I just got back from 10 days in California giving talks to UCLA, the OC Freethought Alliance, the Bay Area Skeptics, and finally American Atheists for their special Rapture RAM (Regional…Area?…Meeting). I’ll start with the news you may have already heard: some guy said some sexist stuff on stage.
Greta Christina and Jen McCreight have already covered it well, but the basics are this: David Eller mentioned that there are atheist video bloggers out there (showing a pic of ZOMGItsCriss) and saying it helps if they’re funny or attractive. Yes, he did include “funny” (or some synonym) on the list of things we can be, but the focus was on the fact that Criss is pretty. Jen called him out on this during Q&A and he offered a half-hearted apology, which has now blossomed into an actual apology.
And let me pause here to mention how great it was to have so many feminists (men and women) in the audience. As soon as Eller said the thing about Criss, it was like a wave of WTF traveled through the room. This is progress! It used to be that when someone said something sexist on stage, everyone quietly let it go or even encouraged it. AA actually did a good job of stocking the stage and the audience with strong women who weren’t about to take that shit sitting down.
Eller also, a few minutes later, suggested we have Boobquake II because boobs are always great for getting attention for atheists. Blargh, yeah.
I was speaking immediately after, so I started by pointing out that my talk was originally supposed to be more general, about grassroots activism in the freethought community, but every time I go to these conferences it seems like the only time women are directly mentioned, it’s to focus on how awesome their tits are. So instead I spoke about why I think it’s important for atheists, nonbelievers, secularists, skeptics, etc to start paying attention to the war that the Religious Right is waging on women’s rights, in the US and elsewhere. The lack of acknowledgement of this problem from secular groups angers me far more than the random blatherings of one conference speaker.
Consider, for instance, what groups like American Atheists, CFI, JREF, and others focus on at conferences and on their websites. These groups do a lot of great work promoting separation of church and state, but this most often means the fight to keep creationism out of schools or stopping prayer at government meetings or removing “God” from our pledges and money. I feel that these are important causes (particularly the creep of creationism) but what’s missing?
Right now, the well-funded Religious Right lobby is working hard to convince our politicians to take away women’s rights based on nothing more than Biblical doctrine. Their agenda includes three major points:
Instituting abstinence-only education
Preventing all access to contraception
Making abortion illegal
Abstinence-only education has been shown (here and in every scientific study done) to result in more teen pregnancy, more sexually transmitted infections, more risk to the health and well-being of young people and the babies who inevitably result.
Contraception is what has finally allowed women the chance at equality. Without it, we would have no control over our reproductive health. We would not be able to delay having children until we’re ready. Withholding contraception leads to lack of education for women who have to drop out of school, social stigma for those who are sent away to give birth in secret, raised maternal mortality rates, an increase in unsafe abortions, and an increase in STIs.
Abortion is similarly necessary to give women control over their reproductive health. 80% of all US abortions happen in the first 10 weeks, when the embryo is less than an inch long. That embryo should not have the right to inhabit and leach off of the body of a full-grown woman for nine months. Abortions that are performed later in the pregnancy are most often done in order to protect the health of the mother or because there is something terribly wrong with the fetus.
Even if you still insist that the Religious Right is correct in saying that those embryos are special lives in need of saving, you should know that outlawing abortion will not stop abortions – it will only kill more women. If you want to stop abortion, the way to do it is to provide contraception and comprehensive sexual education from the moment kids start even thinking about sex.
Despite these facts, the Religious Right continues to believe these policies are for the best. Why? Because the Bible tells them that women are only good for making babies anyway, so screw them. Literally.
To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.’
Genesis 3:16
And the crazy thing is, they’re succeeding. In the first quarter of this year, 49 state legislatures introduced 916 bills that restricted reproductive rights. Here are a few that have passed, like in Texas, where women must have an invasive ultrasound that they either have to look at or have described to them in detail by a doctor before getting their abortion. Or South Dakota, where there’s now a 72-hour waiting period, and women must get counseling at an anti-choice pregnancy crisis center before obtaining an abortion. No centers applied to be on the official list, so that women would have no way to fulfill the requirements to have an abortion.
