Not quite back yet…

****** PZ NOW CONFIRMED THAT THE COMMENTS IN QUESTION WERE INDEED MADE BY THE REAL RICHARD DAWKINS ******

… but the most recent women-in-atheism thread, especially the vile comments by Richard Dawkins claiming that women don’t have the right to complain about rape culture until after they’ve been physically harmed, and that the everpresent thread of rape women live with is exactly like the “threat” that someone might loudly chew gum in front of him, was sort of the last straw. We desperately need feminist atheism. And since I’ve repeatedly mentioned that I’m not a leader, I’ll instead contribute to the creation and visibility of it differently: I made a picture (well, I made two pictures):

Feminist Atheism (also available in GNU)

not necessarily my best work, so anyone who wants to is welcome to make a better one (just keep in mind, the A needs to remind you of atheism, not anarchism, so sticking with the round A’s is probably the way to go :-p)

UPDATE:
and because apparently I’ve got nothing better to do today, here are some intersectional atheism ones, which I like better, from a design-perspective

UPDATE 2:
ok, last ones, promise ;-)

27 comments on “Not quite back yet…

  1. kamaka says:

    Jadehawk, that was an RD imposter!

  2. Irène says:

    Fortunately, that was *not* Richard Dawkins but some vile troll impersonating him with a spoofed Movable Type account. And yes, that troll has ‘fessed up (after keeping it going for much too long, sigh).

  3. Jadehawk says:

    no, there’s no evidence for that. the impostor was someone doing a “proof of concept”; not the same person who wrote the first two comments. It’s possible that the original “Richard Dawkins” will also turn out to be an impostor, but I’ll wait for confirmation before changing the post

  4. kamaka says:

    C’mon, Jadehawk. Those comments were out of character for RD. We have someone admitting they were doing an impersonation. I just can’t buy it that RD wrote such crap.

  5. Jadehawk says:

    *sigh*

    no one admitted to impersonating RD in the first two comments. here’s a quote from the “admitted impostor”:

    Simply confirming that it was possible to impersonate someone using a MT account, as I had suspected. It appears so, I will now delete this account.

    I’d rather that those original posts weren’t the real RD either, but what that doesn’t matter, only the truth does.

    this is emphatically NOT the same person, but someone confirming that it’s possible to impersonate with a MT account. I’m waiting for confirmation.

  6. kamaka says:

    OK. I take your point. I was wrong. You’re right.

    It’s just hard for me to believe RD wrote such crap. Perhaps I’m suffering from hero-bias.

    Pz is busy, or we would know.

  7. Shiny work, and I wish you hadn’t had to do this, I’d hoped that with the fall of contemporary patriarchal religion, the contemporary patriarchal sexist attitudes that they engendered would die at the same time.

  8. Jadehawk says:

    I do hope it turns out to be a fake. But RD has been less-than-sensitive on women-in-atheism issues in the past, so who the fuck knows. I promise to edit the post with an apology if it turns out not to be him (but being more supportive of women in atheism would go a long way to preventing such situations from occurring, even if he didn’t write this; for example, if that appeared under PZ’s handle, or Greta Christina’s everybody would immediately know that it’s a fake)

  9. Jadehawk says:

    thanks Paul. It’s a sad fact that it ill take longer to get rid of the things religion has introduced and/or promoted in our cultures than it will to get rid of the overtly religious thinking itself. Christianity has done a number of tricks like that on Western culture, not just in terms of sexism

  10. Coelecanth says:

    Fantastic Gnu symbol.

  11. David Marjanović says:

    I like the intersectional Gnu.

    The fist is great. It’s very similar to the one of Otpor and conveys “enough, we’re not going to take this anymore”.

    Dawkins has been clueless before, but not so brutally clueless. (Chewing gum. WTF. *headdesk*) As has been pointed out in the thread, there’s that passage in The God Delusion where he thanks the feminists for raising awareness of such things. As I wrote, I don’t want to believe it’s Dawkins; I still hope it’s a troll who expected us to treat The Great Dawkins with kid gloves and then laugh at us for hero-worshipping… you know, “ha, ha, atheism is just another religion, and Dawkins is its prophet”…

    *off to see if that thread has 1000 comments now*

    since I’ve repeatedly mentioned that I’m not a leader

    Well, be careful you won’t be shoved into such a role anyway.

  12. Jadehawk says:

    Well, be careful you won’t be shoved into such a role anyway.

    well, no one’s been doing any pushing yet. And I wouldn’t know how to lead, anyway. For some reason, they don’t teach that anywhere :-p

  13. Blueelm says:

    I *really* like the intersectional ones.

  14. Very nice.

    Any word on the RD comments yet?!

  15. Jadehawk says:

    no word, as far as I can tell. PZ banned a few other people from those threads, but no comment about “Richard Dawkins” :-/

    EDIT: he said he’s traveling and can’t confirm IDs until he gets home.

  16. Jadehawk says:

    also: *squee* @ Ophelia Benson commented on my blog!! :-p

  17. Alex says:

    What about the female gender symbol (the circle with the cross attached underneath), but with a man nailed on the cross?

  18. David Marjanović says:

    A man nailed to a cross is… like… totally Christianity?

    I mean, just maybe?

    =====================

    The Twitter message you link to

    For those curious, confirmed: those comments were from Richard. There were also a couple of hoaxsters who have been deleted & IP banned.

    is currently the 3rd most recent on PZ’s Twitter account, and the 2 newer ones are about different topics.

    *howl*

    Maybe we should get ourselves a new set of apocalyptic horseriders. Dennett, PZ, Greta Christina, Ophelia Benson…?

