I’m having trouble reading the discussion of this post as more than “someone somewhere once said something in the name of feminism I disagree with, so I’ll call that Feminism, and distance myself from it rather than acknowledging that there are huge disagreements within feminism and re-envisioning my own place within that. And by association, I’ll suggest that anyone who does claim the label Feminist is anti-mother, anti-children, anti-religious, and anti-puppies.”
Really, the initial post didn’t strike me that way so much, but the discussion did.
Oh, and also, meanie atheists are beating up all the nice, polite Christian folk, who aren’t in a position of power at all. Plus, STALIN.
—
UPDATE: It occurs to me that it’s mean to have put in the “must check feminist” box on this post. I didn’t mean it the way it must look; I was just trying to keep out our regular anti-feminists. I’m going to take it off — everyone who’s commenting at feministe, no matter my annoyance at their individual position, is fine and feminist with me, big F or little.
However, anti-feminists and MRAs should pretend there’s still a check-box here, and stay out of the thread. Thanks.
HA!
Do you think we can count STALIN as a Godwin when it comes to discussions of atheism?
Why, yes. Yes, I do.
Happens at IBTP, too. Intriguing conversations about important concepts and disagreements within big F little f devolve into discussions about vacuum cleaners. Much sniping ensues. Tiresome.
I didn’t make it through many of the comments, but just skimming I think a lot of people were being thoughtful and honest about their experience with feminism and identifying as feminist.
But what you mention is a popular straw-man; taking the words and perspective of a few and saying it represents the whole. I was on a blog the other day talking about women getting hollered at from passing cars, and there were several men who were INSISTENT that this is not a problem and that we women basically shouldn’t go out in public if were weren’t “strong enough” to deal with the few jerks out there who do such things. A few of us were fighting back, but then one woman posted that she didn’t really mind getting yelled at, she thought it was funny or something, and I immediately thought, “Oh great. Now because ONE woman has said she’s cool with something sexist, she’s going to be taken as proof that the rest of us should just relax and not be such uptight bitches about it.”
Okay, so that little story isn’t exactly related to this post, but it still pisses me off, so I thought I’d share.
Funny, as a childfree feminist, I feel alienated from much of the mainstream feminist movement many times because of what seems to me to be the disgustingly ridiculous obsession “THE KIDSSSSS!!”
OK, I know that’s a gross exaggeration, and honestly, I don’t hate kids (and, in fact, think that kids and mothers issues are very important and feminist should be working on them — just don’t expect me to be doing that work personally). But, yeah, there are times when I get sick of seeing so much emphasis on issues that I have no direct interest in. And the reason it seems like there’s so much emphasis on these issues is because I’m NOT directly interested in them.
In other words, no matter what your particular interests and issues are, the rest of the world often appears to be focusing far too much energy on everything but those things, and never enough on those things.
And, to be honest, I’m more than a little sick of the whiny (yes, whiny, sorry, but that’s how I feel) complaints that feminism (or insert whatever movement you want) isn’t doing enough for YOU. Because no matter what, that can be seen as true for every single person who has an opinion.
I can relate to feeling alienated from modern feminism. I can still remember my experience when I first found the Ms. Magazine forum and some of the vitriol that passed as “feminist dialogue” there. I was just about ready to give up on feminism entirely before I found some feminists who were less into demagoguery and scapegoating and more into actual feminism.
I haven’t read many of the comments but there are different paths to this same place. Many different paths.
I’m not sure I would call myself a feminist though I used to do so. Most of my friends who are female are not self-identified feminists and most of the women I know aren’t feminists in their view. Yet, many women I know are actively involved in community organization and issues impacting their lives and those of other women. To many women, feminism is seen as exclusionary towards them, because frankly, feminism suffers from many of the same behaviors and problems that impact the larger society it exists within and is in a sense fighting, at least within its comfort levels. But they don’t look at feminism and see themselves.
And is the label of feminist, big or little letter, more important than how you live, what you do?
Instead of calling women outside the movement as guilty of behavior that appears to be described as being almost petty, why not look closer at why so many women don’t call themselves feminist? But often when that’s done, there’s more concern and offense taken when a woman’s decision not to be a feminist for many different reasons is taken as a slight or offense against feminism and White feminists get upset. Why? Because too often we think it’s all about us and over and over and over again we miss great opportunities to grow as feminists and a movement by looking outside ourselves and our defense mechanisms because we choose only to focus on what oppresses us and not with the many ways many of us enjoy privilege.