It’s happening all over the country and it’s spreading to other countries. The Religious Right’s attack on women’s rights is directly analogous to their attack on science in the classroom, so why aren’t non-believers standing up and fighting back? Why aren’t more of the big secular organizations decrying what’s happening?
Some organizations, like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Humanist Association have called out some of the problems, though both could take a page from the British Humanist Association, which regularly and boldly confronts anti-science when it infringes upon women’s reproductive health. BHA’s website even describes in detail its official stance on abortion (pro-choice, of course).
So let’s support those organizations and encourage others to join the fight against the anti-woman Religious Right. Until then, the bulk of the work will be done by feminists like Amanda Marcotte and feminist organizations like Equality Now, and we can’t just leave them to do all the heavy lifting. They’re only girls, after all.
Nice post Rebecca!
Thanks!
Sometimes I have the sense that since “it’s politics” it is not the purview of skeptics. Well, that’s not really a sense, but rather, something I hear said out loud fairly often.
Atheists (as opposed to skeptics, which is a shaky dichotomy, I know) seem to be (at least the organized ones) more politically active and more progressive. At least in Minnesota. If there is a progressive movement public activity (parade, demonstration, etc.) MN Atheists are there in force. And that, I’m sure, is in part due to the leadership here.
We had this discussion a few weeks ago at gathering, and it was suggested (by either me or Mike Huabrich, and seconded by the other one) that MN Atheists change their constitution to have gender balance in board membership. The DFL (what we Democrats in Mn call ourselves) do this: Ultimately, the party delegates that go to the national party from this state are 50-50 female-male because we make it that way on purpose.
A sketpical look at that (from certain skeptics) would say that it is irrational that there be an enforced 50-50 gender representation. Let the chips fall where they may, let the most qualified delegates be the delegates, bla bla bla. That is not, however, a skeptical argument. It is either a poorly formed defensive ploy born of ignorance, or just plain thinly veiled sexism, or both.
I’m ranting. I should go back to my blog and writ this up. Anyway, thanks for this post, well said.
I’ll add a link to my http://tinyurl.com/3o8lps9 .
Thanks, Greg. Yeah, the talk I gave opens with an email I got from an SGU listener accusing me of “politicizing skepticism.” My response: fuck that. Things already are political, and some of the most important skeptical topics require political activism.
I think it’s more accurate to say that misogynists politicize misogyny.
I know it often seems like critical thinking in politics is off-limits, but I don’t recall there being some sort of royal decree on the subject.
amen to that rebecca.
public policy is of course going to vary from person to person based on personal values, which is fine. but that doesn’t mean that public policy shouldn’t be informed by evidence.
skepticism absolutely has a role to play in evaluating data and purported evidence for a claim, whether its in the lab or society.
finally, it really annoys me when people act like you should only *do* skepticism or only do science or only do art. F-that. If you have an interest in talking about something, go for it. If people can’t separate what they agree with from what they dont and insist on tuning you out, F-them.
I think sometimes the sceptical movement sticks too closely to it traditional subjects. Policy formation can be a distressingly evidence-free activity, and the same cognitive biases that lead to homoeopathy or bigfoot sightings can do tremendous damage in a policy environment.
Now politics is a dangerous topic, nothing destroys reasonable disagreement more effectively except religion. I say this knowing my political views differ from most of you on many subjects (though not the ones raised in Rebecca’s post). There will always be a subjective element to policy, but sceptics can and should address factual questions when they are raised.
Yeah, I think hitting the religious aspect of it helps. Religion and creationism in schools is a political issue, but most skeptics are happy to be involved in that issue because of the anti-science nature of the other side. This issue is the same thing, and skeptics should care and get involved. Focusing on the religious part ought to make more skeptics pay attention.
“Things already are political, and some of the most important skeptical topics require political activism.”
.
I am really glad to hear/see you say that. I’ve felt for a long time now that the “skeptic movement” has been far too shy of important activist political activities and positions.
I was recently grappling with an acquaintance of mine and remembered that, luckily, George Carlin said it better than I ever could.
