I can't find the post that made me want to write this one, but I recently saw a post where many redditors left comments asking, "What rights are women denied?" or "Since when are women denied rights [in America]?" because of either a part of the title or a statement in the text.
I love r/atheism, but as a woman, it felt like another crushing blow to read that. I, like many of you, have to deal with being ostracized or not trusted because of my atheism. I am a minority for simply not believing in a god. As treatment of minorities typically goes, I am mistreated and not given the same opportunities that other -- religious -- people are, even if there aren't any specific laws on the books that say I can't do something. None of that should be too unfamiliar to the typical atheist.
But imagine, because I assume the people that made those comments were males, that you were also mistreated and looked down upon simply for what's between your legs. You wouldn't tell a black or Latino person that racism doesn't still exist and deny them rights, so please don't say the same to a woman.
I wanted to post this so that r/atheism could see that women are frequently denied a lot of things, both big and small, and often suffer daily from the general population's sexist attitude. At least in America, here are some things that make my heart sink and my blood boil to see a redditor ask such a dumb, ignorant question:
We have failed to pass the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) to the Constitution many times. No matter how many times we've tried, the government will not add these simple words to the Constitution: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." We have the same for race, why not gender? Here's a recent Huffington article on the ERA.
Lilly Ledbetter had to fight 10 years for the Fair Pay Act of 2009, named after her, and the problem is still just as evident as it was before this act. In trying to get it passed, listen to what Jay Townsend had to say.
The GOP and religious right are trying to deny us the right to birth control, abortion, and the other services that organizations like Planned Parenthood provide. Rick Santorum has suggested that contraception is bad, because it is "a license to do things in the sexual realm". What about Rush Limbaugh attacking Sandra Fluke, and how nobody in the GOP stood up to his bullshit? We're asking to have access to birth control, and to do it, we have to listen to people call us sluts while totally ignoring our arguments.
Congress almost fucking redefined rape. And do I even have to tell you why this is wrong?
And what about this?
This?
And throughout all of this, no matter how hard the GOP thinks they're right about women's bodies and rights, they can't even stand to hear a woman say the word vagina.
There absolutely is a War on Women, r/atheism. I know that many may have asked if women are denied rights simply out of innocent ignorance or curiosity, but I know that many probably did it to challenge the idea that legislated sexism exists. I'm sorry if that makes people uncomfortable to think that they are more privileged than others for having a penis; I am not accusing anyone here of being sexist or trying to harm the women's rights movement, however. I just wanted to make this point and see where things stood for r/atheism.
EDIT: Thanks for all the discussion. I am very happy to see all the interesting things r/atheism thinks. And for r/atheism, it's been pretty damn civil. :P
I am going to remove the information about the wage gap because there has been enough discussion on it, and it seems that the specific statistic I used was incorrect. I will leave in the Lilly Ledbetter information, however, because that lady is a serious champ. The link associated with the legislation will remain, too. (Sad stuff, really.)
EDIT 2: Thank you to everyone who brought something insightful to the conversation. I left reddit for a day, so trying to respond to 250-odd comments feels impossible. I'm trying, but it's not working. :( Please forgive me if I've ignored you!
[–]SadrageII 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
The comments don't make it much better either, here's one: '' A few stats from the UN:
Of the world's 1.3 billion poor people, it is estimated that nearly 70 per cent are women.
Of the world's nearly one billion illiterate adults, two-thirds are women.
Two-thirds of the 130 million children worldwide who are not in school are girls.
In most countries, women work approximately twice the unpaid time men do.
An estimated 20 million unsafe abortions are performed worldwide every year, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 women.
Globally, 43 per cent of all women and 51 per cent of pregnant women suffer from iron-deficiency anemia.
Each year an estimated two million girls suffer the practice of female genital mutilation.
The primary victims of today's wars are civilian women and their children, not soldiers.
(edited for format)''
Can someone fact-check these? The second from the bottom seems to ignore boys and the last one leaves me speechless.
[+]Lumberjackie_Chan1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
This is because poor men die.
See above. This is like noting that better helmets increased the number of soldiers treated for head injuries and fighting to have the helmets discontinued.
