couldn’t agree more. What bothers me almost more than her inability to back up assertions with citations is that she just dumbs everything down and tries to play the “cool” card so that all the 13 year old girls reading it will start to admire her and become a feminist. Sadly - their new idol isn’t exactly what feminism should be about.

Jessica is reasserting the scary screaming feminist symbol that a lot of women try to get rid of. The type of argument she uses, and her language sets course for a completely non-academic paper that wouldn’t help anyone in an actual debate. Instead it is flamatory and like a shitty blog post, at best. It’s sad that she uses the opportunity to go straight for the throats of people she’s had petty online disputes with instead of creating a book that had the potential to be a really great resource for young women who wanted to become intelligently informed about feminism.  

My actual comment there was:

Love this review. …I ordered the book, but haven’t actually got it yet - So I went to the book store, had a sit down with a coffee and read it there.

I couldn’t agree more with what you’re saying. THere is definitely an over tone of “Fuck you, I don’t need to back myself up because you’re all just idiots” which will never help anyone win any sort of real debate.

I had the same feelings as when I read Dr.Phil’s son’s book - he just tried so hard to “reach” a younger audience … so he ended up using profanity and more or less - dumbing it down. Just as Jessica has done.

Her lack of real arguments is what really bothers me the most. After reading her book, and then Chris Mooney’s book on the rights war on science you can see a huge intelligence and talent difference - They’re about the same age, but Mooney’s book has pages upon pages of citations and sources for people to look further. He backs himself up with proofs and out smarts the other side instead of attempting to out cool them.

Honestly now, Mooney successfully wrote a book that was intelligent, passionate and spoke to a younger (and older) crowd. This type of writing with pages upon pages of references and interviews and proof are what make an effective book. Jessica wrote pages of opinion that are just as relevant and well thought out and produced as Ann Coulter arguments. (I’m stealing Feminist Reviews’ comparison with that, because it just fits so well.)

This book is yet another thing that I can add to my list of “why feminism is failing”. Instead of using her power over so many young women with feminism in their viens and creating campaigns that could make a difference, Jessica has spent her time writing a book that will be good for nothing on the fore front of feminist debates.

Perhaps Valenti believes that young women won’t be moved unless they’re completely scared to death. Fear is a powerful motivator, but it belittles the audience in the process.

I’m not sure this is the case. I’m pretty sure it’s an attempt to reach out to young women - not by scaring them - but by talking to them on a “hip” and “cool” level. Personally, it didn’t work out too well for me. I’d rather read some respectable arguements with more than one page on year long debates opposed to page upon page of slanderous, pointless and “trying to be cool” material. 

A point my mom just brought up - if it was made to sell fast, then sure, she wrote a good book. It’ll sell fast… to people who initially want to read it, and women who think they’re going to get a good read out of it - and then it will never sell again.

It is in no way, shape, or form… a book that anyone should mock or look to when attempting to get an intelligent, politically correct or stable argument or open minded view toward feminism. I doubt it will be overly appealing to anyone who doesn’t comment on feministing every day already. I wouldn’t tell my best friend’s kid sister to read it - I’d direct her to more intelligent sources so that she would end up with real arguments and sources rather than an irrational outlook on how we should handle the feminist movement and debates.

(cross posted at appletree)