43 comments posted · 45 followers · following 0
The tone of this blog has certainly changed since the last time I was here.
No one needs to be ashamed for being a white male; they only need to feel ashamed if they're aware of the privilege it gives them and decide that they don't give a shit about the inequality, or if they actively work to entrench the inequality.
Religious men justify sexism with their holy texts; atheist men justify it with bad science.
If someone accepts that atheism is a good thing (subtext: associated with rationality and intelligence) and then says that atheism inherently appeals more to men, do you see how that might be just a tad uncomfortable for women? Do you see how, for example, a non-critical discussion of 'The Bell Curve' by a leader in the Humanist movement might be uncomfortable to non-white people?
Sometimes it's obvious when someone has passed from 'sexist' into 'misogynist' immediately, but often it takes several interactions to figure it out.
Thank you. You might not change his mind, but you might shut him up and make the environment better for both the women and the younger men present; hopefully, as more people do this, it will become as passé to use overtly sexist language as it is to use overtly racist language.
Threatening someone with violence in order to shut them up should be protected "because they might be right"?!
Ignoring it is what women have been doing up to this point; I suspect you haven't read the article, though, because the women in question are talking about not just being called names, but being threatened with rape and violence with their addresses, both home and work, and phone numbers cited. A few of those, and/or threats to your family, and you might start to muzzle yourself too. They're getting multiple comments like this every single day. I suspect that it would be wearing to even the most callous blogger.
As for equal pay... you're setting up another false dichotomy. It's not, 'either we fight for respect online, or we fight for equal pay.' Fighting for one supports the other, regardless of the order you do it in.
The Christian 'historians,' in other words, are playing by the same program as the Christian 'biologists.'