That dynamic and others play itself over and over again, not just in the tiny corner of feminism called the internet but IRL self-identified feminist organizations as well.
I’m still reading the conversation at feministe and at the beginning, but so far it’s interesting. I haven’t gotten the overall tone of it yet so I could be wrong, but there are things in this post that have me thinking so I’m responding to that.
I never get sick of the “whining” as it’s called because there’s a lot of truth in it, unfortunately. Feminism most often doesn’t speak to, speak for and even speak of many women out there, which is why many women don’t adopt the title. Some good examples are included in LaLuba’s post at feministe.
And it’s some of the treatment that “whiners” have received that have made me decide that if I’m going to identify myself as a feminist, it’s going to be with a little “f” not a big one. If you are going to be dismissed as a “whiner” because you disagree with where feminism is going, then why bother? Why not just work hard with other women on issues that feminism is too busy to bother with and let feminists concern themselves with who is a member to the club and who’s not.
Feminism is in itself at least designed in part on what some women believes serve them best and it’s always been that way. A longtime emphasis on freedom to use birth control and abortion rather than freedom from birth control and abortion. An emphasis on addressing violent crimes against “women”(and not in an inclusive definition) and partnering with the CJS in ways that are detrimental to communities of colors(including women and girls) which are policed in ways to address the safety concerns of Whites including White women. The focus on women having the freedom to work when most women have already been in the workforce. Even how feminism examines immigration issues. I’ve encountered more than my fair share of feminists who support the Minutemen and SOS.
This week, one I was thinking of is how different sexual harassment in the workplace is for women of different ethnicities and races but how the strategies adopted by White feminists can be detrimental to women of color. Or the White feminist who thought her one-sized fits all approach to helping men and women of color particularly young people act when stopped by police officer was best, when there’s things in reality Whites like herself and myself could do that could get Black and Latino motorists beaten up or shot to death. These communities know this and that’s why they teach their kids how to deal with these situations geared towards their survival.
I think feminism has done a lot of good, but it’s done harm to women too in many ways, but every time women who have felt its harm try to discuss that or the issues of why that harm happens come to the table for discussion, the outcome most often is another example in a litany of them as to why many women don’t identify themselves that way. They aren’t considered members of the club.
Actually, among the women who agreed with La Lubu about religious feminists feeling marginalized, Umm Yasmin identified herself as Muslim and Tara said she was Jewish. If you click through on her trackback, you’ll find that Umm Yasmin is a Muslim feminist who lives in Australia. Would you argue that in Muslim feminists are in a position of power in Western countries? If not, why did you write Umm Yasmin out of your description of the discussion on Feministe? I get that this feels like another instance of the evil Christians taking over and telling you what you can say, but it strikes me as uncool to comment on a discussion about feminists feeling marginalized and then go ahead and ignore the voices of minority feminists.
I think it’s fine to identify ways in which a lot of feminist discourse has failed to serve any given population.
But I also think LaLubu’s flat out wrong in some of her assertions. For instance, she points out an emphasis on abortion rights as a way that feminism fails to serve mothers. I thought our stats showed that LOTS of mothers require access to abortion rights, and of course that many people who have abortions will become mothers.
And some of it is not the complaints of an oppressed minority seeking more representation, but of a majority seeking to silence — childfree women are not privileged in an overall population, and atheists are silenced in many other situations. I don’t see the speech of either group as something to decry.
Again, I don’t so much disagree with the way her post is framed, although I do question why she feels the need to define herself against certain manifestations of feminism, rather than defining herself toward what she wants — especially since there are plenty of feminist religious voices, plenty of feminist mother’s voices, out there.
I really object to what looks like a silencing tactic being used in the thread, wherein people are trying to gather privilege to tell those who are less privileged to shut up.
I wrote her out because Daisy Deadhead pissed me off a lot more. You could read the fact that I specifically responded to Daisy’s STALIN talk as meaning that I was responding to her and not other commenters on the thread who are Jewish or Muslim.
But I’ll respond to Yasmin — If she’s placing herself on a pole of religious vs. anti-religious, then she’s the one in the privileged (religious) position compared to the atheist. If she’s not polarizing things in that way then there’s no cause for her to be complaining about atheists; we are not the agents who have the power to cause oppression toward Muslims in or outside of feminism.
