Regina wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Regina wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I now understand that as a white male I should be listening
and not talking when the subject is misogyny or racism

.
This is not about surr, but about a white male

The white male is me and only me. I only speak for myself not others. If other white males want to lecture women
and blacks on misogyny or racism that is their prerogative. I am saying that if it was me I would prefer to just say
nothing. That works for me. I do not expect it to work for others. They do what they think is right

But you have drawn that conclusion (that it's appropriate to behave in certain way) based solely on the fact that you are "white" and male, not on the fact that you are surr57. And you have adjusted your behaviour through reading the collected works of a bunch of "white" American middle-class women. You are buying into a sexist and racist view of people, because you feel you have to change your behaviour based on what's between your legs (and not what's between your ears) and
the missing pigmentation of your skin

On top of that you say I should be listening, not I prefer to listen. And not only that, after having listened obediently, you also feel you should not talk. According to that logic, one could be the vilest sexist asshole the world has seen up to this point...if the asshole were the proud owner of a vagina she could weigh in and the surrs of this world would docilely sit back. Yeah, right

You may not be aware of this but I have views which would not be very welcome over at Freethought Blogs. This gives lie
to your assumption that I am somehow incapable of thinking for myself without first seeking the approval of those more
learned in Social Justice than I am. Now no one has a monopoly on wisdom including oneself so it is logically proper that
one seeks the opinions of others as a means to self advancement. I only speak for myself here. What others do is up to
them. I think it can be assumed for example that you would most definitely not seek wisdom from the other side so to
speak and that is absolutely fine. But I on the other hand might and that is absolutely fine too

I should also point out that I seek wisdom from all quarters and that the greatest single change to my thinking actually
came from two members here. Because for me it is not who you are but what you have to say that matters. And some
times I will accept it and sometimes I will reject it. Unlike you I do not see sides. To me it is all points on a continuum
Which means that I reject the tribalism and cliqueism of most here when ever this topic comes up. Now am in no way
saying that I am right and every one else wrong. What I am saying is that the methodology I employ works for me. But
what works for you or anyone else may be different. The great thing for me is that because I am a virtual loner I have
no one to convince only myself. Now being consciously or sub consciously in clique mode means one seeks the opinions
of others one respects. I do not do that as I will take on anyone if I believe them to be wrong. And the one that I most
engage with is the most uncompromising member here. I do it for it makes me a better thinker at the end of the day

Having said all this I hope you have a better idea of where I am at. You do not have to agree with me but you do have
to accept me. I cannot change for anyone other than myself. Being open to persuasion does not make me a puppet. It
just means I am open to persuasion. I still reserve the right to reject any opinion or view which is proffered by you or
any other whether here or over there or anywhere else for that matter. Just as much as I reserve the right to accept
any one too. So welcome to Rat Skep where thinking for your self is not only acceptable but is positively encouraged

Sinde wrote:You're free to speak as you like in public. However, when you enter someone's arena you will be subject to their rules. I am simply dealing with the reasons for those rules and why they're not inherently evil.

I don't see how this is about free speech really. It seems like a non-sequitor that inevitably comes up.

If you are talking about forums and blogs, yeah I see your point if I don't want to get moderated or banned. If you are talking about meat space then the rule is 'everybody is entitled to their own opinion.'

surreptitious57 wrote:

Regina wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Regina wrote:
.
This is not about surr, but about a white male

The white male is me and only me. I only speak for myself not others. If other white males want to lecture women
and blacks on misogyny or racism that is their prerogative. I am saying that if it was me I would prefer to just say
nothing. That works for me. I do not expect it to work for others. They do what they think is right

But you have drawn that conclusion (that it's appropriate to behave in certain way) based solely on the fact that you are "white" and male, not on the fact that you are surr57. And you have adjusted your behaviour through reading the collected works of a bunch of "white" American middle-class women. You are buying into a sexist and racist view of people, because you feel you have to change your behaviour based on what's between your legs (and not what's between your ears) and
the missing pigmentation of your skin

On top of that you say I should be listening, not I prefer to listen. And not only that, after having listened obediently, you also feel you should not talk. According to that logic, one could be the vilest sexist asshole the world has seen up to this point...if the asshole were the proud owner of a vagina she could weigh in and the surrs of this world would docilely sit back. Yeah, right

