Comments (0)

By Katie Kish, February 9, 2011 1:45 am

To test out my new e-book reader (aka my gigantic, beautiful and multi-purpose Dell Streak 5 that now has the newest version of Android and launcher pro on it…*sigh*) I’m reading Escape.  It is horribly depressing and really makes the issue of atheist groups needing to be more inclusive to women all that more important, in my mind. Carolyn, an ex-FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) accounts her life growing up in the “church”. She is beaten by her mother as a command from their religion, beaten at school, taken away from her friends and deprived of her dreams to be a doctor. Why is she deprived of that dream? … Because she is married off to an old man when she is only 18 years old… the old guy already has like 3 or 4 wives and actually chose her as a mistake. How brutal…

I just wrote a semi-lengthy post for Canadian Atheist about feminism in the atheist movement, but I didn’t drive in this point nearly enough: RELIGION IS INCREDIBLY SEXIST. Women are abused, taken advantage of, seen as less than men..etc etc etc. It’s hard enough to leave a religion why make it harder to enter a support group of atheists that could help in the transition?

It is vital to have an inclusive environment that anyone can walk into. When you enter into a church people are warm and welcoming despite race, gender and age. At atheist events its a bit harder if you’re not white, female or young. I want to believe that if a woman like Carolyn, who had experienced a life of abuse from religion, entered into one of our buildings that she would be welcomed with open arms and a shoulder for support.

This is my hope, anyway.

Comments (3)

By Katie Kish, October 20, 2009 10:20 am

“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,”

My hero, Tarek Fatah, appeared on Coren fighting for his cause on behalf of the Muslim Canadian Congress:

Tarek is definitely one man who can hold his own in front of anyone in the world. …The bearded guy he’s with is rude, and ignorant.

Anyway, as much as I respect Tarek I’m really torn on this issue. The biggest argument I have against it is that it is a restriction on religious freedom, which I wouldn’t necessarily condone under any circumstance. But on that note….

Defenders of the burka contend that the wearing of a face-mask by Muslim women is protected by our Charter’s right to religious freedom. But such arguments are premised on the myth that a face-mask for women is a necessary part of religiously prescribed Islamic attire.

There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women.

…So is it oppressive to have them wear, or not to give them the option to wear it? Is it a matter of public safety? Is Canada disguising an unnecessary tradition as a triumph of liberalism and individualism? Why is this one religious tradition that people want to protect in Canada? We don’t protect all other religious traditions like the sword that shiks are supposed to wear, or polygamy or no shopping on Sundays… Could this just be a slippery slope? There are plenty of other religions in Canada that require the wearing of certain garbs, none of them do a full face cover… but the amish women are supposed to dress modestly and in those ugly dresses, and jews have to wear that little hat.

I don’t know. What do you think?

UPDATES:

*comments that I find interesting from my twitter and facebook*

Joel Klinepeter:

An identity forced on them by the misogynistic tenets of Islam… These practices damage both the women and men by placing responsibility for the men upon the women… It’s a twisted system whereby if a woman is raped it must be her fault for provoking the men… It makes women culpable for a mans lack of self control…

The very fact that anyone can consider it a ‘cultural identity’ and not a tool of oppression (not trying to attack you Caleb, just venting) is a clear example of cultural relativity gone wrong… All cultures are not created equal and many should be actively discouraged. It’s the same cultural identity that forces genital mutilation upon women that keeps them cloaked behind the burka. It should also be noted that the intent of the burka is not to protect the women, but at it’s root is a way for men to control women and it all generally comes down to a double standard with regards to sex… A woman who doesn’t bleed on her wedding night (and there are more causes for that than just having already had sex) could face anything from being ostracized to losing her life, whereas there are no negative consequences in these cultures for a man who doesn’t stay a virgin until he is married…

No tool of oppression, whether it can be considered part of a ‘cultural identity’ or not, has any place in a modern society…

Andrew Kish

How is forcing someone not to wear something any different than forcing someone to wear something?

Regardless of why, forcing anyone to do anything constitutes a breach of freedom IMO.

Joe Kirkintilloch

If an ‘adult woman’ wants to have her hymen replaced, her breasts enlarged, her tongue pierced, her skin tattooed, or any other sort of surgery, assuming that she isn’t shown to be incompetent, then just like an adult man, she should be allowed to do so.

Its her body. Not mine.

Genital mutilation is most often done to children, who can’t consent, and to both male and female, although often what is done to females is more destructive.

If an adult man, wants to have the tip of his penis sliced off… that’s his business.
Children are a completely different issue. And I object to the mutilation of both.