That doesn’t mean we don’t have power compared to her via other axes of analysis. Christian normativity, yes. Othering of Muslim peoples, yes. Enforcing of boundaries that exclude muslims from whiteness, yes. But big powerful atheists? Not so much.
I totally agree with everything you’re saying here, Radfem.
I think there’s a really large, fundamental difference between what POC have to say to white feminists on the one hand, and trying to silence atheists or the childfree on the other.
I agree with some portions of LaLuba’s posting. Disagreed with others.
Religion is a contentious issue in feminism on different sides. Some of my friends because of religious beliefs(i.e. Catholicism) are pro-life, across the board(not just abortion) and feel alienated b/c they do support choice for other women but perhaps because of their belief systems in part related to religious beliefs as well as experiences also see it as a broader scoped issue, that deals with communities, not just individuals. Women, men and children, not just women. Or women who shape pro-life(again, not just on abortion) belief sytems based at least in part on histories of colonialization and genocide. And somehow the work towards reducing abortions in these communities(including those disproportionately represented by abortions) is often equated by “prochoice” feminists as agreeing with making abortion illegal.
Or calling Islam sexist and Muslims misogynists.
Sometimes they feel silenced too for those reasons as they might be for others.
I’ve run into some pretty contentious battles between self-identified feminists too, involving being a mother, whether to be one, how to be one and so forth or to be childless by choice or not with both sides feeling wounded I think because it goes into personal areas that are often assigned worth by ourselves and others.
Whether atheists, Christians as well as other religions outside of these two categories, there should be room enough for everyone. Not either/or either way.
But I also think LaLubu’s flat out wrong in some of her assertions. For instance, she points out an emphasis on abortion rights as a way that feminism fails to serve mothers. I thought our stats showed that LOTS of mothers require access to abortion rights, and of course that many people who have abortions will become mothers.
I think this is an ungenerous reading of what LaLubu said.
What I read her as saying was that centering “pro-choice” around abortion instead of reproductive rights marginalizes non-white women.
Reproductive rights opens up to and includes the experiences that non-white women have had with being pressured into abortion and sterilization as a part of the colonialist mindset (I’m using a lot of jargon, so please feel free to ask for clarification if it’s unfamiliar or your don’t know my axioms) that non-white is undesirable and white is desirable.
It also opens up a whole knew arena of a health focus on women who are pregnant having care and such, which can actually serve to form bridges between the pro-abortion-choice and the anti-abortion-choice camps. personally, I think this is all for the good, so long as the larger picture of “reproductive justice” continues to hold the “it’s okay to NOT reproduce” sub-part it currently has.
As for religion…
As a deeply religious person, I grow tired of the ad hominem that religious people are incapable of logic. As a deeply scientific person, I grow tired of the false theory that science can disprove religion. As a logical-in-training person, I grow tired of the assumption that logic is and should be the basis for all human decisions and life, and that anything non-logical or a-logical is anathema.
But I do think people tend to jump to the worst possible interpretations of anothers’ arguments as quickly as possible, and that memory biases us to recall incidents that reinforce our prejudices instead of undermining them.
And most of me wishes people who grok that having a wrong idea does not result in one being a wrong person.
My point was that no matter where an indvidual’s primary concerns/issues are focused, that individual may feel that the “mainstream” movement is not paying nearly enough attention to it. La Luba feels like the “mainstream” feminist movement is not pro-mother and/or pro-child enough. I feel like it’s far too centered on motherhood and children. Can both of us be right? Yes, because our perceptions and our frameworks are different. No matter the issue, the “mainstream” movement can be seen as lacking — even when to see it that way means completely ignoring the very real work being done within the movement on that issue. So, the question is, are you (general you) going to get pissy and whiny and leave feminism (or threaten to) or are you going to join those in the movement working on those issues and make that part of the movement stronger?
I was one of the commenters on the thread at LaLubu’s post and I would like to say a few things. As a feminist and a religious woman, I do sometimes feel alienated by mainstream feminism (I feel my voice is silenced). Just because I want to be included in the discussion, does NOT mean I want atheists (or those of beliefs other than my own) to be left out. I am a thinking, intelligent being and I have given long thought and study to my beliefs. I’m willing to believe that other people with different beliefs are also thinking and intelligent and have also given long thought and study to their beliefs. I think it is essential to the feminist discussion be open to people with different beliefs and backgrounds. I have a lot to offer. I am intelligent and thoughtful. I am also disabled, poor, and religious (things which might alienate me from mainstream feminism). I would rather these things were not seen as detractors from my feminism, but as a large part of what informs my feminism.