You may not be aware of this but I have views which would not be very welcome over at Freethought Blogs. This gives lie
to your assumption that I am somehow incapable of thinking for myself without first seeking the approval of those more
learned in Social Justice than I am. Now no one has a monopoly on wisdom including oneself so it is logically proper that
one seeks the opinions of others as a means to self advancement. I only speak for myself here. What others do is up to
them. I think it can be assumed for example that you would most definitely not seek wisdom from the other side so to
speak and that is absolutely fine. But I on the other hand might and that is absolutely fine too

I should also point out that I seek wisdom from all quarters and that the greatest single change to my thinking actually
came from two members here. Because for me it is not who you are but what you have to say that matters. And some
times I will accept it and sometimes I will reject it. Unlike you I do not see sides. To me it is all points on a continuum
Which means that I reject the tribalism and cliqueism of most here when ever this topic comes up. Now am in no way
saying that I am right and every one else wrong. What I am saying is that the methodology I employ works for me. But
what works for you or anyone else may be different. The great thing for me is that because I am a virtual loner I have
no one to convince only myself. Now being consciously or sub consciously in clique mode means one seeks the opinions
of others one respects. I do not do that as I will take on anyone if I believe them to be wrong. And the one that I most
engage with is the most uncompromising member here. I do it for it makes me a better thinker at the end of the day

Having said all this I hope you have a better idea of where I am at. You do not have to agree with me but you do have
to accept me. I cannot change for anyone other than myself. Being open to persuasion does not make me a puppet. It
just means I am open to persuasion. I still reserve the right to reject any opinion or view which is proffered by you or
any other whether here or over there or anywhere else for that matter. Just as much as I reserve the right to accept
any one too. So welcome to Rat Skep where thinking for your self is not only acceptable but is positively encouraged

Hm, first of all, there's nothing in my post that indicates I assume that you cannot think for yourself, quite the opposite. It's therefore puzzling that your quest for "wisdom" leads you to take some pretty obnoxious FtBloggers seriously. I can only go by what you write in the post we're discussing, and it seems I'm not the only one who thinks it reeks of subservience.

It's a mystery to me why you think it necessary to point out that I have to accept you or that I question your right to reject ideas....I'm not your typical FtBlogger, to whom acceptance of dissenting views does not come naturally.
And to round it all off: I'd thank you for not assuming that I am in some kind of clique. Hey, I don't even belong in a gender clique, as I change it as I please.

DaveDodo007 wrote:
So you want to be able to shut down free speech by claiming offense. Feel free to give your right to free speech
away to anybody that plays the oppression olympics. You will have to take mine from my cold dead hands

Freethought Blogs has rules of conduct and a comment policy just like any internet site including here. They vary from
blogger to blogger but are within a given spectrum. As far as I know anyone posting racism or misogyny or homophobia
will be banned and in some cases with out warning. That is also expressly forbidden over here too. So although we may
be more tolerant some of our absolutes are the same as theirs. Furthermore the space you comment on is private for it
is the bloggers. So if you break the rules you will be banned. All rational sites have rules. Some may be more restricting
and some may be more lenient but they all have them regardless. I may not agree with the limitation on free speech at Freethought Blogs but I respect the rules nonetheless

Regina wrote:
Hm, first of all, there's nothing in my post that indicates I assume that you cannot think for yourself, quite the opposite. It's therefore puzzling that your quest for "wisdom" leads you to take some pretty obnoxious FtBloggers seriously. I can only go
by what you write in the post we're discussing, and it seems I'm not the only one who thinks it reeks of subservience.

It's a mystery to me why you think it necessary to point out that I have to accept you or that I question your right to
reject ideas....I'm not your typical FtBlogger, to whom acceptance of dissenting views does not come naturally.
And to round it all off: I'd thank you for not assuming that I am in some kind of clique. Hey, I don't even belong
in a gender clique, as I change it as I please

It is your opinion that Freethought bloggers are obnoxious. And you are perfectly entitled to it now. Though I am not
interested in how obnoxious they may be. That matters not at all. But I am interested in what they have to say and
only what they have to say. And just because I agree with them on particular issues does not make me subservient
For I have expressly stated at the very top of the post that I also have views that would not be welcome over there
How that gets translated in your mind as me being subservient only you know. I see from your sig that you are not
a big fan of feminism which might explain why you cannot stand them. But please do not expect me to do like wise
as I prefer to think for myself. And I am free to reject any opinion I have at anytime. Nothing is set in stone. That
is some thing else you might care to bear in mind when you next accuse me of subservience. And so what if others
agree with you ? This is not a popularity contest. What you have to say has to stand or fall on its merit. It matters
not how many share your view. Not one jot

surreptitious57 wrote:

