Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘women’

Raise Your Voice

Sunday, October 19th, 2008

It takes a lot to get me angry. But if I look for it on the Internet, I can find it. When reading about Lisa McPherson – who died as a result of Scientology – my blood boils and my fists contract. When I read a website that documents “3,254 people killed, 235,558 injured and over $455,070,000 in economic damages” from quack medicine, frauds and snake-oil merchants who are simply there to make a quick buck, I am ready to burst.

I want to address the question of being involved in sceptical circles, in being (a kind of) social critic. Why do it? “Why do you care about these things?”

I don’t care who you are, dear reader.

I don’t care what your religion, culture, nation or background is. I don’t care what you think of atheism, secularism. I do, however, care about you as a human being. I do care that we try to live as a respectable species, fighting for knowledge, fighting for equality everywhere – all the time. Make no mistake, I want to see past the barriers of incredulity, set up by trenches of ancient ideologies and barbed-wires of recent quackery.

I raise this, to raise your eyes. To raise your voice. I want you to speak out. If you value others’ lives, if you value the gift of reason, if you want to see some peace filter through the nonsense, I am calling upon you to raise your voice. Be it in any words of any format: Through keyboards, microphones or telephones. Be it in talks, conferences, papers, radio-shows.

I am angry and I want you to be angry. We shouldn’t have to settle for 130 children dying each year because their parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses. We should fight, shout and keep kicking as we hear about Muslim women being killed for leaving abusive husbands, when we hear that “[m]ore than 25 … “honor killings” have been confirmed in Britain’s Muslim community in recent years”. We should raise our fists against the retardation of sensibility when reading:

In Saudi Arabia, the Islamic police prevented schoolgirls from leaving a burning building because they were not wearing headscarves and abayas; 15 of the girls died in the inferno.

[Or] The president of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, a renowned center of Islamic learning, described the proper method of wife-beating in a television interview: “It’s not really beating,” Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb explained on Egyptian television. “It’s more like punching.”

Why should we remain silent about these things? No longer should people have to die from this. No longer should Muslim women have to face charges of death, stoning or flogging for being raped.

Words can be bullets, no less than ideas can be foundations for change. I don’t care who you are, at this moment, and I ask you to not care who I am either. In this time, we must be able to recognise idiocy, lunacy and the proud march of unreason that parades through our streets, in our backyards, crushing whoever so steps in its path.

And there is little way to stop it, as it contorts into something new. My own president caused undue harm in denying the link between HIV and AIDs. He was supported by the ever-horrid Minister of Health who stated eating fresh fruit and vegetables could prevent AIDS.

Reason comes in fits and spurts, it seems. Dominating every aspect of our lives is a fertile ground for unreason, some parts in full bloom others already seeded. There’s a great deal of it to be torn down, so that we are able to not only lead lives, but actually save them. It is time to start being more aware of the nonsense out there. Please, help us fight this. We may be fighting against certain people and their very bad ideas, but we are also fighting for every single human being to live as a fully-fledged individual, regardless of race, creed, culture.

I don’t care who you are, but if you have fingers or a voice, you can start changing the tide today.

EDIT – The question remains: Why do I care and why should you? Am I pessimistic, negative or cynical?

No! On the contrary: My reason for raising these points of retarded lecherous thinking is to show that we can do better. I believe, quite strongly, that we are better than these things. We are capable of greater good and greater kindness. Instead a lot of people are more worried about other people’s dress-sense, sexual relations, and other vicarious interferences, than they are about happiness, fulfilment and basic respect.

We need to connect on what we know (we are all humans with similar loves, hates, desires) rather than kill each other on what we can not know (god, the afterlife, and paradise). We can do better, I really believe we can. That is why I care and so should you.

Eggs going once, going twice, banned.

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

So I know that this article is two years old, but this is the first time that I had even heard about a ban on selling human eggs. I found it slightly arbitrary that men can walk in, do the deed in a cup, and then walk out with cash, and no one even stops to ask if they felt they were given proper “patient” care. However, when a woman wants to sell her eggs, which have the same amount of chromosomes as sperm, and in my opinion are no more important than the little swimmers, she is told she could pay a fine of $150,000. That is, if she lives in the state of Arizona.