“I would rather these things were not seen as detractors from my feminism, but as a large part of what informs my feminism.”
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with that.
And I appreciate that you don’t want atheists silenced, but I strongly wish that everyone religious who’s feeling like atheists talk too much in feminism would take a step back and examine that sensation. ‘Cuz atheists are silenced much of the time in the rest of the culture, and the sensation that we’re taking too much time within feminism sounds to me like a reaction of privilege, because religious people are used to having a privileged voice within the culture.
When you say you feel silenced as a religious person, I’d just ask you to sotp and think whether that’s really silencing or whether it’s just the addition of a voice that can’t be heard elsewhere.
The convo about children is more complicated, IMO, when it comes to childfree v. mothers, as both groups are culturally minimized.
I think criticisms of feminism and the ways privilege express within it are vital. I wasn’t fond of the framing of this one. But what I really didn’t like the way that the discussion played out, particularly in regard to atheism.
I don’t think the issue is that atheists talk too much. I think that the issue is that many atheists refuse to accept that religious feminists have any right to interpret their religions in a feminist way. Again and again, on that thread and elsewhere, they depict religious feminists as wrong or confused about their religions. The religion is inherently misogynistic, and if religious feminists try to make it otherwise, they’re just in denial. On that point, they side with religious conservatives over religious feminists. And religious feminists, who might well expect secular feminists to be their allies in their fight to make their faiths more egalitarian, instead find secular feminists closing ranks with the reactionaries who say there is no room for feminism in their religions. Can you really not see how disheartening that would be?
Ok, but realize that what you’re doing here is ignoring a marginalized, minority voice and focusing on a majority one, because the majority one allows you to maintain your chosen paradigm. If you silence Umm Yasmin, and if you fixate on (and take out of context) Daisy’s Stalin comment, then you get to make this a discussion about how Christians are oppressing you. That’s how you like to frame this discussion, but it seems to me to be problematic on a couple of scores. For one thing, it reinforces our tendency to refight the same battles in the same ways, ignoring what could be fresh perspectives. And then there’s the whole issue, which people of color and other marginalized people have brought up again and again and again, of the big feminist blogs ignoring their voices. And while it’s possible that Umm Yasmin isn’t a person of color, it’s clear that her voice is not a mainstream one in feminism, unlike yours and unlike those of most of the people who ignored her over on Feministe. And now she seems to have left the discussion.
I really don’t think that’s how it works. I don’t think that there are “poles” (religious/ non-religious on one side and Christian/ non-Christian on the other), and one is privileged on one vector and not on another. I think there is intersecting oppression, and it doesn’t always intersect in straightforward ways. I suspect that religious Muslim women are in many ways more oppressed in Western countries than secular ones, although I’d be interested to hear what Muslim feminists had to say about that. I don’t think that the religious/ not religious pole works the same for religious minorities as it does for the majority faith. (And I don’t know how it works at all in Australia, which is a much less religious nation than the U.S. So that’s another question: is this discussion totally U.S.-centric, and what do we do about the fact that feminism is a global movement?)
Somewhat tangential….but this strikes me as a pretty healthy discussion and airing out of grievances on the part of both atheists and “religious” people. Clearly LaLubu’s post aroused some passionate feelings, with both “sides” feeling marginalized and mocked by the other.
I put quotation marks around “religious” because I’m not sure about the definition of the term or its precise usage here. From what I understand, the word itself is pretty much a European anthropological concept, a lens for categorizing things. For someone who grew up in an Asian setting (like, say, me) the word “religion” doesn’t have much resonance (“faith” is even worse). In fact I’m kind of unconvinced about the utility of the word “religion”, because if I’m reading correctly just about all instances in this discussion mean “the Abrahamic traditions of monotheism”; so perhaps we should just say that, or something even more specific, instead of this grand abstraction, “religion”? Yet the word “religious” gets slapped on me because I’m a lifelong practitioner of Buddhism-Taoism. In many traditional cultures, “religion” isn’t really separate from “way of life”, it isn’t compartmentalized as something other than “livelihood” or “survival”, you know? Of course the European notion is that we non-Euros are primitive savages clinging to child-like superstitions, which is part of what historically justifies white supremacy, colonialism, genocide.
