Is there a difference, as some have told me there is, between saying a woman “dresses like a slut” and calling her a slut?

Is there a difference between calling a man a whore and calling a woman a whore? Please explain why you think so.

Are women responsible for the sexual behavior of men around them if they dress a certain way? Where does that line get drawn? What does that say about men and their agency as humans?

Here’s the thing: unless you start being an asshole I’m not trying to make you feel like a crappy person. We’re all forced into this system and we have to reason our way out of it. Just like many of us reject the “common sense” arguments for religious belief and then we ask questions and gather information and draw a conclusion. Your average theist isn’t stupid or evil, they just haven’t done the work or had that “deconversion” moment. When you start kicking and screaming and throwing temper tantrums because someone has challenged your assumptions what does that make you? Does that make you a free-thinker? A skeptic? No, it makes you a tradition-bound and close-minded person who is being willfully ignorant. When you reject new information because it is inconvenient (or because maybe you just don’t trust women, perhaps) then you become an asshole.

Lets look at some of these categories and some of the groups (western) society recognizes with them:

###Sex and Gender

• Male
  • Female
  • Intersex
  • Transgender
  • Cisgender

###Race

• Black
  • White
  • Latino
  • Asian
  • Native American

###Religious Belief

• Atheist

  • Christian
  • Jewish
  • Muslim
  • Hindu ###Ability

• Disabled

  • Currently able-bodied

###Sexuality

• Heterosexual
  • Homosexual
  • Bisexual

###Class

• Rich
  • Poor
  • Working class
  • Middle class
  • Upper class

###Appearance

• Conforming
  • Non-conforming

…I could go on and on, but I think we have enough to work with. As you look over those you will no doubt see that in every category there is a group with more privilege than the others. Some have less privilege (remember we’re talking about special advantages or immunities here) than the “top dog”, but more than other groups in the category. Got it?

MISSING IMAGE

The most insidious form of douchebag is the Misunderstood Douchebag. You know the type: he’s really not that bad, people just don’t understand his ways. If only people got that what he was doing was noble and not at all in the blind pursuit of getting into girls’ pants, the world would be a much fairer place. The Misunderstood Douchebag is the genus of the species Nice GuyTM.

A reader hipped me to a video recently. I watched it. I can see the appeal, since it’s a video all about being awesomer to people. Something about it didn’t sit right with me, though. Here, you watch and then we’ll get back together after the jump and compare notes.

Okay, so, yes, it’s not nice to call people homophobic names. It also doesn’t make you more straight to do so. (I think the only thing that makes men straight - or at least bisexual - is cunnilingus. True story.) I have two problems with the video that won’t let me endorse it completely:

_ [This article was originally posted on August 29th, 2011 at Skeptic Freethought .]_

[caption id=“attachment_596” align=“alignleft” width=“122” caption=“Hoping that I don’t sound like this.”]

“Feminist” is a polarizing word. You’ll generally see it used in one of two ways: as self-identification by people who consider themselves feminists, and as a pejorative by people who do not.

It’s a word with an ugly connotation in many people’s minds, not unlike the word “atheist”; people hear the “-ist” suffix and infer an ideology that seeks feminine supremacy rather than gender equality, just as many see atheism as a rebellious denial of God rather than an affirmative acceptance of a godless universe.

[caption id=“attachment_580” align=“alignleft” width=“150” caption=“Unfit for civilization.”]

In the last day much has been said about “The Amazing Atheist”, most notably (from my chair) by Jen McCreight , Greg Laden , and PZ Myers . Until this morning I didn’t intend to address it in this space until reading the comment’s on PZ’s piece filled me with such a dark, bleak sense of despair about the state of humanity and the atheist/skeptical community. So, I’d like to start out by stating, very clearly, exactly how I feel about this “Amazing” guy and his defenders.

Like many within the skeptical community, I have been reading with interest the recent discussion which has been waged (or, should I say, raged?) on the topic of diversity within the skeptical movement. Apparently, it all goes back to this article – Why White Men Should Refuse to be on Panels of All White Men – which led to this blog post over at Skepchick. It also seems that there is a bit of a “storm” of controversy swirling as a result of the discussion generated by these articles. I think Amy Roth, the author of the aforementioned Skepchick article, articulated it well with the following commentary:

[This piece was originally published on January 30, 2012]

“Why do you say ‘white people’ have privilege? Not every white person has racial issues! Shouldn’t you say some white people?”

“Why do you say that men objectify and abuse women? Not every man does that! Shouldn’t you say some men?”

“Why do you say that atheists have to be more welcoming to women? Some atheists are women! Shouldn’t you say some atheists?”

In addition to seeking one-time contributions, we’re looking for one or two new staff bloggers. Please send me a message (sasha AT womenthinkingfree DOT org) with a little bit about yourself, a couple samples of your writing, and a drive to promote diversity in our communities. (You will have a salary of imaginary bacon, which is how we pay people around here. Yes, it’s vegan.)

Thanks for an interesting month, and an upcoming interesting year,