Of course. Women's chances of survival are not so harshly impacted by illiteracy or poverty, so people prioritize ensuring the people who need these skills to survive are the ones to get them.
Notice how this is phrased. If women did two seconds of unpaid work while men did one second, women would be ZOMG OPPRESSED by doing twice as much as those lazy good for nothing men.
IIRC, this is something like 12 vs 6 hours per week. Note that men work >6hrs more tgan women in paid time, so the total amount of paid+unpaid work time for men is still greater than the amount of time spent on work by women.
And that's just time. Once you factor in productivity the disparity widens even further.
How many men's deaths each year are attributable to being forced to support unwanted children? Here's an analysis for the United States, though it compares against pregnancy, which is generally higher risk than abortion.
Are these numbers higher or lower than men, relative to their iron needs?
Genital mutilation (of boys) remains legal in every nation on earth.
Somebody's channeling Hillary Clinton.
[–]-manatease 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, that statement completely ignores both civilian men in general and the fact that they can be fathers with equal rights to their children. But men are invisible to a lot of these types of people so it's par for the course.
The education disparity is wrong too, it's more like a 55/45 split. Maybe the 66/34 has changed in the last five years, or maybe it's just - like a lot of feminist talking points - exaggerated to the point of becoming lies.
[–]kartu3 3 points4 points5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
The problem with ERA is that the statement she mentioned is not sex neutral.
So accepting it would mean giving MEN MORE RIGHTS. (such as being able to give up parenthood)
There isn't a single law in the US that disadvantages women, but there are laws disadvantaging men.
[–]SadrageII 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
What about the point on abortion? That one seems reasonable to me.
[–]kartu3 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Which point on abortion though? I've clicked on "google some enraged article filled with dumb gifs".
There isn't a single fact in such biased articles that you could trust, let alone wasting time reading through the piles of shit written by some unhealthy person.
Even feminazi ruled Sweden doesn't have unlimited/any time you want abortions.
[–]slacktivist0 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The point was to get us to waste time. This was so broad and lazy it smacked of the deception and dissension that enemies of men's rights feel is appropriate as long as it discourages men's rights.
Remember, these people consider men's rights activists beyond the pale. The logic is too compelling, they have no counter, so they subvert.
[–]fengpi 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Because that stuff has either been covered by the 14th Amendment or by statute. What purpose would the ERA serve? Any purpose whatsoever apart from the symbolic "putting women in the Constitution"? Not even feminists back the ERA any more, because it wouldn't allow for "positive discrimination" which is the kind of official sexism that feminists love, the woman-favoring kind.
Golly, and it's been 9 years since it was passed, and do you still not have "equal pay" as you define it? No? Huh, then what good did it do? Any good at all? So why was it so important, then? So, I guess we'll need to starting paying women to do nothing but sit-around, suing their employers. There's no other way.
The rest is stuff about abortion, and feminists assure me that men have no place speaking about such a holy subject. So I guess it's up to the fanatic Church Ladies with many daughters and gun collections vs. whiny blue-haired childless chicks on antidepressants who can't fight beyond passive-aggressive shit-talk on Twitter. I wonder which horse I should put my money on?
[–]Imnotmrabut 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
You can't debunk religion.
[–]SadrageII 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
That is arguable. Besides, atheists generally don't try to.
[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't even bother to argue against those things I'll just concede the point and ask "What disadvantages and discrimination against men did you consider when reaching your conclusions?"
Often they haven't even considered the issue because they are just parroting what they have heard and did give it any consideration at all.
Bad things happening to women does not necessarily mean there is a 'war on women'. To establish a 'war on women' you'd need to establish that the bad things happening to women are because they are women and not because of bad governments. If men also face similar hardships then it's probably just bad governments.
[–]croidhubh -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
She's an atheist so...I don't have any reason to be civil to her or give her any time of day. After all, using her logic, world view, and thinking I have ZERO basis as to why I should do so.
Using her logic, thinking, and world view, as well, there is no basis not to have things the way she claims they are.
[–]SadrageII 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
What's wrong with being an atheist? That makes no difference to the validity of her arguments either..