Personally I’ve spent most of my life keeping my spirituality secret from people at school, at work, in public. Obviously growing up as a person of color in a racist society is already alienating but the additional factor of being some mystical satanic cult freak has long been, in my mind, yet another thing for people to mock. These days Asian “religion” has become trendy for middle-class white folks, and it turns out this is just as alienating as (and more annoying than) invisibility, because of the sheer volume of racist appropriation, ignorance, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of words, symbols, concepts, and practices. It’s the new orientalism and it’s all the rage.
Once again we see that race weaves its way through most everything in a person of color’s life, so it’s kinda hard for me to say “race is totally separate from religion” in this context. In my experience, most atheists I’ve talked to about these things have been white folks who regard me with some pity and condescension, much as white Christians do; so how should I interpret this? Race or religion? Hard to say. Has being a student and practitioner of Buddhism-Taoism given me a privileged voice within the general culture? Inwardly, I feel incredibly privileged to have studied and trained for years with my Buddhist mentors, it has shaped me and my voice to the core. Outwardly? I kinda doubt it, though I’m not totally sure either so I’m open to learning.
Peace.
In fact I’m kind of unconvinced about the utility of the word “religion”, because if I’m reading correctly just about all instances in this discussion mean “the Abrahamic traditions of monotheism”
I’m a polytheist that is not Abrahamic in the least, actually.
Again and again, on that thread and elsewhere, they depict religious feminists as wrong or confused about their religions.
Where, on that thread? I see littleflower doing that, but if you object to Daisy being used as an exemplar of the religious contingent, then using littleflower to represent the entire atheist voice on that thread is dishonest.
Deoridhe, good point. Hence those two words in my sentence, “just about”! ;-P I should add, I think your previous comment was totally on point; those dualities you invoke hit home for me in many ways. As a professional software engineer and a passionate practitioner of Buddhist mysticism, I’m often confronted with supposed contradictions which don’t actually exist for me. I believe my logical faculties and my spiritual faculties enhance each other; but I don’t get them tangled up either; I don’t use a ruler to measure a poem.
So you’re not coming from the Abrahamic tradition; and as such maybe you and I share a sense that there’s a lot more variety among us “religious” folk than is most often described by atheists in their characterizations of religion? Although the irony for me is that many Christians (e.g. the Catholic Pope) officially consider people like me to be atheists and nihilists. So atheists think I’m a tooth-fairy-worshipper and Abrahamic folks think I’m an atheist. Sweet! ;-)
*deleted by Sailorman*
Firstly, what Kai said and what Sally said, esp. in regards to the fact that La Lubu and those who agreed with her were not whining about atheists “talking too much,” but about religious feminists’ not being taken seriously.
Secondly, I’d like to point out that yes, people who are classed as “religious” may enjoy more privilege in mainstream society than atheists do*….if their religion happens to be a version of Christianity, or maybe–just maybe–another religion the dominant group considers acceptable. But La Lubu wasn’t talking about mainstream society, she was talking about feminist society, in which being religious doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight. I’ve seen quite a few dust-ups over these issues over the years and I know for a fact that I as an atheist have an easier time of it in feminist circles than anyone religious does.
And it isn’t just that religious types are suddenly hearing atheists’ voices in feminism, making it seem as if those atheists are more powerful than we really are: religion is routinely ridiculed and labelled as inherently antifeminist. Religious people are described as, at best, pathetically deluded and at worst, collaborators. I’ve seen these things done time and time again, so I find it incredible that people are reacting to the comments made by religious feminists as if they came out of nowhere.
*But seriously, how much societal power and privilege do you honestly believe an open Wiccan has in a mainstream context? Do you really think that just because that person calls herself religious, she’s going to be generally treated with respect? Please.