Talk about false parallels.
Wearing a burka is not irreversible, it doesn’t involve knives or physical pain. It causes no physical damage, and as long as the person…. male or female… consents to wearing the silly thing, that is their business.

Your interpretation of what a piece of clothing means, is simply your opinion.

Kiran Mehdee

I was on the fence about this issue for quite a while. Until I researched, talked to people on both sides of the issue and understood that:
1: The Burqa is a symbol of rape-protection for the women who wear it. It’s the product of culture that believe if a woman is sexually harassed or raped, it’s her fault for existing. It’s a symbol of patriarchy and a woman’s internalized sense of patriarchy.
2: Islam the religion itself does not actually mandate face covering, it mandates “modesty” and the covering of breasts. That is if you believe in that religion.
3: Face covering burqas are increasingly being used by criminals to rob banks and stores. (news stories have come out of England and Canada and the US about this).
4: Face covering is a public safety issue. Like we don’t allow people wearing ninja masks or ski masks and stockings to cover their faces when they are in public places like govt buildings, airports, banks, parks, shools, etc., the face covering of the burqa falls under the same category as a way for the covered person to conceal his or her identity from everyone else around. In cases of criminal prosecuation, this can mean witness and perpetrators of crimes couldn’t be identified if their faces were covered.
5: Women mostly wear these garments because they were raised from birth to think their bodies belong to their husbands only. This sense of ownership over a woman’s body by the man in her life (father, husband, brother, son) is the essence of patriarchy and the motivation behind “honor killings”. So, while patriarchy and the honour culture is not going to go away if burqas go away, as a society we need to decide if we’re willing to incorporate those things in or root those anti-human-rights ideas out, one step at a time.
6: Some of the loudest voices against burqa usage are coming from muslims themselves including Muslim women like Mona Eltahawy (US), Jobeda Ali (UK), Fadela Amara (France), and Muslim men like Tarek Fatah (Canada) and even Egypt’s highest cleric Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi.
7: Defenders of the burqa often claim it is the “right” of a woman to wear whatever she wants, as though by wearing a burqa, a woman is showing off how liberated she is. In truth, the Burqa is a garment worn by women who are enslaved either socially or internally to an ideology that treats them as nothing but the property of their masters (husbands/fathers). How this garment seems to the mind of a cultural relativist as a symbol of women’s liberation is confounding for those of us who are from Muslim cultures and would like to enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities as those liberals who purport to want to “protect” our cultural practices regardless of how misogynist and discriminatory.

Comments (30)

By Katie Kish, September 14, 2009 10:08 am

Posts are coming in from all over the place about Justin, his man blog, CFI-Canada and democracy. As per usual Zak is an asshole (he’s usually an asshole, right…but an asshole), Joe breaks it down unbiased and sensible style and Gordo makes me want to pee my pants laughing so hard but at the same time hitting the nail on the head. But then there is Ian Bushfield, who as first you want to be like “hahahaha…” but then you’re like “haha..ha….h…….a…oh, that’s not funny at all, because it’s so true.” And then there is this new site….which is starting to look pretty interesting…

As the pres of the Freethought Association of Canada I really feel like I need to just stay out of all of it. But that’s not really true Katie Kish fashion, (but keep in mind these are my opinions, NOT FAC’s!!) despite the fact that Justin himself asked me to stay out of it. I think that really goes to show how problematic this all really is.

It breaks down to two issues, in my opinion. The first is the future and sustainability of The Center For Iquiry in Canada and the second is multi-cause leadership. …So here are my unedited (its getting late in the morning and I have a class to go to) thoughts about what is going on.

Zak points out that a democracy in CFI is pretty much a delusion and says this:

“So, until more people get involved and more money can be raised, it’s likely Justin won’t be going anywhere, nor should he since we don’t yet have anyone with the experience or dedication willing to replace him.”

There are a couple problems here. The first is that Justin isn’t the only person. As someone who worked for CFI I’ve seen a lot of people come and go. People who are dedicated, who don’t mind putting hours at a time into CFI and who would gladly take Justin’s spot coordinating CFI Ontario. He isn’t irreplaceable at CFI Ontario. I think in the media, he is pretty irreplaceable, but that’s just because Im terrified of writing for things like Holy Post and going on the Michael Coren show so in my eyes, anyone that does that is amazing.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again and again and again. There are people in Toronto who want to work for CFI, if given the chance, they would apply. But this is all besides a very important point. …Justin founded CFI Ontario 3 years ago. How many consistent volunteers are there? Why hasn’t he found people that can hold up CFI as a place? 3 years of being the leading secular voice in Canada is a long time. And while I’ve seen a lot of people get involved, I’ve seen just as many who would have been firm and solid volunteers leave because of the way CFI is run. If I talk to those people and ask if it is okay to use their names I’ll do a follow up something to back this point up.

