Atheism + Skepticism.....?

The purpose for this thread is to discuss the skepticism (or lack thereof) of the atheism+ movement, particularly their feministic ideas such as "schroedinger's rapist", "Patriarchy", etc. and the dogmas underlying these beliefs. I feel these claims to the extent that they might be true, fail to meet the burden of proof so far, and inasmuch as there may be any truth value in them, they certainly aren't as extreme as the atheism+ would like to portray it.

For instance: Patriarchy in the "old" atheism movement.

Part of the reason for starting atheism+ is the fact that most atheists currently involved in atheist activism are men. White "priveleged" men. Now so far, we're still in the domain of the demonstrable, the factual. At the same time, all we have is a correlation.

However, atheism+ would have us believe that the reason for the preponderance of white men in atheism is "the patriarchy" a complex web of indoctrination, social rules and mores that lead to the oppression of women by men. For some reason, atheist men who "control" the movement have decided to not be inclusive.

The problem is that this is just a hypothesis. Making it into a theory means collecting evidence of this patriarchy, formulating a mechanism by which it works, and falsifying the hypothesis. Right now, no explanation is given of how or why these old white men are suppressing female atheism, and no falsification is possible.
And that leads patriarchy to be an almost godlike explanation for any perceived injustice or wrong on the part of women. Less women in atheism? PATRIARCHY! More women in churches? PATRIARCHY! It leads to a one-size fits all magic answer that answers nothing (kinda like "god did it"). It stops people from looking for actual causes and olutions to actual gender inequalities, focusing instead on their preconceived , self-confirming notions of female victimhood and male agency.

AliRadicali:
You seem to have utterly failed to understand the concept of "the patriarchy" in terms of feminist discourse. It is a blanket term for all of the social and political constructs which lead to women being under-served, discriminated against, or mistreated. So by definition if there is a reason that large group of women are being discriminated against or under-served, the cause of it would be a part of the patriarchy set, that does not identify the specific cause. Sure the term may be getting abused, but your entire post does not make sense at all if you use the definition from feminist discourse.

Basically your post boils down to saying something akin to:
I don't believe in cancer-causers because it is just a hypothesis, whenever someone sees cancer they could just say it was caused by a cancer-causer! It's unfalsifiable! What is wrong with these people?

Argyle wrote:AliRadicali:
You seem to have utterly failed to understand the concept of "the patriarchy" in terms of feminist discourse. It is a blanket term for all of the social and political constructs which lead to women being under-served, discriminated against, or mistreated. So by definition if there is a reason that large group of women are being discriminated against or under-served, the cause of it would be a part of the patriarchy set, that does not identify the specific cause. Sure the term may be getting abused, but your entire post does not make sense at all if you use the definition from feminist discourse.

Basically your post boils down to saying something akin to:
I don't believe in cancer-causers because it is just a hypothesis, whenever someone sees cancer they could just say it was caused by a cancer-causer! It's unfalsifiable! What is wrong with these people?

Nonsense. The whole point of "patriarchy" (fatherly (I.E.: male) rule), is that despite being a vague nebulous term that gets used to explain contradictory effects, it's very clear that feminists think it's being perpetrated by men(Remember, men are the agents, women are the oppressed victims). It is is clear that they think it is some sort of artificial construct, witout which men and women would be (more) equal. It completely and utterly fails to take into account the possibility of a gender inequality being the product of sexual dimorphism, self selection or some form of inequality completely unrelated to gender.

It places men in the role of the primary causative agents for gender disparity, with women simply being the hapless, often witless victims of whatever it is men do to achieve this patriarchy. (Which ironically is completely anathema to the message of female empowerment feminism likes to masquerade as, but that's another topic).

To go back to your cancer analogy, it isn't saying "cancer causes are unfalsifiable, therefore they don't exist". It's saying "sunbathing is correlated to skincancer, therefore the sun is THE "cancer causer".

And no, cancer causes are NOT unfalsifiable, they can be demonstrated emperically and explained via biochemistry. There is a robust body of emperical data regarding cancer and its causes. Where is the data regarding patriarchy? Where are the models explaining how it all works? Where are the tests, polls, statistical analyses specifically designed to folsify whether some form of intentional male oppression is the cause of a given gender disparity?

There isn't any, because fminist "science" doesn't feel it needs to falsify its claims, when it works on the axiom of patriarchy being a fact, and the conforting knowledge that this is "generally accepted" as true by mainstream society.

AliRadicali wrote:
... it's very clear that feminists think ... It is is clear that they think ...