‘When you say you feel silenced as a religious person, I’d just ask you to sotp and think whether that’s really silencing or whether it’s just the addition of a voice that can’t be heard elsewhere. ”
That’s a really good point. I think it may be that I’ve just been hesitant to speak about my religion because I’m afraid people won’t take me seriously because of it. I’m Mormon and lately (especially with Mitt Romney running) there’s been a lot said about Mormonism–and it hasn’t been very nice for the most part. I do feel alienated when people (mostly in the comments, not usually in the blogs themselves) say things like: “Mormonism is all about polygamy” or “Mitt Romney believes in life on other worlds–ALIENS!!!” or “They wear magic underwear,” or “To see what Mormons believe go here” (with a link to an anti-Mormon site). Of course I’m going to see these things as silencing. Admittedly, though, it’s not the atheists who usually say things like this, so I don’t really have much of a problem with them.
But seriously, how much societal power and privilege do you honestly believe an open Wiccan has in a mainstream context?
More than I do, as an atheist. They will still be included in open-umbrella language like “higher power,” “guiding spirit,” “spiritual experience,” etc., the kind of language that gets used in groups like AA, to which courts will order people to go.
In my neck of the woods, I definitely think it’s safer to be an atheist than a Wiccan as many are not self-identifying in public as Wiccans, because they are afraid they may lose their jobs, custody of their children and be harassed or have family members harassed as “devil worshipers”.
I know a lot more Wiccans in private than in public if that makes any sense. But the acceptance(for want of a better word) of Wiccans may be different in different places. The level of acceptance of atheists may also be different. The challenges faced is different probably too.
Based on what I’ve read, it’s not just my neck of the woods.
What so many people, Kai, CrysT, Sally and others have said on both how religion is defined and what’s been going on in some of these discussions as well as feminism as a whole.
Ditto EG. Atheists consistently score lowest in polls that measure things like least trusted group in the US. I don’t speak for other contexts.
And look — this is never a game between atheists and wiccans, any more than it’s a game between any two other groups of oppressed people. Do I disagree with Wiccans? Yup. Do I oppress the class Wiccans as part of the class atheist? Couldn’t if I tried. We’re both oppressed by a system that creates Christianity as a norm.
Again, the only way to frame a debate so that Wiccans and atheists are opposed instead of allied in terms of rights in society, is when you’re talking about space for religious versus areligious conversation in the United States (for instance, access to the word faith), and in that case Wiccans are part of the privileged group.
If you stop talking about it as religious versus areligious, then there’s no way for atheism to oppose Wicca or vice versa (again, in terms of seeking rights), because both groups are oppressed by a Christian majority that others us and seeks to stifle our public presence and legislatively prevent us from pursuing our beliefs freely. Nailing the oppressor card on the atheists in a situation in which we have no systemic power or voice is like a reverse sexism card — it’s impossible and a privileged statement.
(Likewise, if I said “I’m being oppressed by Wiccans,” that would be silly because there’s no reason to pick Wiccans out. Wiccans as a group do no thave the power alone to oppress me. Wiccans as part of the group religious do (because I am othered for lack of faith, and we’re seeing tha tothering in terms of the fact that the original conversation is even happening), but to pick on Wiccans specifically would be ridiculous. Wiccans can say “I’m oppressed by non-Wiccans” or even, I suppose, “by people who accede to traditionally accepted post-enlightenment ways of knowing,” because then you’re not specifically picking on a single group with no systemic power that exists within a larger group that has a lot of systemic power.)
Anyway, I don’t know why it didn’t track back, but my further response to LaLabu is here.
Sometimes it is the atheists who say these things, I’m sure. I’ve heard atheists say these things. But that’s part of anti-Mormon prejudice, not a special quality of atheists. (I don’t think I’m contradicting you.)
It’s pretty awesome that you’re a Mormon feminist. Have you hooked up with self portrait as? She’s ex-Mormon, so I don’t know if those posts would be grating, but she also seems to be sensitive about the particular needs of feminists in Mormon contexts, and also to do things like attend Mormon feminist conferences…
Trackback Moderately Insane: “Have you been saved?” On Christian privilege
Mandolin, thank you. And I’m so grateful that I got to be part of this discussion. It’s always nice to be heard. Thanks for the link, I’ll be sure to check it out.
Kai: So you’re not coming from the Abrahamic tradition; and as such maybe you and I share a sense that there’s a lot more variety among us “religious” folk than is most often described by atheists in their characterizations of religion?
Oh, definitely. In fact, it comes up shortly below your reply to me.
Chrys T: And it isn’t just that religious types are suddenly hearing atheists’ voices in feminism, making it seem as if those atheists are more powerful than we really are: religion is routinely ridiculed and labelled as inherently antifeminist.