    =====================

    Completely off-topic: have you read the e-mail I sent a month and a day ago? I don’t necessarily need a reply to it, I just want to know if you’ve read it.

  19. Isn’t use of the word “fuck” a dehumanizing part of the rape culture, along with “bitch” and “ho”? It seems to me many of those demonizing Dawkins for providing some perspective should first remove the log from their own eye..

  20. David Marjanović says:

    Of course I’m at least half a day late, and PZ has already blogged about this, again confirming that it was Dawkins and explaining to him where his cluelessness lay. The thread already has 770 comments; I’ll read it later… probably much later…

  21. David Marjanović says:

    What’s dehumanizing about “fuck”?

    “Not to be used in distinguished company unless a fainting couch and smelling salts are available” and “dehumanizing” aren’t synonymous and never have been, nor (alas) has one ever been a subset of the other.

    Some people make a Roman-style distinction: the man fucks, the woman is fucked (presumably she lies still and thinks of England), and a gay bottom probably becomes a woman. I’d say that’s sexist. But it’s not common usage.

  22. Perhaps in europe you say “I’m fucking your daughter”, instead of “Your daughter and I are living together”, or would the phrase be less personal, and more dehumanizing there as well? In the U.S. it is a vulgar, objectifying and dehumanizing term. It is a term for casual, self-gratifying, exploitive sex that reduces to “fuckee” to an object. The roman style distinction is still the norm. Lesbians don’t usually “fuck” for example. In the rape culture men might judge some women good for a “fuck” that they wouldn’t be caught out in public with, although a paper bag over the head might be required for particularly ugly ones. But perhaps the use of the term has become a sign of dirty intimacy, we can say “fuck” about other people, but we wouldn’t use it on each other. It is a sign we share certain values. We don’t shock each other, we just shock others who are less knowing than we are.

    But then, what would a teabagger like me know.

  23. Paul says:

    Perhaps in europe you say “I’m fucking your daughter”, instead of “Your daughter and I are living together”

    No, you don’t get to play that. It’s “I’m fucking your daughter” vice “I’m having sex with your daughter”. Is one more dehumanizing? More vulgar, sure. But that’s a different thing. And neither is common usage, anyway. “Your daughter and I are living together” is the polite way of allowing them to believe their little girl isn’t an adult with an active sex drive, and something completely unlike the other two statements.

    It is a term for casual, self-gratifying, exploitive sex that reduces to “fuckee” to an object. The roman style distinction is still the norm.

    Care to give more than just your word on that? To duel anecdotes, I know nobody that makes the Roman distinction outside of high school (which is a conversation to have, perhaps, but you don’t get to project that meaning onto adults using the term).

    Lesbians don’t usually “fuck” for example.

    You don’t appear to know any lesbians. Or perhaps the ones you know are simply shy and reserved with their language.

    In the rape culture men might judge some women good for a “fuck” that they wouldn’t be caught out in public with, although a paper bag over the head might be required for particularly ugly ones.

    And some men do judge some women good for “fooling around” or “sex” that they wouldn’t be caught out in public with. What makes them using the word fuck something different and completely unlike?

    But perhaps the use of the term has become a sign of dirty intimacy, we can say “fuck” about other people, but we wouldn’t use it on each other.

    Why not actually ask people that use the term without needing fainting couches? Plenty use it “on each other”. It’s not something that other people do. Not all of us are ashamed of our biological functions, impulses, or indulgences.

    But then, what would a teabagger like me know.

    Not much, apparently. I was going to say that the lack of knowledge is not because you’re a teabagger (and pretending it is is a cop-out), but perhaps causality runs the other way.

    Also, the comment form looks new. Not sure if like.

  24. David Marjanović says:

    The comment form is new, and I don’t like it much — the guest/Wordpress/Twitter/Facebook buttons tend to temporarily overlay the text when the comment window enlarges, the window size jumps back and forth while I type (no matter where in the window I type) or scroll down the page, and the cursor keys often fail.

    Anyway. Before Paul posted, I wanted to say that there seem to be cultural differences within the USA that both africangenesis and I didn’t know about. Paul, thanks for confirming this.

    africangenesis, what kind of sick mind would associate sex with “dirty”? I mean, I know lots of people do that, but I bet they have all suffered a fundamentalist/Victorian “education”.

    …And no, “I’m fucking your daughter” isn’t a common phrase over here. That’s because not just the word fuck, but talking about sex at all with adult strangers would be considered uncanny. Besides, have you noticed how “your daughter and I are living together” not only doesn’t mention sex, but also strongly implies fucking isn’t the only thing “we” do together?

  25. Paul says:

    Oh, and on the original post. I like the idea of the avatars, but they seem too busy. I think it’s the lens flare. And the multiple circles, although something for intersectionality is definitely something I can get behind (I like the concept, but as a simple icon it seems too cluttered). Too depressing on that Dawkins bit. That’s one reason I’ve been trying to distance myself from the atheist blogosphere. This stuff seems to be coming out more and more, and it’s tiring seeing the stupid, alienating, out-of-touch garbage the people in the spotlight say, yet efforts to change that spotlight are derided as unnecessary and “politically correct”.

  26. Jadehawk says:

    Paul, I have them as vector files, so they can be easily simplified and modified (i.e. have the flares, transparencies, and shadows removed)

  27. Paul says:

    I’d have expected no less, Jadehawk. I’d ask for the files or for a modification, but I haven’t set up a space for sharing my own thoughts. Not sure I ever will. I get tempted from time to time. But then I freeze when I start thinking of all the considerations (anonymous, pseudonymous, real name) etc and just drop it. Especially when it occurs to me that nobody cares, anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s