The main thing is that women have to inject hormones for four weeks then have a ten minute surgery where they remove the eggs, around ten sometimes twelve. You get a few stitches and walk out with at least $5,000. There is a small risk that the woman may become infertile, just like there is a rare risk that Advil will make your stomach bleed. If a woman knows the risk, shouldn’t she have the option to sell her eggs, just like we have the option to undergo plastic surgery, a surgery that doesn’t help anyone and carries greater health risks?

Students experience with egg donation

Advil side effects

I am by no means a feminist. I accept that men are better at some things than women, and that women are better at some things than men. That still doesn’t keep me from being a little chagrined at the fact that men can sell their baby making material, with only a few questions asked, and women can’t even donate without having to jump through hoops and watch instructional videos on the rare risks. If you want to sell, then expect to have to jump through hoops lit on fire over a tank of sharks and into a pit of poisonous snakes in any state other than Arizona.

There is no reason that a woman’s half of the zygote material has to be considered more precious than a man’s. It by no means needs to be better protected by an “ethics” that only restrain a woman from using her body the way she decides, especially when it’s to help other women conceive.

Why atheism is a rich man’s world – and why it doesn’t matter.

Saturday, August 23rd, 2008

This is a response to Chris’ post: Why atheism is a rich man’s world – and how we can change it


I get it, women like being included, and that’s fine. Honestly now, it’s not like we’re excluding women in this faction. But! Before I get to the meat of Chris’ post, I just wanted to comment on a couple smaller pedantic issues:

Constant reminders consisting of everything from TV ads to misused pronouns don’t let us forget the struggle with basic civil and social rights that women have battled, past and present alike.

Yes, and consistently feminists all over North America are using these “reminders” to slam men every chance they get. But for some reason the sexism against men is completely over looked. There are ads in the Toronto subways right now for the restaurant Moxies. I hear a couple of girls talking about how “sexist” the ad is because the woman is depicted in a pretty slut-tastic dress and all her jewelry is being pulled to the man beside her who is wearing an outfit that would make him out to be a magnet. They ended their conversation with “the guy is pretty sexy though”. … WTF?

It’s hardly a secret that there just tend to be more men in science.

So is it because our “movement” is so science oriented that there are fewer women? Maybe we should focus on the arts more in our programming to draw in a new (and possibly more feminine […stereotype alert!]) crowd? Hmm. Just a thought.

This is one of the more unfortunate side effects of “new atheism” brought up by the (otherwise exceptional) lead of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris: the “big three” of non-belief nowadays.

I’m not sure that it’s their gender that is the unfortunate thing about these three men, it’s the lack of connection with individuals and how many people can’t relate to them that is truly unfortunate. What I’d like to see is someone who can talk reasonably about religion and life – but not be full of fluff with whom I can relate to. Woman or not.

Anyway, onto my real points!

The “new face” of atheism – as it seems to be called – is indeed very white male oriented. But why does this matter? Secularism in the public sphere is a somewhat innovative fad we’re diving into. Only recently have people felt comfortable enough to leap out and declare atheism as a way to brand themselves. Realistically, it just so happens that those who had the time and money to start this whole atheistic movement were white, well-off men. But the important part, is that it happened! And that it’s still happening! Now about who is running it.

Being involved with secularism, the movement, is a privilege. It’s a privilege that many people simply don’t have. It’s like complaining that you’re soup is too hot – people with another option can do it. And it seems like the people who did have this option, were white males, so they started this new stream of atheism. And it’s that, new… you can’t expect it to be a plethora of sexes and races when it’s barely accepted by the public at large!

But that entire point is extraneous, much like actively attempting to get women involved. It’s futile. The people who are currently involved are the ones who desire to be; at this point we should be attempting to get more people in general involved, not simply encouraging women to step into the movement. If I spent my time trying to get our women volunteers more active and encouraging them to be more vocal within our groups – I’d be wasting a whole lot of time where I could be doing more productive things like giving support to our already active volunteers.

Aggressively encouraging women to get involved is just like affirmative action. We start overlooking a plethora of capable people simply to be more inclusive. We look at a group of say 10 individuals, where 1 is a female…we ask the female to do the work simply because she’s a women and it turns out she’s the least capable. I’ve just wasted all of my time and invested interest in this person who is less capable than 9 other people, but I overlooked that point because for some reason we think that having women involved with organizations makes them more successful? Makes them more appealing? Makes us look less sexist? What?