Hmm… I’m going to have to disagree with you here. I think some brans of feminism, especially those espoused by atheists or non-religious people, may make that claim, but I think often a very valid critique of patriarchal aspects of most/all religions gets mistaken for the blanket claim that religion is anti-feminist.
Part of how that conflation happens is, I think, when non-members of a subgroup critique that sub-group. It’s enormously difficult to critique any sub-group (which as sub-groups tend to get less recognition) from the outside without triggering the inherent defensiveness of belonging to a sub-group. Another part is, I think, some people’s inherent dislike of a religion which gets generalized to all religion, which gets generalized to “brutal honesty” which is more brutal than honest, often, in my experience.
E.G.: They will still be included in open-umbrella language like “higher power,” “guiding spirit,” “spiritual experience,” etc., the kind of language that gets used in groups like AA, to which courts will order people to go.
Actually, no, not so much.
Though it is difficult to tell from the outside, I think, there are fundamental differences between the quasi-religiosity of generalized monotheism and religions such as mine. Basic values of perfection, or concepts such as an overarching, conscious power which rules everything, may simply not exist. And in my experience, dealing with monotheists, I frequently get either pity or rejection when I speak out of a polytheistic point of view simply because the assumptions are completely different.
Take your example of AA – one of the basic precepts is that one needs to acknowledge one has no control and give over control to god. In my religion, depending on the god that picks up the responsibility, the drinking may actually get worse.
And what “guiding spirit” I have is supremely unconcerned with this world and gives me no advice on it (though he does like laughing at me).
Open-umbrella language leaves a lot of us out in the rain.
“religion is routinely ridiculed and labelled as inherently antifeminist.”
I have a big “So what?” here, sorry. When you say “routinely” you’re talking about, who? Amanda? Twisty? Okay.
Should I list the bloggers who alienate me by talking about their religion as intertwined with their feminism? Only difference is I don’t think I have a right not to be alienated because I’m used to being alienated on the issue since I’m not part of the dominant group.
That’s really interesting, Deoridhe, thanks.
I used to go to the pagan club when I was in college, though, and we did get a lot of the faith language. I don’t know if your polytheism is pagan or not.
Mandolin: “this is never a game between atheists and wiccans, any more than it’s a game between any two other groups of oppressed people.”
Argh. Jeez, I just said “Wiccans” as an example of a non-mainstream religion. And since people here were saying that atheists are publicly silenced, I don’t see why it’s playing Oppression Olympics to point out that atheists aren’t alone in that.
“Nailing the oppressor card on the atheists in a situation in which we have no systemic power or voice is like a reverse sexism card — it’s impossible and a privileged statement.”
But, as I said above, atheists DO have systemic power WITHIN MAINSTREAM FEMINISM. La Lubu and her subsequent commenters were not talking about the culture at large. They were talking about feminism. So there’s no question of “reverse sexism cards” etc: in every feminist context I have personally seen, atheists are in no way powerless. In fact, they usually have more credibility, and therefore more power within the feminist community than openly religious women have.
“I have a big “So what?” here, sorry. When you say “routinely” you’re talking about, who? Amanda? Twisty? Okay.”
I’ve been around lots and lots of feminist forums over the years. So I’ve seen it in lots and lots of places.
“Should I list the bloggers who alienate me by talking about their religion as intertwined with their feminism? Only difference is I don’t think I have a right not to be alienated because I’m used to being alienated on the issue since I’m not part of the dominant group.”
Bullshit: there’s a world of difference between a religious feminist saying her religion is intertwined with her feminism and a religious feminist saying you’re not very intelligent/haven’t put any real thought into the subject/are a patriarchal collaborator* and in any case are clearly Just Not A Real Feminist because you don’t share her beliefs on religion. The problem is that you’re deciding that if you have to put up with a religious feminist doing the former, then she should bloody well just put with all of us doing the latter.
Deoridhe: “I think often a very valid critique of patriarchal aspects of most/all religions gets mistaken for the blanket claim that religion is anti-feminist.”
That may happen, but what I am talking about is feminists saying flat out, in so many words, that all religion is etc etc. That happens often enough that I’m starting to feel embarrassed about being an atheist.
*shit, I can’t remember the last time I used TOTP
What about BARRY GOLDWATER? Would he find a place upon any such ‘Godwin gamut’? ;-}