Feminists deplatform Richard Dawkins from science conference

[The Turbanator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTmwyKpz0o

[garrethdsouza]

If your idea of feminism is primarily from anti feminists like thunderf00t you're probably going to be very misinformed about it. Then again it is the current hipster thing in the atheist community so I guess it will take time for folks to figure out stuff, especially less skeptical edgy dudebro types of folks.

What about your original intro thread, some questions on veganism and atheism weren't answered?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

If your idea of feminism is primarily from anti feminists like thunderf00t you're probably going to be very misinformed about it. Then again it is the current hipster thing in the atheist community so I guess it will take time for folks to figure out stuff, especially less skeptical edgy dudebro types of folks

I might be too much of an edgy hipster dudebro to understand, but I have a few questions:
What is a feminist?
What is a men's rights activist?
What issues (if any) do feminists / men's rights activists solve in the developed west?
What issues (if any) do feminists / men's rights activists solve in the developed east?

[Volenta]

I've no idea how this whole anti-feminism thing became so huge in the atheism YouTube-community. I guess the people in that community are not necessarily motivated by reason and facts per se, but vulnerable to the same things as every other social group, leading to group conformity.

Thunderf00t's crusade has been summed up nicely by RationalWiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00 ... t_feminism

[garrethdsouza]

On feminism especially what contemporary feminism's objectives are and how it has built upon and seeks to improve beyond the previous waves, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism
The tldr of this is that in addition to issues women face generally, it also seeks to focus on the differences WOC face, and also queer women (ie it is not homo- or trans- exclusionary)

As for better resources/channels, I find Kristi Winters an actual social scientist as being data driven and demonstrated. She is also an atheist so also tackles some of the issues in the online atheist community https://m.youtube.com/user/drkmwinters

Unlike the other detractors, she has actual training in the relevant field and is science based. She also talks about other topics (in her playlist) like politics, religion, religion deconversion research etc. She has a series of videos on quantifications of sexism/patriarchy in different issues etc. For instance politically, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G0-IdEk45DA

She also occasionally does a shout out to other relevant channels or resources like about the Bangladeshi blogger killings or a channel about debunking creationism while learning the real science. I think it's sometimes called the get smarter series

Another useful resource I find is Garrett's channel. (See in videos) https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCGwVAD9f7_yt6paR10giKEg

He does quite a bit on explaining on contemporary and historical feminism and also addresses many of the anti feminists detractors. Also an atheist. He seems fairly balanced on it to me, and I also like the quality of his videos. Idk about his qualifications to be addressing issues, i can't recollect him mentioning it. Here's a brief video - his channel trailer, what he immediately aims to cover, goals etc. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrUHZBMP66w

There are a few other channels but i ll have to look a bit, haven't been through them as much so I'll maybe add later of I recollect it.

About the detractors, any movement has irrational folks in it. Emphasising all the nonsense that the irrational folks within the movement say/do doesn't invalidate the actual rational goals of the movement and the rational part of it. Veganism is no exception, I'm just glad we don't have an anti vegan thunderf00t or Sargon of Akkad because we also have a lot of irrational folks in the movement from deontologist/anti vaxxer francione, fat shaming, privelege blind freelee, women objectifying/fat shaming peta, rape apologists yourovsky, irrational folks who don't have supplements and endanger kids lives, the list could go on. If you string it all up, it would still not invalidate the actual basis avout veganism. It would only appear to do so to easily bamboozled contraryist idiots, prevent them from going vegan and as a consequence, animals would suffer. It's basically tobacco industry tactics. You don't need to be honest, you just have to manufacture doubt and confuse people. Some things are so transparently obvious that you'd think how could anyone fall for it? And yet the same approach has always been used right from the beginning to misconstrue it as something else. From the history books, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ima ... tion=india

[brimstoneSalad]

Thunderf00t's crusade has been summed up nicely by RationalWiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00 ... t_feminism

That's a pretty biased source, though (rationalwiki is run by the pro-feminist side of the schism). I always end up having to defend both sides to some degree; both wrong and right in different ways on this issue.

It mostly exploded with elevatorgate, and tempers just flared from there, with more rhetoric than actual discussion.

[garrethdsouza]

Merely being feminsit doesn't imply bias. You'd have to demonstrate what they intentionally missed out on for that.

[brimstoneSalad]

Merely being feminsit doesn't imply bias.

How is this? Feminism is a belief and an ideology, taking the side of advocating for women. This is important, but it's naturally biased (or that's the rational presumption we have to make, just as an article written by the other side would be suspect).

It would be like reading the story of a criminal prosecution from the District Attorney, and ignoring the Defense's argument entirely.
Don't convict somebody in absence of his or her side.

They don't have to be proved wrong on any particular point to be a biased source; they are predisposed to lean one way rather than the other, and that's all it takes to understand we should not take that side without a grain of salt, or a measure of argument from the opposition to balance it.

[knot]

Dawkins is hilarious, and tells the truth as always. Feminism has a loud, radical segment (however big) that has much ideological ground in common with Islamism. By banning Dawkins they only proved his point

[brimstoneSalad]

Dawkins is hilarious, and tells the truth as always. Feminism has a loud, radical segment (however big) that has much ideological ground in common with Islamism. By banning Dawkins they only proved his point

Absolutely. If feminists want to get real important work done, they need to clean house because this kind of stuff is going to drag the movement down (MRA need to do something about their extremists too). Things like this -- as in veganism -- only harm their movements.