Learning from 2015

Ok, this is going to be a long one. In this post I’m going to go over a LOT of the different topics and ideas I had thought about over the course of 2015 and wanted to post about but could never find the time or motivation. A lot of them I feel very strongly about but the thought of having to reiterate arguments many other people are making (and have made and will continue to make) left me exasperated. This may be my only post this year, it may not, but I wanted to at last commit these ideas to digital paper, as it were, and ensure that they were put out there. I spend a lot of time on Twitter these days and the character limit there makes it very hard to sufficiently expand upon any one point during a given discussion. The platform seems to engender, in others, at least, the desire to fire out as many discrete points as possible as opposed to making one solid and defensible claim and arguing that point back and forth. Anyway.

• Stop misgendering people. Just stop it. Don’t make excuses, don’t say anything else, just stop it.
• Respect people’s preferred pronouns. If you are unsure what they are: ASK the person.
• Nonbinary people are valid. They exist, they are real and their gender and identity is valid.
• Bisexual people are bisexual. They’re not sometimes straight, sometimes gay, they are bisexual. Understand this. Accept this.
  • Sexual orientation is a spectrum and can be fluid but a bisexual person is bisexual even if they have only had relationships/relations with one gender.
• Feminism is not about men’s rights. Feminism is about striving for women to be equal to men in all appropriate regards. Men’s issues or inequalities do not invalidate feminism.
• Feminism will, however, positively affect men’s rights. In an ideal world, at least. When people can remove a person’s gender from an issue those inequalities should become less prevalent.
• Genital mutilation of anyone of any gender who cannot consent where not medically necessary is a horrific abuse of bodily integrity. To be clear, this includes male circumcision of infants.
• Male circumcision is proven to reduce HIV/AIDS transmission rates [Ref] but its use as a strategy to fight HIV/AIDS in epidemic regions doesn’t undo the abuse of bodily integrity.
• If you want to fight for men’s rights and highlight inequalities faced by men, attacking people, slandering them, throwing slurs and doxxing is NOT an effective strategy.
• If you are Pro-Life the most effective thing you can do to reduce the numbers of abortions being pursued by Irish women is to promote #BetterSexEd
  • In statistics from 1996, Netherlands and Belgium had the lowest abortion rates internationally [Ref pg.27] and this is in large part due to their comprehensive Sex Education ethos [Ref]
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child does NOT give an unborn child/fetus/embryo a right to life because it does not define at what point an embryo/fetus becomes a “child”
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child does NOT give an unborn child/fetus/embryo a right to life because it only states “the child…needs…appropriate legal protection before…birth“
• Fighting human trafficking and sex trafficking by criminalising Sex Workers and/or their customers and the rights of everyone involved is NOT a proven effective strategy.
  • “Men who buy sex and thereby create the demand that fuels trafficking have stated that greater criminal penalties, having their name publicized and having a letter sent home stating that they were arrested for buying sex would deter them from buying sex.” [Ref]
  • The argument here is that men create the demand for sex work which fuels trafficking. So, instead of tackling the trafficking, we are instead making something more illegal than it otherwise would be, in order to attack a different crime. I can see how anything that reduces trafficking levels could be seen as a good policy but the reality of the situation is no matter how harsh the criminal penalties are, the demand will be reduced yes, but not eliminated. The groups and individuals who make money from human trafficking and sex trafficking may make less money, but so long as there is profit to be made from whatever demand is available this human rights abuse will continue largely unabated. Without any statistics or models to show how much demand can and will be reduced by, determining how much profit is made by these groups, factoring in the costs to these people of trafficking people it is largely impossible, I believe, to determine whether this policy will actually result in reduced trafficking of people for sex or other purposes.
  • Furthermore, Sex Workers come in many different forms and not all of them are trafficked individuals. While it’s unclear what actual effects this kind of policy will have on trafficking, it is very clear just how detrimental an effect it will have on people who are Sex Workers either by choice, by economic circumstance or other reason. It will rob them of access to proper resources for health, safety, finances, shelter and, ultimately, their life and livelihood. Because the demand will not completely disappear and because these people will still need to pay their bills, feed themselves and any dependants they may have they will be forced to operate in extremely unsafe conditions where they are in fact putting themselves at risk of being trafficked for sex.
  • Please also bear in mind that the Nordic Model uses Sweden as a litmus test for the effects on trafficking however the Swedish Ministry of Justice itself, in reviewing what effect their policies had, if any, “[acknowledged] the limitations in determining the prevalence of illegal activities” [Ref]. They still said they were confident that their policies made a difference but were limited in actually determining what levels of these activities were going on. That is hugely problematic and should not be ignored.
• Toxic masculinity genuinely affects men in an adverse manner and contributes to the abuses and inequalities they suffer.
• Rape culture exists in a society where a claim of rape or sexual assault is met with comments of “he/she deserved it”, “just trying to ruin his/her life”, “that wasn’t rape”…
• Rape culture affects both men and women. Your denial of rape culture hurts both men and women.
• One feminist saying horrible, indefensible shit does not make all of feminism complicit and culpable in that persons abuses. Likewise one MRA saying horrible, indefensible shit does not make all of Men’s Rights complicit and culpable in that persons abuses.
• No matter who or what you disagree with, no matter how fiercely you hold your position, your strongest, most effective weapons are 1) Rational Discourse 2) Evidence 3) Arguing the point, not the person and resisting any and all urges to Argumentum Ad Hominem.
• If someone is slinging shit at you in a discussion you do not win by slinging shit back. You win by successfully articulating and defending your position. Anything else is probably a waste of your time.
  • Some people with a probable MRA connection have told me that they throw shit at feminists online because some people with a probable feminism connection threw shit at them. What, are you 4 years old? If you want to further your cause in an effective manner, wasting your time trading Ad Hominems back and forth is a waste of everyone’s time and it only serves to fuel any potential backlash from others who are more than happy to waste their time throwing shit instead of furthering their own cause. It doesn’t matter who started it, be mature enough to cut it out anyway.
• No matter what anyone else writes or says or does, make up your own mind. Articulate and defend your position. Question and reinforce your position.
• DO NOT provide sources/data in support of a particular claim/position you are making if the sources/data do not conclusively support your claim/position.
  • For example, if you provide a graph that shows that the number of male suicides in a given date range increases while government spending in prostate cancer research goes down over the same date range while government spending on breast cancer research goes up over the same date range you CANNOT use this to prove a claim like “feminism is killing men”. The reason for this is because you are not actually doing proper science or statistical analysis. Your data could be used to support ANY number of claims because there are too many other factors involved. “Feminism” is far too vague as a factor. The graph does not provide statistics on government spending on mental health, which could be a far greater factor than “feminism”, it does not include statistics on private funding for the different research areas, it does not show statistics on female suicide rates which could show instead “feminism” is killing both men and women however this still too vague as a factor. I could go on but I won’t. This is bad science, bad statistical analysis and bad logic. Don’t do it. Correlation does not equal causation.