... because ... doesn't feel ...

Quick! Alert James Randi! We have a candidate to win the one million dollars: AliRadicali can read minds!

Hey Ali -

So how to negotiate this minefield ...

First of all I think we have to note that 'patriarchy' is a term from sociology rather than hard science. Therefore, while concepts like 'falsifiability' apply on some level this isn't quite the same as in other contexts.

Second thing to say is that you talk about 'patriarchy in the old atheist community'. Now, as I understand it, and am open to be corrected, this isn't really a valid concept. The reason is that under 'patriarchy theory' everything in our society is under the umbrella of patriarchy, therefore it would be impossible for there either to be more or less patriarchy in the old atheist community than there is in society. This is because the old atheist community is a subset of our society generally and derives from society. Now, 'sexism' on the other hand, which is a manisfestation of patriarchy could indeed by more or less manifest in the old atheist community than elsewhere.

So the big question is 'Does skepticism imply acceptance of (generalised) patriarchy theory ?'

I must say, that at the moment, I just don't know. I'm open to the view that it might be true. I don't even know for an absolute fact who should have the burden of proof. It would seem prima facie that the 'yes' has the burden, but I know that there are those who claim that it is my own cultish thinking, no doubt inspired by my religious upbringing, that is responsible for me not noticing the patriarchy hitherto.

Also, of course there is the question of what it means to 'accept' the theory. Maybe it is the case that 'patriarchy theory' is a valid tool with which to analyse certain aspects of society or behaviour, but only within certain limits. Also, one can perhaps regard patriarchy theory as a 'perspective', which is certainly noticing valuable stuff, but maybe obscuring others at the same time. I don't know where this leaves us as regards testing.

One thing that does seem strange to me, and slightly unfortunate, is that, all of a sudden one's position on this difficult question seems to be defining one as a member of an in-group or out-group with respect to identity politics. For me, this does impact negatively on the believability of the claim because it gives the impression that it relies on appeals to authority or appeals to emotion to sustain it.

Eowyn wrote:

AliRadicali wrote:
... it's very clear that feminists think ... It is is clear that they think ...

... because ... doesn't feel ...

Quick! Alert James Randi! We have a candidate to win the one million dollars: AliRadicali can read minds!

Yes, because it requires mindreading capabilities to read what atheism+ people/founders write about their beliefs.

To be clear, this is what I said:
"it's very clear that feminists think it's being perpetrated by men(Remember, men are the agents, women are the oppressed victims). It is is clear that they think it is some sort of artificial construct, witout which men and women would be (more) equal."

Now let's go to the blogpost that founded this movement, shall we?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/how-i-unwittingly-infiltrated-the-boys-club-why-its-time-for-a-new-wave-of-atheism/
The entire thing is a litany of the evils visited upon the author and her atheism+ buddies, and the reason given explicitly is the misogyny inherent in the "boys club" that is atheism:
"The creepy thought that the reason a lot of outspoken, committed, passionate atheists are choosing this as their arena is because they’re too selfish, too entitled, or too sheltered, to allow any other issues to really matter to them. That they choose this ONE civil rights issue to dedicate themselves to, because it’s the ONLY legitimate civil rights issue that actually affects them, secure in their absence of ovaries, melanin, exogenous hormones, medical devices/supports, welfare checks, track scars and rainbow flags."
"I was exactly what a Boy’s Club wanted. I was a young, not-hideous woman who passionately supported their cause. I made them look diverse without them having to address their minority-repelling privilege. They liked that I joked about sex and boobs not because it was empowering for me, but because they saw it as a pass to oggle and objectify. But the Boy’s Club rescinds its invitation once they realize you’re a rabble-rousing feminist."

Golly, I wonder WHERE I got the idea that A+theism+feminism thinks of patriarchy as an intentional agent of female subjugation (at least within the atheist community).

piginthecity wrote:Hey Ali -

So how to negotiate this minefield ...

First of all I think we have to note that 'patriarchy' is a term from sociology rather than hard science. Therefore, while concepts like 'falsifiability' apply on some level this isn't quite the same as in other contexts.