DaveDodo007 wrote:
So you want to be able to shut down free speech by claiming offense. Feel free to give your right to free speech
away to anybody that plays the oppression olympics. You will have to take mine from my cold dead hands

Freethought Blogs has rules of conduct and a comment policy just like any internet site including here. They vary from
blogger to blogger but are within a given spectrum. As far as I know anyone posting racism or misogyny or homophobia
will be banned and in some cases with out warning. That is also expressly forbidden over here too. So although we may
be more tolerant some of our absolutes are the same as theirs. Furthermore the space you comment on is private for it
is the bloggers. So if you break the rules you will be banned. All rational sites have rules. Some may be more restricting
and some may be more lenient but they all have them regardless. I may not agree with the limitation on free speech at Freethought Blogs but I respect the rules nonetheless

They can do as they please, yes, but to use the name “Free Thought” is the epitome of nonsense. There is no free thought there; there is only group, ass-kissing think.

The bans extend well beyond the boundaries of racism, misogyny or homophobia etc. type posts. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the group-think is banned. Anyone who dares to disagree or to offer an alternate opinion is banned. Anyone who doesn’t kiss their asses is banned... the list goes on and on.

That’s fine, but don’t insult (not you, them) the entire would with a ridiculous name like “Free Thought” when it’s so far removed from reality that Dorothy and Toto have more credibility in this world.

Scarlett wrote:
But wasn't this an "atheist" conference ? Not an FTB conference

There are certain ones where some [Freethought bloggers have influence. It could be from an organisational
aspect or just as ordinary attendees that later blog about it. The basic rule appears to be that major ones get
advertised and promoted. There is also the overlap with feminism since the main bloggers are that too. So no
absolute lines in the sand. FIngers in as many pies as possible seems to be the order of the day

surreptitious57 wrote:

Regina wrote:
Hm, first of all, there's nothing in my post that indicates I assume that you cannot think for yourself, quite the opposite. It's therefore puzzling that your quest for "wisdom" leads you to take some pretty obnoxious FtBloggers seriously. I can only go
by what you write in the post we're discussing, and it seems I'm not the only one who thinks it reeks of subservience.

It's a mystery to me why you think it necessary to point out that I have to accept you or that I question your right to
reject ideas....I'm not your typical FtBlogger, to whom acceptance of dissenting views does not come naturally.
And to round it all off: I'd thank you for not assuming that I am in some kind of clique. Hey, I don't even belong
in a gender clique, as I change it as I please

It is your opinion that Freethought bloggers are obnoxious. And you are perfectly entitled to it now. Though I am not
interested in how obnoxious they may be. That matters not at all. But I am interested in what they have to say and
only what they have to say. And just because I agree with them on particular issues does not make me subservient
For I have expressly stated at the very top of the post that I also have views that would not be welcome over there
How that gets translated in your mind as me being subservient only you know. I see from your sig that you are not
a big fan of feminism which might explain why you cannot stand them. But please do not expect me to do like wise
as I prefer to think for myself. And I am free to reject any opinion I have at anytime. Nothing is set in stone. That
is some thing else you might care to bear in mind when you next accuse me of subservience. And so what if others
agree with you ? This is not a popularity contest. What you have to say has to stand or fall on its merit. It matters
not how many share your view. Not one jot

You are pointing out the obvious, Captain.
Do I have to mention that I don't expect you to do anything? I'm not a FtBlogger who actively tries to interfere with people's affairs.
What has become clear now is that our tastes differ, which is perfectly OK, just in case you need the reassurance.
Personally, I prefer not to expose myself to individuals who engage in screeching invectives at theír opponents in the mistaken belief that this constitutes an argument. Not to mention those who actively try to mess with people's private lives in the real world. That's where obnoxiousness becomes more than just a nuisance. But that has already been discussed ad nauseam.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Regina wrote:
Hm, first of all, there's nothing in my post that indicates I assume that you cannot think for yourself, quite the opposite. It's therefore puzzling that your quest for "wisdom" leads you to take some pretty obnoxious FtBloggers seriously. I can only go
by what you write in the post we're discussing, and it seems I'm not the only one who thinks it reeks of subservience.