Abortion on Demand

Life is precious.

This is an important phrase. Anti-abortion campaigners use this phrase to try and force us to see a foetus not only as an example of “life” but also as something “precious”. I’m not going to rebut these implications, many others have done so and probably in much better fashion than I could. I find, however, that this phrase is one of the most compelling arguments in favour of abortion. Life is indeed precious. Precious things require a lot of dedication, a lot of resources, a lot of time and often a lot of love to protect them and nurture them. Love, time, dedication and resources are not simply things that can be plucked from the air on a whim, however. These things come from other people, and at a higher level of abstraction, they come from society. Life is precious, yes, but life is also a burden, one most often borne by other people.

So why, then, do we insist upon forcing more and more burdens upon not only other people, whose lives we should have very little say over, but society as a whole? This oh so wonderful country we live in likes to utter the phrase “Abortion on Demand” with such bile and vitriol that one would be forgiven for assuming this act they were speaking of was akin to raping a child while forcing it to watch it’s parents bleed and die. I’m not being reactionary or sensationalistic, one need only listen to the many debates that have been had over the years in the Irish media to hear the implied horror and disgust infused into the phrase.

It’s interesting to deconstruct the thinking behind these utterances. The common criticism of widespread provision of abortion as a family planning option is that if there were Abortion on Demand, Irish women would be having abortions every other week and it would promote promiscuous and unhealthy behaviour. The reality, however, is that Irish education standards where sex and sexuality is concerned are shockingly lacking and it all boils down to the pervasive attitude in Irish society that sex is dirty and wrong and anything to do with sex that is not a beautiful bouncing baby (or a half dozen) is immoral. The reality is that an estimated 10 Irish women (and their partners, in some circumstances) every day travel to England for the express purpose of having an abortion. I was on a plane to Manchester with some of these women in 2011. They were quiet, they looked anxious and they seemed deeply saddened by their situation. The reality is some of those potential babies were deeply wanted.

The reality is pregnancy and delivery and nursing and diaper changing and teething and potty training and childcare and medical bills and all the hundreds of other complications that bringing a child into the world thrusts upon a parent, these are not things that everyone can survive and more importantly these are not things that everyone wants to go through. The reality is many women end up unwillingly sacrificing their dreams, their careers, their education, their financial stability and their happiness in order to go through a pregnancy they do not want or cannot handle. Because other people give them no other choice. Because any other choice would make them cast out and ostracized. Because they can’t afford to travel outside the country. Because society tells them what they want is not the important. Because society tells women “once you get pregnant, there is no way out.”