Who cares what sex we have working with us? I don’t feel like I could relate to a woman Paul Kurtz any more or less than I can relate to the male Paul Kurtz. It’s reverse discrimination, as this unwarranted need for a closer male to female ratio requires the very discrimination that supporters are seeking to eradicate.
I personally think we have bigger fish to fry than putting energy into getting women involved. To be completely straightforward, I don’t have time to wave my hand at all the women screaming at them “Hey! Look! It’s fun! And non-patriarchal!” …Because those who want to be involved are already here, and are already contributing.

There is no “anti-women” sign on any of our doors. The exact same opportunities are available to women as are to men. When I’m looking for someone to fill a position, I’m just looking for a committed body and mind, not a gender. Why not invest our interests somewhere that it makes sense, like putting time, energy and money into art programs. (By stereotypical nature this would eventually lead to an increase in women, but that’s not the point.) It’s an entire social, cultural and academic side of things that we hardly ever touch on, but where there is a market for our mindsets and thoughts. Some of your are going to argue that women add more diversity, and different thoughts. …Any number of people despite sex, age or race are going to add diversity! I have the same opinions and thoughts as most of the guys in my little secular group. I don’t add diversity.

A social movement such as secularism is equal opportunity. If there are women out there pining to save the world from religion, teach other about science education or explore the paranormal they’re more than welcome to come on it. But I’m not going to waste my time convincing them that it’s okay to do that.

Why atheism is a rich man’s world – and how we can change it.

Thursday, August 14th, 2008

Here’s the thing: females aren’t a minority. Constant reminders consisting of everything from TV ads to misused pronouns don’t let us forget the struggle with basic civil and social rights that women have battled, past and present alike. Caught up in the urgent ideals of feminism and modern liberal values, it’s sometimes easy (even for women) to forget that females are half of the world’s population, especially when it comes to things like careers in math and science. A survey conducted by the Center for Inquiry shows that over 80% of atheists are male. What’s more, the same survey suggested that over 40% had at least a six-figure income.

It’s hardly a secret that there just tend to be more men in science. The times are a-changin’, but even so, let’s face it. The face of atheism is now, more than ever, a gray-haired sausage fest in a thousand dollar tux. This is one of the more unfortunate side effects of “new atheism” brought up by the (otherwise exceptional) lead of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris: the “big three” of non-belief nowadays. (Ironically, I’m pretty sure Dawkins would have been Woodrow Wilson.) Personally, I’m not a complainer. Somebody needed to resurrect (excuse the poor choice of words) atheism, and that’s just what happens when the only people bold enough to do it happen mostly to be our male, bordering-on-senior-citizen counterparts. We’ll just have to problem solve, and put our noggins to use, as atheists and members of society.

Well, by now, we pretty much know that an atheist woman is kind of like your token gay uncle.

So now what?

Mass cultural change was never easy, especially since the problem lies beyond atheism itself. Obviously, much of it has to do with how women fit in with science. While valid, that point has been brought up enough times that if I had a dollar every time I heard it, by now I would have been able to afford a tux, a sex reassignment surgery, and a serious box of hair bleach instead of spending my time actually working on the issue.

As it is, no one gives out grants for counting the repetition of an argument.

Maybe instead of trying to draw in more women first, we should focus on encouraging the atheist females we already have. As Islam shows us, it’s better to have people following big rather than a big following. (It also shows us that having both isn’t half bad, either.) What I’m saying is that if you’re female… what are you doing reading my thoughts about feminism? Go start your own blog, and put yourself out there.

Next to religion, it’s no surprise that we’ve been losing the women. After all, they have things like the Virgin Mary, nuns, and Rebecca St. James. What can I say, they’ve one-up’d us in that respect.

We have no official organization, no official leaders, no Avril Lavigne wannabes to proselytize for us… in fact, we’re only left with one single thing which we all happen not to believe. It’s only to be expected that its public image would go uncontrolled. So who should control it?

Well, you already do. One of the nice things about atheism is that it’s sort of an anarchy in itself, but it’s also a democracy by default, because only the atheist public can really decide their own image. For example, with The God Delusion, Dawkins certainly decided what his was, and everyone else just kind of picked it up and followed his lead.

Which brings me to my point: it’s important over time that atheism gains some more female poster-children. Women otherwise attracted to religion should be shown that atheism is not a patriarchy (like religion is).

And getting those reps is not the onus of some pie-in-the-sky organization that controls atheism behind the scenes. We don’t have an atheist Vatican. It’s up to you to decide the image you put out of your own brand of atheism. We just have to remember to include women in the same outreach.

Cheers