It's a mystery to me why you think it necessary to point out that I have to accept you or that I question your right to
reject ideas....I'm not your typical FtBlogger, to whom acceptance of dissenting views does not come naturally.
And to round it all off: I'd thank you for not assuming that I am in some kind of clique. Hey, I don't even belong
in a gender clique, as I change it as I please

It is your opinion that Freethought bloggers are obnoxious. And you are perfectly entitled to it now. Though I am not
interested in how obnoxious they may be. That matters not at all. But I am interested in what they have to say and
only what they have to say. And just because I agree with them on particular issues does not make me subservient
For I have expressly stated at the very top of the post that I also have views that would not be welcome over there
How that gets translated in your mind as me being subservient only you know. I see from your sig that you are not
a big fan of feminism which might explain why you cannot stand them. But please do not expect me to do like wise
as I prefer to think for myself. And I am free to reject any opinion I have at anytime. Nothing is set in stone. That
is some thing else you might care to bear in mind when you next accuse me of subservience. And so what if others
agree with you ? This is not a popularity contest. What you have to say has to stand or fall on its merit. It matters
not how many share your view. Not one jot

Can a person not be emphatic towards others, help those that need help, fight for good and just causes, treat everyone as an equal regardless of their race, sex, colour etc, be a champion of fair justice for all etc. etc. without wearing a feminist banner?

Note: I am not talking about Regina personally, I'm addressing what you said only.)

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Can a person not be emphatic towards others, help those that need help, fight for
good and just causes, treat everyone as an equal regardless of their race, sex, colour
etc, be a champion of fair justice for all etc. etc. without wearing a feminist banner?

Well that person would by default be a feminist anyway. Though
how they chose to label themselves would be entirely arbitrary

surreptitious57 wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Can a person not be emphatic towards others, help those that need help, fight for
good and just causes, treat everyone as an equal regardless of their race, sex, colour
etc, be a champion of fair justice for all etc. etc. without wearing a feminist banner?

Well that person would by default be a feminist anyway. Though
how they chose to label themselves would be entirely arbitrary

Humanist.... egalitarian... The "feminist" stamp doesn't need to be used.

Varangian wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Can a person not be emphatic towards others, help those that need help, fight for
good and just causes, treat everyone as an equal regardless of their race, sex, colour
etc, be a champion of fair justice for all etc. etc. without wearing a feminist banner?

Well that person would by default be a feminist anyway. Though
how they chose to label themselves would be entirely arbitrary

Humanist.... egalitarian... The feminist stamp doesn't need to be used

No you can call yourself whatever you want to. I am
a human being. That is the label that I would choose

surreptitious57 wrote:
It is your opinion that Freethought bloggers are obnoxious. And you are perfectly entitled to it now. Though I am not interested in how obnoxious they may be. That matters not at all. But I am interested in what they have to say and
only what they have to say.

This is interesting, because I tend to agree. I like the obnoxious and offensive, and very often it holds some of the best wisdom.

Now, what you said earlier is that it is desirable for you to consider racism and misogyny, on the grounds that as a white male you will never directly experience them.

I might quibble with that a bit. I'm a Jew who can pass for white, but my girlfriend is black. So I have some direct experience of something very like racism as a Jew, some indirect experience by proxy through my girlfriend, and some direct experience from a very few members of her family (most are great, though). It's certainly not as much as many black women experience, but it's a taste from which I can extrapolate.

That is a minor quibble and almost entirely unimportant. The basic idea of examining misogyny, racism, and privilege is something I wholeheartedly agree with. However, there are a few problems I see with the whole FtB culture:

• They are very interested in using racism and misogyny as rhetorical points to advertise their moral superiority, positioning themselves as something like Knights for Goodness.
• Probably as a result, they are not very concerned with getting rid of racism and misogyny and actually exhibit more of it than the general population, only disguised in effrontery so that it can be difficult to notice
• Probably as a result of both, they have constructed what is patently a white male power structure, using women and minorities as tokens or exemplars, with stories only to be interpreted by the white males at the top.

The first two are my observations and opinions, but the third I think is empirical; one need only look at the personalities and their behaviors.

So, their statements might be a good place to start for white males who want that sort of thing, who want to be The Great White Hope, wannabe Alpha Males in a hierarchy that doesn't differ from traditional racist and misogynist hierarchies except for using a clever but slimy psychological trick to keep people from noticing. Many people really enjoy this sort of thing, and who am I ultimately to judge them?