The Center for Inquiry – Ontario is not sustainable right now. There aren’t enough volunteers to do stuff (when I was working there I had to pull teeth to get 2 or 3 people show up to help me with an event.), the actual building is a mess and does NOT look like a think tank organization’s major building in Canada should…, the structure doesn’t allow for democratic processes even for the board of directors and I’ve seen unanimous decisions by the CFI general volunteers completely overturned by Justin single handedly.

So you may ask “Well, Katie, if you’re so concerned why aren’t you there being one of the pillar volunteers that you think CFI really needs to be sustainable?”… Well imaginary question asker, I’ll tell you, as this is my point number 2.

Some causes are controversial and some are not. It takes a moron to not understand why one cause might be more controversial than an other. Because of the previous issue Justin is pretty much the only face of atheism in Canada. I’ve been on a few national media outlets, but Justin has been on them all. And this is amazing. He speaks for secularists (agnostics, atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers, …) on a regular basis on national media outlets regularly. Its been amazing, he’s given a face to secularists and our efforts in Canada. He’s also founded most of the major secular players in Canada and really rallied up the Campus groups. Woohoo!

So lets google, Mr. Trottier, to see ALL of his accomplishments! …What is this? He has a personal blog?! Cool!

What? … I can’t say it better than other people have:

“words like “whiny” and “complaining” are throwbacks to old gendered stereotypes about big mouthed bitches who don’t know their place.”

“About the quote mining do I really need to point … Read moreout how intellectually dishonest it is?”

“I’m disappointed that at how ideologically driven your comments are especially considering that you are supposed to be the executive director of a secular humanist organization (CFI) that promotes critical thinking. Many of us have been having a hard time keeping CFI going in Canada in light of your misogynistic views Justin and we aren’t even the ones getting paid. I’d suggest that if this is really the path you want to follow that you do us a favour and resign for the good of the organization.”

“Justin: If people who don’t like your views are leaving, and those who find your blog and agree and then follow to CFI join, doesn’t that tend toward an ideologically narrow CFI?”

“I’m not saying he can’t speak, but as head of an organization he has to understand that his words are damaging to the reputation of that organization. So if he wants to say these things, and remain head honcho of CFI, then he’ll need to accept that many may leave.”

A letter written by a previous volunteer on June 6th 2009:

Hello all, please read below.

“Among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60% more likely to develop the disease and 70% more likely to die from it. “we were surprised to see such consistent differences.” “Gee, now why would men think their health less valuable than women? All they see are “Women’s hospitals”, immigrant women’s health buses paid for by the government, and the highly publicly funded Women’s Health Network? Shocking!… Read more
and:
“Living in an epoch that is selfish as well as matriarchal, our lifeboats are no longer marked “women and children first,” only “women first.” We invent euphemisms, such as “choice” for killing, and sophomoric dilemmas, such as pretending not to know when life begins, to ensure that nothing hinders Virginia’s quest for Santa Claus. No obstacle must interfere with her goal of self-fulfillment — least of all an issue (as it were) of her healthy sexual appetite.
Some put the question in terms of a woman’s right toher own body. That would be valid enough in the realm of smoking, diet, liposuction or sex — but abortion? Abortion means controlling someone else… Read more’s body. Incidentally, I realize that as a man I have no authority to speak on the matter, but I’m not speaking as a man. I wouldn’t dare. I’m speaking strictly as an ex-fetus.”

Heya. The above quotes are a sample of what Justin Trottier, spokesperson for CFI Canada, and also spokesperson for http://www.equalismactivism.com/, is posting on his facebook page.

I wanted to make you all aware that someone who speaks for CFI, an organization that promotes science and reason, is also speaking publicly in support of what I consider regressive, sexist positions and policies. In addition, we skeptics continually discuss possible ways to get women more involved in the skeptical community. I’m pretty sure this … Read moreisn’t the best way to go about it. As most of you know, his outspoken positions are the primary reason why I’ve stepped away from formal association with CFI.

I support everyone’s right to free speech, and these samples are from Justin’s personal FB account, not a CFI forum. However, Equalism Activism is a public website with Justin’s picture on the home page. In an ideal world, people would be able to separate the two. It is not an ideal world. In fact, when you google Justin’s name, Equalism Activism is the second hit.