The reality is Abortion on Demand does not end lives, it saves lives. It saves the lives of women from situations they do not want or cannot cope with. The reality is if Abortion on Demand is what the women of Ireland deserve after so many decades of religious and patriarchal domination at the hands of men who think they can tell women what to do with their own bodies. The reality is, Abortion on Demand is the future of Ireland.

Peace,
dj357

The Trouble With Porn…

…is that even smart people like to misrepresent and attack it. Taslima Nasreen says “Pornography is exclusively for men’s pleasure” and that she is against pornography in that she is against abuse and degradation. She is, however, for erotica and provides the contrasting definitions of pornography and erotica, attributed to Diana Russell.

Pornography: Material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior.

Erotica: Sexually suggestive or arousing material that is free of sexism, racism, and homophobia, and respectful of all human beings and animals portrayed.

World Atheist Convention: Day 2 (Super, Super Late Edition)

As I haven’t been blogging for months, I completely missed the fact that I never actually posted this piece. While it’s remarkably out of date (back in June for cripes’ sake!) it’s still got enough content in it that I can’t leave it sitting in my drafts. Enjoy!

[08/06/2011]
Unfortunately due to a lack of internet access and other things during the weekend I wasn’t able to keep hugely up to date with blog posts on the conference and I also missed the early sessions on Sunday morning, which is a shame as I missed the awesome Maryam Namazie who I hear was on form as ever, but I’m here to add my voice to the many others reporting from the event.

A male perspective on women, clothing and feminism

(a little disclaimer: apologies to transgender and intersex folk, I am not ignoring you, this article is just aimed directly at the social conventions around the prototypical gender roles. It’s regressive and it sucks but that’s life it would seem.)

Spurred on by an internal discussion with myself on the topic of the French ban on burkas etc… I’d like to offer my own perspective on how women, and their clothes, are perceived in society. It’s admittedly a male opinion, but a largely unusual one given the standard of stereotypical male thinking.

On the subject of burkas first of all I must admit I’m a little torn. I rail against the idea of enforced dress codes and uniforms etc… and I’m of the opinion that people should be allowed wear what they want when they want. At the same time, however, I’m vehemently opposed to the further oppression of women at the hands of vicious patriarchies in the form of forcing them to hide their bodies in cloth sacks in order not to inflame the lust of men (alongside clearly hypocritical claims that men are perfect and women are the weak gender).

I’m going to make it simple, Cristina Odone

Cristina Odone writes in her latest article:

Nigerian Muslims in the city of Jos would kill 32 Christians, or that attacks on two churches in a neighbouring city would leave six more dead on Christmas Day. In Iraq, Christians were keeping a low profile during the holy days, lest they once again be the target of al-Qaeda bombs, like the one that claimed dozens of lives last October. In Vietnam, a campaign of intimidation against Christians has grown vicious.

In the context of all this, the persecution of Christians in this country can, of course, seem mild, if not comical. After all, being banned from wearing a crucifix to work is nothing in comparison to being thrown into jail. Christians in Iraq face being blown up – so should we care that Christian B&B owners in Britain are being forced to allow gay couples to share a bed?

Yet Christians should not accept intolerance at home simply because it carries less risk than abroad.

F**k you, Tom Sears

and have a crappy New Year!

Apparently, according to Tom Sears article in the Oneonta, NY Daily Star, Atheists’ numbers doom [us] to irrelevance

As a foreword to my summary breakdown of the utter twaddle that Mr. Sears is trying to peddle to us in his disturbingly biased article I would like to point out that if we are going to be talking irrelevance then let us please focus on a religion whose founding rules are over 2000 years old and were composed by nomadic desert-dwellers in the bronze age. That doesn’t exactly sound like the most relevant and up-to-date place to base your society on, now does it? On the other hand, godless, secular societies base their rules and social interactions upon the latest and most substantiated evidence they can find. Relevance kinda sounds like our thing there Tommy boy.

Incest – A Rational Look

DISCLAIMER: This is a long post, and it is a serious discussion of a serious moral topic. If you do not have the time or the demeanour to read the entire thing with at least some semblance of an open mind I highly recommend you do not read any further. Incest is a topic which can be very divisive and it seemingly turns rational people into irrational jerks rather quickly, so again, if you are not interested in the ethical implications of incest I recommend you do not read any further.