I'm aware that it's a lot more difficult to collect good data in social sciences. At the same time, I think this is one of the major problems with these social "sciences". If you are unable to falsify or accurately predict using your "theory" it doesn't really deserve the title scientific theory.
Economists, sociologists, etc. have conflicting schools of thought on things which ought to be objectively verifyable. You don't get this in other sciences, only in the abstract, almost philosophical realm of advanced mathematics and physics. And even then, both parties have the humility to admit that they don't know for sure, they're just going with what seems like a more plausible answer.
The economy is a complex system, but it is something that can actually be measured as- and reduced to- transactions that occur in the real world. Part of the problem is that rather than trying to find better ways to test and falsify their ideas, social sciences just lower the bar. It's no wonder why most of the fraud in science occurs within social sciences, it's where the least amount of independent verification occurs, where the rigors of peer review are the least stringent.

Second thing to say is that you talk about 'patriarchy in the old atheist community'. Now, as I understand it, and am open to be corrected, this isn't really a valid concept. The reason is that under 'patriarchy theory' everything in our society is under the umbrella of patriarchy, therefore it would be impossible for there either to be more or less patriarchy in the old atheist community than there is in society. This is because the old atheist community is a subset of our society generally and derives from society. Now, 'sexism' on the other hand, which is a manisfestation of patriarchy could indeed by more or less manifest in the old atheist community than elsewhere.

If sexism is a product of the patriarchy, and sexism can be variously prevalent throughout society, I think it's a rather pedantic point to argue that patriarchy can't be variably prevalent/effective throughout society.
Unless you can actually name/explain the mechanism(s) involved in creating these differences in the amount of sexissm, I don't see much use in making the distinction. Treating "patriarchy" as an omnipresent system even when you cannot define how it interacts with the specific instances of sexism is part of the problem IMO, part of the reason why patriarchy theory becomes such a religious mess.

So the big question is 'Does skepticism imply acceptance of (generalised) patriarchy theory ?'

I must say, that at the moment, I just don't know. I'm open to the view that it might be true. I don't even know for an absolute fact who should have the burden of proof. It would seem prima facie that the 'yes' has the burden, but I know that there are those who claim that it is my own cultish thinking, no doubt inspired by my religious upbringing, that is responsible for me not noticing the patriarchy hitherto.

There are gender inequalities, there is sexism. It's not easy to find the mechanisms responsible for these beliefs and practices, but it should be clear that the assumption of any one explanation for these phenomena requires evidence. And the assumption of one big panacea answer "patriarchy" requires a LOT of evidence.

One of my major qualms with feminism is the almost complete rejection of sexual dimorphism(I.E. the idea that gender matters for the kind of physical AND psychological traits a person has) as an explanation for certain perceived inequalities, when it is readily apparent that this could explain a huge amount of things. We see stark behavioral differences between genders in animal society, does that mean those crafty male lions have figured out how to suppress female lions? I guess you could argue that, but to me it makes more sense to view this as an evolutionary design that may serve some purpose to lions.

Also, of course there is the question of what it means to 'accept' the theory. Maybe it is the case that 'patriarchy theory' is a valid tool with which to analyse certain aspects of society or behaviour, but only within certain limits. Also, one can perhaps regard patriarchy theory as a 'perspective', which is certainly noticing valuable stuff, but maybe obscuring others at the same time. I don't know where this leaves us as regards testing.

I'm not rejecting the concept of patriarchy outright, clearly many cultures, especially religious ones, have ways to deliberately oppress women. The whole "chastity until marriage" thing is probably a social construct developed to regulate female fertility by the male patriarchs.

My point is that you need to be able to draw a logical path from cause to effect and demonstrate that no other process can be the cause, before you declare "X causes Y". And in many of the instances where patriarchy is invoked, specifically in the case of atheism, I don't think it follows AT ALL.
This may be a radical idea for feminists, but maybe the reason atheism as a movement collectively got up and left room when people started conflating atheism and feminism, is NOT because atheists are misogynistic dicks, but because feminism(as practiced by A+theism) is a divisive, cultish, unskeptical group of beliefs.

One thing that does seem strange to me, and slightly unfortunate, is that, all of a sudden one's position on this difficult question seems to be defining one as a member of an in-group or out-group with respect to identity politics. For me, this does impact negatively on the believability of the claim because it gives the impression that it relies on appeals to authority or appeals to emotion to sustain it.

Which is why I like the label of egalitarian. gender equality is a difficult matter, because in ths present day we'd like to treat everyone equally, but at the same time we have to accept that we aren't all equal, neither physically nor in our brains' wiring.

Coming up with a solution requires us to objectively assess how we can create equality of outcome (in terms of happiness) without creating (too much) inequality of opportunity. But part of coming to that answer is admitting that there ARE gender differences, and these differences go farther than "men are strong and violent, women are vulnerable and need protection".