So that’s where I stole the line about life doesn’t begin at conception; it began a billion years ago. Thank you, George. You’re the best.
Hahaha! I used to say that all the time, unaware that George Carlin said it first. I’m just gonna have to start linking this left and right now!
Oh, to clarify, I was referring specifically the life doesn’t begin at conception it began billions of years ago thing.
It was a great talk; thanks for sharing it. (And btw, if Greta’s talk got the most applause breaks during, yours definitely got the most confirmations-instead-of-questions during the Q&A.)
And you’re absolutely right, Republicans and conservatives are waging an all out war against women and the poor in this country and all rational people should be able to see it by now. This war is unbelievably well funded, disciplined, long-planned, and centrally coordinated. It cannot be easily fought ad-hoc, or solely with internet outrage. Many skeptics avoid politics I think because they’d rather focus on areas where we all agree, but I think there are certain political positions where regardless of governmental philosophy we can all agree that our positions dovetail.
The issue of attractiveness = value for women is one I’ve also been thinking of recently. When I interviewed Kari Byron I thought it was really interesting how some skeptical bloggers who I’d assumed were fairly enlightened still couldn’t resist making piggish comments. Then there was Glenn Beck’s attack on Meghan McCain a week or so ago which basically boiled down to “I don’t like her and I disagree with her so I’m going to call her fat and ugly.” It’s gross.
I think you make very good points about women’s reproductive rights and the current laws that some people are trying to pass to restrict their rights. That type of stuff angers me…almost as much as rape, arranged marriages, and domestic violence angers me. Those things are often still ignored…and the women who are involved in them are made to feel guilty as if they did something wrong. I do, however, think there needs to be some type of differentiation between that type of sexism and the type of sexism you opened the article talking about. I know the types of comments like the one Eller made can be unnecessary and tasteless at times, but they can also be funny. I’m not defending Eller, but plenty of comics make hilarious sexual jokes, and I’m sure at least some of the people who get worked up about sexists comments watch or listen to people who could be considered sexist. A know people who makes comments about girls, and boobs, and sex…who are very good people who take stands against violence towards women and support women’s rights. I make sexual and boob jokes myself, and I don’t consider myself a sexist. I also don’t call myself a feminist. I have volunteered for crisis hotlines and sexual assault centers, written letters to officials about birth control and abortion, and stuck up for women I have seen mistreated, but I don’t call myself a feminist. I don’t because I don’t want the association of someone who gets offended at every remark tied to who I am…because that’s not who I am. I know I would be much more comfortable calling myself a feminist activist if it was more focused on the type of women’s rights you outline in most of this article.
Do you call yourself and atheist then? For a long time I didn’t call myself an atheist because I didn’t want to be associated with certain groups. And then I grew up and realized that it’s silly to allow someone else to define my label.
All labels get negative connotations from the people who oppose them. Sometimes we need to wrench back control of our own label. There was a great article on Skepchick about this just recently. I’ll proudly wear my label of feminist.
How did you know I was an atheist? :p Yes, I do call myself that. It’s only been a few years that I’ve actually stated that to other people though…I used to just say that I wasn’t religious.
Hey, Jaz, I’m pretty sure if you think a person’s rights, political, social, economic, educational, legal, whatever, should not depend on the arrangement and type of their chromosomes, then you are a feminist, like it or not.
I call myself a feminist because I’m not a doormat.
I actually got a polling call from a local Democratic candidate, and it lasted for at least 15 minutes, asking me my opinion on many issues. Abortion was not mentioned a single time. The only time I could express my opinion about abortion rights was when they asked me the open-ended question of what issues are important to me. The Republicans are doing everything in their power to restrict abortion, and the Democrats in my area (and likely elsewhere) don’t even care enough to mention it. I feel like, as a liberal, I can support abortion rights but I’m not supposed to advertise it or make a big deal about it. I’m supposed to lament abortion but allow it anyway, and never admit in polite company that it’s something I actually care about. Maybe it’s time for me to get off my ass and finally volunteer as a patient escort at the local clinic.