F**k your Honda Civic, There’s a Point Being Made

The Rubberbandits are a comedy hip-hop group based in Limerick. The duo have been around for the past few years and started their artistic career primarily with prank phone calls they recorded and released on homemade CDs. They garnered quite a sizeable underground following, primarily among teenagers and when they started doing live shows with their own songs those same underground fans turned more mainstream until the ‘Bandits found themselves playing Electric Picnic, a large, annual Irish music festival. Not only that, they have also landed themselves a regular appearance on Republic of Telly, a comedy popular media show, somewhat in the vein on The Daily Show, which focuses on humourous clips from both Irish and International television media.

The Week Thus Far

A random selection of (subjectively) noteworthy news items. Enjoy!

“The Paedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure” has been withdrawn from sale on Amazon.com – which is an issue both of taste, morality and free speech. I’m sure Amazon alreadty has many disclaimers all over their site and their legal framework distancing the company from the views and/or material contained in any of the products they provide, so where is the problem? I haven’t looked at the synopsis or the content overview yet, but provided it’s all very general I can only see this as a guide to understanding how this compulsion manifests and could only equip us further to deal with it better. Check it out, see what your thoughts are. Apparently the author is confident the book will make it’s way back on to Amazon (apologies for linking to the disgrace that is Fox News by the way)

Not Just Fashion Police…

…more like Fashion Nazis. A 14-year old school girl was recently threatened with expulsion for wearing a skirt 2inches shorter than the guidelines.

Follow the link and you will see a completely acceptable length of skirt for a school uniform. It’s not scandalous, it’s not baring flesh, it’s not indecent and to claim anything to the contrary is plain ridiculous.

It’s important to understand we’re talking about a school who, as mentioned in the above link, “annoyed parents by banning tight trousers as they were ‘too sexy’.” Too sexy…? For who…? Whose standards are we trying to conform to? I understand that parents may be focused on combating the blatant sexualisation of young, especially female, teenagers which seems to be a modern theme around the world, but this kind of blind adherence to what are, after all, only guidelines speaking to a much deeper, perverse motivation.

A Few Quick Thoughts

Having watched Peter Tatchell’s documentary “The Trouble With The Pope” and reading discussions of the Pope’s comments yesterday I’m struck by a potential bone of contention regarding the Vatican’s stance against artificial contraception.

In Peter Tatchell’s documentary and comments made by the signatories of an open letter protesting the Pope’s visit, the claim is made that the Vatican’s stance against Artificial Contraception has had the effect of increasing large families in developing countries, as highlighted in “The Trouble With The Pope” in the Philipines.

Criticisms of this claim and of this documentary in particular have mentioned such factors as developing countries having large families as part of standard practice in order to have a large base of people contributing the wealth of the family by all contributing to work, in the case of the Philipino family in the documentary this involves trolling the local rubbish dump for plastic to sell.

Ours is not the skin in question…

…but that of the abuse victims.

Clearly ignorant of the facts, Damian Thompson has this to say:

Pope Benedict has had to endure the lying sneers of smug celebs and secular humanists who accuse him of covering up child rape – he did no such thing, ever

Ahem, actually, he did. He was complicit in the prevention of cases of child abuse and rape being reported to the secular authorities. He had a direct hand in moving ‘trouble’ priests to different parishes instead of addressing their clearly disturbed tendencies. His was the office to which claims of abuse came, his was the signature that went out on official Vatican documents about these issues.

Pornography Is Not The Problem

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-prostitutes-report-rampant-violence-against-them-101866453.html?page=1

The above link is an article entitled “Irish Prostitutes report rampant violence against them”.

While I am a staunch believer in the rights of women not to be treated like pieces of meat and objectified, and I feel deeply for the women reporting such violence and acts of sheer mindless idiots, I have to object to some points that are made in this article.

First and foremost, we have the claim from Ellen O’Malley Dunlop of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre that these situations of “rampant violence” and situations such as “groups of twos and threes [egging] each other on for more aggressive and violent acts” is because:

“the increased aggression amongst the clients has to do with the universal availability of pornography… It’s the desensitization that goes on…”

The author then goes on to substantiate these claims with evidence of how this is so refrains from giving any evidence to support this. It’s a common argument among the lay person that violent sexual acts are the result of people being exposed to pornography. I can stand testament to the fact that this is total crap. I’ve seen some rather vicious sexual acts carried out in pornography, such as gagging, punching, choking etc… and NONE of these things are acts that I would be comfortable with doing even with my closest sexual partner.

Why Ought Vs Is isn’t a useful argument

Sam Harris’s upcoming book “The Moral Landscape” is an attempt to argue that there are scientific things we can say to back up claims such as “throwing acid in the face of girls is not an effective way to propagate human well-being”.

Sam’s arguments have long come up against a lot of opposition from well-meaning people who nevertheless persist in arguing that since Hume said something intelligent about “ought vs. is” we have nothing scientific to say about issues of human morality.