I’m not suggesting that any of you do anything about this, just that you be aware. If CFI Alberta becomes successful in its quest to be the one-stop critical thinking shop for this province, it will only be a matter of time until some intrepid reporter asks about CFI’s opinion on Justin’s positions. You should be ready for it.

In Skeptical Solidarity,

d

Aaaand more quotes:

“When people see, read, or hear about Justin, they think CFI, and vice versa. That`s basic branding. And this, then, is a PR nightmare for all of us.”

“This post illustrates exactly what’s wrong with this blog. This is a manipulative and misleading story (which isn’t surprising for the Star) which could have been exposed with about 10 minutes of research (which is how long it took me).”

“I think Justin needs to choose his cause. I agree that it is not good strategically to be heavily involved (let alone leading) two different activist causes, especially such controversial ones.”

“ I`m not sure how it could be, when the author of a blog allows the kinds of things in that Denis Prager post to remain on his blog, especially after it was repeatedly made clear to him that Prager is condoning marital rape, using highly sexist (against women AND men) stereotypes to `prove`his point. Justin, as the owner of the blog, is also the editor, yet he to this day has not even thought twice about the content of that post or any other. If you take a quick glance at almost all of the other posts … Read morein that section, you will also see his penchant for picking and choosing quotes that seem to fit his ideological argument, and ignore the actual facts and or real life subtleties within them.”

“Will: that was one of many posts where Justin’s use of citations/sources were called into question, along with his polemical misrepresentations of complex legal issues, see:

http://www.equalismactivism.com/?p=1067… Read more
and
http://www.equalismactivism.com/?p=849

for just two examples.”

Now how about some of my favorite quotes from Justin’s blog… starting with women should have sex, even if they don’t want to, because…like…come on! its just like taking out the trash, man!

“Allow me to summarise. In these two columns Dennis Prager presents the argument that a wife who cares about having a happy husband rethinks the idea that if she is not in the mood then that means she must not have sex. Prager shines a light on the differences between men and women, sex is far more important to men than it is to women and that a man knows his wife loves him by the fact that she has sex with him. Does mood always determine our actions? No. Are you always in the mood to get up and go to work in the morning? Are you ever in the mood to get up in the night and feed the baby? Take out the trash? Sometimes we have obligations to do things that we don’t feel like doing because they lead to good consequences down the road.”

This one makes me LOL, because we buy nothing for men…and so we have to pick, diamond rings and spoils or pay equality, not both.:

“She [justin's girlfriend] finished before me and while I was having my haircut completed, she was asked by the hairdresser if she wished to pay for herself or to wait. And the wink that followed was to mean that waiting would have the advantage that I, the male, would then be obliged to pay for both my haircut and that of my girlfriend’s. Tell me why women ought to have pay equality if they are to have purchased for them diamond rings, dinners and haircuts?”

Ya know what women! You man THINK you’re making progress! But really, its the men still making decisions for you! Mwa hahah…err. wait… isn’t that supposed to be teh OPPOSITE arguement of his blog:

“One last reminder to those feminists who like to pat themselves on the back and tell each other that they and they alone are responsible for women’s progress.  All 9 Justices deciding Roe V. Wade were male.”

I can’t read anymore of it….The truly sad thing is that Justin has some really important issues raised on his blog. Men face sexism. Men work in high risk jobs. Men need birth control. Men often get screwed over in custody battles. Men have a higher suicide rate. Men lack support groups. But it’s all accompanied with ignorant comments about women and feminism. With an egotistical overtone that is really not helpful to anyone’s cause. If someone is going to be the face of any one cause or controversial organization – they shouldn’t try to pick up another. Especially one that alienates people. If I were the face of atheism/secularism in Canada…I wouldn’t be so active in my environmental things, I would stick to one cause if I was that prominent of a figurehead.

Justin thinks no one has left CFI because of his blog. I think it’s time we all stopped dancing around the issue. I don’t work with The Center for Inquiry – Canada, because I don’t agree with Justin’s other main cause. Actually, that’s not even fair. I support men’s rights. I DON’T support women bashing, grossly biased commentary about men’s issues, men’s issues trumping women’s issues, nit picking at articles because there is no “male voice” when there doesn’t need to be one, picking statistics that on their own support an argument but don’t in an overall sense, taking away women’s rights to give men rights and finally having the face of Canadian secularism association with all of these things. It is not healthy for CFI. And CFI IS losing volunteers despite what Justin would like to think. Myself and my hubby (John Xu) were very active at CFI and in campus groups. Neither of us are involved with CFI and campus groups now because of this issue. I know there are others, but we’re the only two I can really speak for. Hopefully other people start speaking up.