It's not obvious that for anybody else, such as people who actually dislike racism and misogyny, it is a good source.

Scarlett wrote:

Sinde wrote:You're free to speak as you like in public. However, when you enter someone's arena you will be subject to their rules. I am simply dealing with the reasons for those rules and why they're not inherently evil.

I don't see how this is about free speech really. It seems like a non-sequitor that inevitably comes up.

But wasn't this an "atheist" conference? Not an FTB conference

I'm struggling confirming who hosted it but it may have been the Kansas City Atheists Coalition.

The person that set this all off asked a question and was answered. The real shutting down of discussion we were (well I was) discussing would happen at FTB with the banning and all.

If you are talking about forums and blogs, yeah I see your point if I don't want to get moderated or banned. If you are talking about meat space then the rule is 'everybody is entitled to their own opinion.'

Did anyone claim that they were not? Besides, it's a bit strange to claim that there are no limits to how you can act at a meeting. Did this woman cross the line? Nope, whatever her motives. But there is a line. And it's not like they threw her out of the con. She spoke and there was a response, nowhere is it guaranteed that what she said will go over well.

This is the basic reality, yet people, especially Americans, love to come at you with this Free Speech (!!) thing.

epepke wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
It is your opinion that Freethought bloggers are obnoxious. And you are perfectly entitled to it now. Though I am not interested in how obnoxious they may be. That matters not at all. But I am interested in what they have to say and
only what they have to say.

This is interesting, because I tend to agree. I like the obnoxious and offensive, and very often it holds some of the best wisdom.

Now, what you said earlier is that it is desirable for you to consider racism and misogyny, on the grounds that as a white male you will never directly experience them.

I might quibble with that a bit. I'm a Jew who can pass for white, but my girlfriend is black. So I have some direct experience of something very like racism as a Jew, some indirect experience by proxy through my girlfriend, and some direct experience from a very few members of her family (most are great, though). It's certainly not as much as many black women experience, but it's a taste from which I can extrapolate.

That is a minor quibble and almost entirely unimportant. The basic idea of examining misogyny, racism, and privilege is something I wholeheartedly agree with. However, there are a few problems I see with the whole FtB culture:

• They are very interested in using racism and misogyny as rhetorical points to advertise their moral superiority, positioning themselves as something like Knights for Goodness.
• Probably as a result, they are not very concerned with getting rid of racism and misogyny and actually exhibit more of it than the general population, only disguised in effrontery so that it can be difficult to notice
• Probably as a result of both, they have constructed what is patently a white male power structure, using women and minorities as tokens or exemplars, with stories only to be interpreted by the white males at the top.

The first two are my observations and opinions, but the third I think is empirical; one need only look at the personalities and their behaviors.

So, their statements might be a good place to start for white males who want that sort of thing, who want to be The Great White Hope, wannabe Alpha Males in a hierarchy that doesn't differ from traditional racist and misogynist hierarchies except for using a clever but slimy psychological trick to keep people from noticing. Many people really enjoy this sort of thing, and who am I ultimately to judge them?

It's not obvious that for anybody else, such as people who actually dislike racism and misogyny, it is a good source.

Excellent post!

epepke wrote:However, there are a few problems I see with the whole FtB culture:

• They are very interested in using racism and misogyny as rhetorical points to advertise their moral superiority, positioning themselves as something like Knights for Goodness.
• Probably as a result, they are not very concerned with getting rid of racism and misogyny and actually exhibit more of it than the general population, only disguised in effrontery so that it can be difficult to notice
• Probably as a result of both, they have constructed what is patently a white male power structure, using women and minorities as tokens or exemplars, with stories only to be interpreted by the white males at the top.

The first two are my observations and opinions, but the third I think is empirical; one need only look at the personalities and their behaviors.

The first of your opinions, I wholeheartedly agree with. The second, not so much - I think they're quite sincere, if often misguided and amateurishly ineffective. Or more to the point, I think that they believe their effrontery to be activism, which I think it is, just not on the scale they think it is, or anywhere near it.

But I'm not sure your third point stacks up too well. Yes, there are some big name white males in that movement, but there are also the likes of Greta Christina, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Rebecca Watson, Jennifer McCreight, and Crommunist who don't fit that bill, but seem to be looked up to as leaders by that community. I may be wrong, as I spend only fleeting time reading in those spaces, but their figureheads (such as they are) seem a more diverse group than you imply.

epepke wrote:

• They are very interested in using racism and misogyny as rhetorical points to advertise their moral superiority, positioning themselves as something like Knights for Goodness.
• Probably as a result, they are not very concerned with getting rid of racism and misogyny and actually exhibit more of it than the general population, only disguised in effrontery so that it can be difficult to notice
• Probably as a result of both, they have constructed what is patently a white male power structure, using women and minorities as tokens or exemplars, with stories only to be interpreted by the white males at the top.