Volunteering as a patient escort is a great idea. If you do it, I hope you write up your experience so we can post it and encourage others to do the same!
This is the important stuff! This is where Skepticism & Feminism should be focusing.
While we should discourage sexist remarks, I feel the attack on women’s rights is much more important than one person’s thoughtless remarks especially when within the skeptic community I feel we are overall quite good about not being sexist because fundamentally we believe in equal rights for all.
Great post! I agree 100%, this is what’s missing. It is a perfect atheist/skeptic issue to be sure, especially since even democratic candidates tend to argue abortion on religious people’s terms (while many argue from “women’s rights” positions, few point out that biologically a fetus at early stages of development is incapable of experiences pain/fear/self-awareness etc.), and it seems like an obvious case of public misinformation. Going public with these issues would be a much more effective and substantial way of getting attention for atheists than “Boobquake II” IMO.
it should also be pointed out that despite the Family Values rhetoric, conservatives have tried to cut funding for child services.
so while pretending to be so very concerned for the life of the unborn fetus, once the child is born, it no longer serves their misogynistic purposes
I do think the incident with Eller’s remarks is an important one to talk about, as well. What struck me about this incident was how quickly Eller apologized, rather than digging in his heels, and how few comments I’ve seen on the blog posts I’ve read about it that accuse Jen and any other woman who had a problem with it of being unreasonable for mentioning it. Right before that I was feeling really discouraged about the skeptical community and feminism in general, because it seemed like women are simply not allowed to mention being bothered by any expression of sexism without having hordes descend on them and rip them to shreds for daring to say anything. This has gone so well, though. Am I being too hopeful in thinking the pendulum may be starting to swing in the opposite direction now?
“I do think the incident with Eller’s remarks is an important one to talk about, as well.”
I agree, and I don’t want anyone to think that I’m dismissing those remarks . . . merely letting Greta and Jen’s comments stand as an appropriate rebuke and moving on to what I think is another (possibly bigger) problem that has gone unmentioned.
Sorry, I meant that as a response to the people who were dismissing it as unimportant as though you shouldn’t have mentioned it at all before going into the main topic. Poorly placed comment.
Hope, yes.
But keep pushing that pendulum in the right direction every chance you get.
As much as I agree with Rebecca on the issues of contraception, abortion, and abstinence-only sex education, I think that it would be a big mistake for the “secular movement” to adopt these issues. There is a good reason that groups like the JREF and CFI eschew taking stands on political issues not directly related to their core missions–politicization will result in ostracizing and otherwise turning away people who share a common belief in core issues but otherwise disagree on various political issues.
As much as you might want to say that the evidence, or rationality, or science, supports a particular position on contraception or abortion, these are essentially moral issues that are not related to secularism or skepticism. You could make the same argument about evidence or science to support almost any pet political issue that you want.
The war in Iraq? Evidence didn’t support it, right? So, should the JREF or CSI or AA have come out strongly against the war and taken up the anti-war banner? All that would have done is turn people away with different political views–people who might have had a lot to contribute to the core missions of those organizations.
You could make similar arguments about economic issues, poverty issues, education reform, labor unions, budget deficits, land use, drug prohibition, prostitution, immigration, and the list goes on.
I have heard speakers at various TAMS and atheist conventions speak on almost many of those issues, and they are certainly topics that can–and should–be discussed within the secular (or skeptics, or whatever other name you want to give to it) communities. It seems like Rebecca would like the secular community to have what amounts to an official position, approaching a dogma, on issues that are important to her (and to be fair, important to me). All this would do is shrink the number of people that would be willing to identify themselves with “the movement” and who could contribute to the core values “the movement” and the core missions of the secular/skeptical/atheist organizations.
“As much as you might want to say that the evidence, or rationality, or science, supports a particular position on contraception or abortion, these are essentially moral issues that are not related to secularism or skepticism. You could make the same argument about evidence or science to support almost any pet political issue that you want.”
I’ve presented the evidence in support of my position on abstinence-only education, contraception, and abortion. What’s the evidence against it and why is it compelling?