I wouldn’t be so upset, but I’ve heard and witnessed horror stories surrounding this issue.

Justin declining an interview from the CBC and accusing them of being sexist because they asked to interview me, instead of him???

Justin sending a response to a rape victim applying for a position within CFI saying that she is sexist and unprofessional because she has experience at women’s groups on her resume???

In my interview to work at CFI questioning the validity and necessity of my work as the women’s collective coordinator with a radio station?? Women are highly underrepresented on radio, men don’t need a specific group, they’re already the majority.

Telling me we can’t put “Equal opportunity” on our social service brochure because it’s sexist???

Using CFI contacts to promote his “equalism” blog???

Not allowing Debbie Goddard to come and do her talk on multiculturalism and gender at CFI because he doesn’t agree with the topic so he makes us do a panel with inexperienced panelists instead???

Having signs up in his cubical at CFI saying he supports men’s rights and a bumper stick about male bashing in the media???

UGH.

/Fin.

Comments (10)

By Katie Kish, May 11, 2009 11:44 am

As some may, or may not, know I’ve recently moved from being the Vice President – Multi Media for the Freethought Association of Canada to being the president of it. It’s a long and twisted story about why I decided to do it, but with the new executive I really think we’ll make a little bit of a difference in the world while showing that secularists have it in them to be giving. The new campaign is more or less phase 2 of the Atheist Bus Campaign… read on to learn about it!

The Enjoy Your Life Campaign

Show the world that you can have a heart, even without a soul

The charity that brought you the controversial and highly successful Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign is proud to announce its follow up project: the Enjoy Your Life Campaign! This project will take up where the Bus campaign left off, providing charitable funding and volunteer work to a number of highly worthwhile causes.

How many times have you heard the lament that freethinkers of all kinds cannot possibly be good without god? Now is your chance to prove once and for all that not only can we be moral people, but we can put this morality to work in ways that will better humankind. We at the Freethought Association of Canada understand the importance of helping to improve the lives of as many people as our hands can reach. Knowing that this life is all we have, emphasizes its importance and motivates us to extend our moral consideration to all who share our world.

The Freethought Association of Canada will be looking for donations from anyone interested in helping spread the word that atheists are able and willing to do good deeds. Our outlook is global, and includes such worthwhile causes as:

• Expanding the supply of condoms in Africa
• Helping children’s literacy in Canada
• Participating in the development of critical thinking curriculum for pre-university students
• Building an online community to connect and support freethinkers around the world
• Organizing blood drives and food banks
• Taking YOUR suggestions for what you think the Canadian Freethought Community should support!

Over the next few months, the Freethought Association of Canada will be conducting extensive research into charitable causes around the world, and by the end of Summer 2009 we will be ready to begin a campaign that will impact lives forever. If you would like to be a part of this once in a lifetime opportunity, we would love to hear from you. Donations can be made on our site (freethoughtassociation.ca), and if you’d like to volunteer your time or expertise, you can contact: info@freethoughtassociation.ca or phone (647) 822-5474.

The Enjoy Your Life Campaign – Show the world that you can have a heart, even without a soul.

Comments (4)

By Katie Kish, January 30, 2009 11:11 am

Leave it to the United Church of Canada to come out and counter our ads. I think this is a really exciting new development. They’re hoping their ads have the same effect as ours – to spring up discussion in the public. I’ve been a member of their site wonder cafe for many years now because it’s proven time and again to be a really great place to have this exact discussion (and many others) with believers who have an open mind. (Although the EZ Answer Squirrel has always been a tad bit lame, in my opinion.) I’m just hoping they don’t pour a whole ton of money into their campaign making our ads way more obscure than theirs.

Although, the discussion surrounding the ad on their website is way ….below…what i’ve found their usual conversation to be. I expected the people there to actually talk about it instead of just saying it is a silly and useless comment. I’d love to hear their intelligent thoughts surrounding the message instead of them just assuming that we’re attacking them…and not only that…that our only purpose is to attack them.

With silly comments like “there’s probably no science” and “why aren’t they attacking moselms” it’s very easy to brush the entire thread off as more people who aren’t interested in opening their mind up to new ideas and actually talking to us about the meat of the issues. However, there are a couple people on there going against that statement. Such as:

Kappa

I’m with those who see this as an opening for discussion. To me the sign is not funny so much as it is a statement, “Hey, look, we really DO live in a country that supports free speech, if the exercise does not take away the fundamental rights of others.”

Posted on: 01/21/2009 15:50

Alas – Good on you, UCC!

Cross posted at Atheist Bus