The first two are my observations and opinions, but the third I think is empirical; one need only look at the personalities and their behaviors.

They do appear to be interested in using racism and misogyny as rhetorical points, but it also appears that they are very concerned with those issues as well. How did you come to the first bullet?

I'm not even sure how to get rid of racism or sexism in any culture. The only methods I do know that seem to which eliminate racism or misogyny other than talking about it and telling folks that that shit ain't cool, exposure, and the evening out of societal capital inequalities. That said, what method do you advocate? I can see folks taking issue with how bombastic a lot of their stuff is, and how all-or-nothing it comes across, so that might not be the best tactic.

I also sorta see the FtB group as just a blog. People complain all the time on blogs. They vent and scream and don't necessarily present themselves in a way that is flattering.

epepke wrote:So, their statements might be a good place to start for white males who want that sort of thing, who want to be The Great White Hope, wannabe Alpha Males in a hierarchy that doesn't differ from traditional racist and misogynist hierarchies except for using a clever but slimy psychological trick to keep people from noticing. Many people really enjoy this sort of thing, and who am I ultimately to judge them?

It's not obvious that for anybody else, such as people who actually dislike racism and misogyny, it is a good source.

That is something that has bothered me. I've wondered to what degree Special Snowflakiness is involved, though I haven't come to any conclusion as of yet.

OlivierK wrote:The first of your opinions, I wholeheartedly agree with. The second, not so much - I think they're quite sincere, if often misguided and amateurishly ineffective. Or more to the point, I think that they believe their effrontery to be activism, which I think it is, just not on the scale they think it is, or anywhere near it.

But I'm not sure your third point stacks up too well. Yes, there are some big name white males in that movement, but there are also the likes of Greta Christina, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Rebecca Watson, Jennifer McCreight, and Crommunist who don't fit that bill, but seem to be looked up to as leaders by that community. I may be wrong, as I spend only fleeting time reading in those spaces, but their figureheads (such as they are) seem a more diverse group than you imply.

We can differ on the second. I find myself not very convinced by "the ladies doth protest too much" idea, which I think resulted from persistent reading of MAD magazine. I always suspect the motives of people who self-identify. I think it likely that you are more informed by Cartesian ideas of Enlightenment rationalism, and I am more informed by the more recent Cognitive Science ideas on categorization, framing, metaphorical thought, and Hebbian learning. Still, this is ultimately an opinion, so let's concentrate on the third.

Greta Christiana and Rebecca Watson are fairly prominent, though I think secondary to some of the white males like Myers. The rest I don't have any particular memories of. I'm not in the club, and perhaps if I were, I'd think they were big wheels. However, from outside the club and looking in, they do not impress me as prominent. Listing them, therefore, smacks to me of tokenism.

Also, one has to consider the many actually prominent women who are not in the club, such as Paula Kirby, who I think is something of a pariah.

This does not convince me of a genuine concern for women qua women, but rather of accepting women who happen to toe the line, which line is mostly determined by white males. I'm not going to say that it's anything like White Male Privilege, but that's what they happen to be.

I also see this in the overt actions. The idea being that the poor dears can't make accusations themselves but that they require big strong grey-bearded males like Myers to stick up for them. I have an aversion to that kind of thing, which I consider presumptive and condescending toward women.

That last I certainly agree with, but that seems to be an issue more with PZ (who is consistently horrible at it) than with the movement as a whole.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Can a person not be emphatic towards others, help those that need help, fight for good and just causes, treat everyone as an equal regardless of their race, sex, colour etc, be a champion of fair justice for all etc. etc. without wearing a feminist banner?

Yes indeed and I have found that as much progress in equality has been made in the UK in my lifetime, the use of the word feminist has become less important to me here. However, it's a word I don't shy away from entirely because there are still people (mainly elderly or religious) who strongly believe that women shouldn't have a career if they have a family, that men should have preferential promotion & higher pay, that men are the head of the family etc. When I meet attitudes like that, I have no difficulty using the word feminist in describing why I don't share their values.