I try so hard not to follow any of this angsty bullshit, but sometimes, it just appears in your in-box and you have to respond. Vjack, over at Atheist Revolution, keeps writing about it, mostly, I hope, to bring attention to the utter absurdity of the radical feminist position. The more I see of it, the more these radical feminists look exactly like theists. They make ridiculous claims, hold wholly emotional positions and attack anyone who dares to question the validity of their fundamentalist beliefs.
Here we go again.
I’ve yet to see anyone ever say that if it doesn’t happen to one person, it doesn’t happen at all, that’s a bald assertion without any supporting evidence, but then again, all of the claims I’ve seen where people claim to have been harassed, where people have claimed to have been abused, I’ve yet to see any supporting evidence of those things either. In fact, judging by the majority of claims that I have seen, I would deny that any actual, demonstrable abuse has gone on, it’s just a bunch of oversensitive women and men who are freaking out over things that no rational person would ever consider abusive.
Yet the radfems are tweeting like crazy:
The biggest problem here is one of hypocrisy. See, one of the things that we, as atheists, often are called upon to do is to gauge claims of “experiences with God” made by theists and determine if, in fact, it is rational for a person to consider a specific set of circumstances as a direct experience with the almighty. Is there reason to think that some event was actually caused or instigated by a supernatural entity? Lots of theists get pissed off when atheists do this, they think that their own emotional claims are beyond reproach, that their claims are automatically valid and anyone who criticizes them must be either insensitive or evil, but that’s simply not true. We, as rational, critical thinkers are evaluating the claims objectively and intelligently and finding that, by and large, they do not stand up to scrutiny.
Neither do the claims of the feminists. Just like the theists who are supremely convinced that having an emotional experience and attributing a supernatural cause to it is valid, they are confident that having an emotional experience and attributing an abusive cause to it is equally as valid, but like the theists, it doesn’t work out that way when you strip away the emotion. “I feel abused” is not necessarily the same as “I have been abused”, any more than “I feel the presence of God” is the same as “God is real”. One is an emotional response that may or may not have any validity in reality and it does not automatically equate to a factual statement about reality.
If they want to declare victimhood, they first have to start off with a valid definition of “victim”, which frankly, they don’t have. They play the victim card whenever it’s politically expedient. They stamp the label on the forehead of anyone who feels emotionally uncomfortable about a situation. That doesn’t make you a victim, it makes you overly-emotional.
I think we need to look at victimhood for a moment here. There are a lot of dictionary definitions, but I think two actually apply here, for different reasons. Let’s look at the one that I’m sure they would more closely identify with first:
Victim: (1): one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim> (2): one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment <a frequent victim of political attacks>
However, I think there’s a second definition that is even more applicable here, both to radical feminists and to theists.
Victim: one that is tricked or duped <a con man’s victim>
Both groups have been bullshitted into believing something that is clearly and absurdly false. Both groups buy into a proposition that is emotional and not intellectual in nature, one that demands that you not think about it too hard and that you attack anyone who rejects the idea because they are clearly evil. Unlike the first definition, there are no demonstrable attacks going on. There is no victimhood in that sense. No one is demonstrably injured, destroyed or sacrificed, there have been no arrests made due to attacks within the atheist community and nobody has been able to produce evidence of any oppression, hardship or mistreatment that they didn’t bring upon themselves. If this absurd “rape culture” was going on, you’d think they’d be able to produce a single criminal conviction for rape that stemmed from an actual sexual assault taking place at an atheist convention. They cannot. That really seems to be the problem here. Just being a woman is not detrimental whatsoever in the atheist community, it’s being a fucking bitch that’s the issue. It’s having unrealistic expectations and desires that are at fault. Worse yet, it’s the mind-numbingly stupid “my way or the highway” thinking that these rad-fems share that get them into so much trouble. These tweets are just more evidence of it. “You disagree with us and you’re the enemy!”
I suspect this will never change because we have a massive problem in the atheist community with irrational people. There are those who could be perfectly intellectual with regard to religion, but once you get into “social justice” they’re as far out there as Jenny McCarthy is with vaccinations and like McCarthy, they’re completely clueless as to how clueless they actually are.
These people are not victims, they are not abused, they are not demonstrably injured, oppressed or mistreated. They have absurd ideas about how the world works and are so inculcated in first world sensitivities that they can’t see the real world from where they’re sitting. The second anyone points this out, that they have not demonstrated their victimhood, that they have not drawn a causal link from the failure of their fallacious expectations to misogyny, they yell and scream and call names and cry about how unfair the world is because their bizarre liberal utopia isn’t magically surrounding us all.
How is this any different than the religious again?