Comparing False Beliefs

Atheism as the absence of a belief in a god is the rational baseline.
Equality as the absence of any discrimination of women is the rational baseline.

The primary belief in the existence of a god is irrational and a mental defect.
The primary belief in the superiority of men is irrational and a mental defect.

The secondary belief in the power of prayer, the afterlife and such are also irrational and a mental defect.
The secondary belief in the male entitlement of reducing women to used as bodies as in domination, pornography, prostitution and promiscuity is also irrational and a mental defect.

Both false beliefs, the one in a god and the other in male superiority enhance, support and reinforce each other.

To free the world from false beliefs, it is not enough to remove the false belief in a god, the false belief in male superiority and entitlement needs also to be removed.

Views: 149

Replies to This Discussion

I get what you're saying.


I've said a few times that I acknowledge that true equality is still ahead. But my gripe with Maruli is that she's going off on a rant about equality and women's rights, and apparently completely misunderstanding what they're about.

To say that equality is all about women is wrong.

To say that men are subhuman animalistic savages obsessed with sex is wrong.

To say that all sex-workers are forced into it is wrong.

I care about equality as much as anyone, and to say that I don't because I'm a man is frankly insulting.

Yup.  She has kind of a weird, twisted, conservative view of sex, which I can't comment much about without breaking my rule about not comparing people to theists.

I think women's taking part in sexual industries is due to the same economic necessity that makes an assembly line worker spend his days mindlessly performing the same few tasks over and over and over for subsistence pay, enabling his employer to prosper.  I will be far more sympathetic to arguments against the basic inhumanity of the former when arguments are simultaneously made against the basic inhumanity of the latter. 

 

Of course, it isn't only women who take part in the sex trade; there is such a thing as gay pornography, and there are gay prostitutes.  But I'm willing to restrict the current discussion to the women's part of it.

 

Equality of education for women is quite another matter.  I can't see any good reason why women shouldn't be educated just as highly as men, and there are in fact several reasons to think it's a good idea--not just moral ones, but practical ones, including the effects it tends to have on a society's economic prosperity and on reducing its net birth/death difference.  Of course, I also hope that *everyone* can pursue higher education to the extent feasible and to the extent desired. 

 

Monogamy is still another matter.  I have absolutely no objection to people's choosing to have monogamous relationships, if that is their choice.  But I also have no objection to people's choosing to have nonmonogamous relationships, if that is their choice.  I simply insist on openness:  Whatever form of relationship a pair or group of people have should be agreed upon by the individuals in question.  There is certainly such a thing as sexual ethics, but it doesn't force monogamy upon us.  This ought to be something one can agree to whether he is himself monogamous or not.

Equality of education for women is quite another matter.  I can't see any good reason why women shouldn't be educated just as highly as men, and there are in fact several reasons to think it's a good idea--not just moral ones, but practical ones, including the effects it tends to have on a society's economic prosperity and on reducing its net birth/death difference.  Of course, I also hope that *everyone* can pursue higher education to the extent feasible and to the extent desired.

In the current batch of college students, in the US, there are more women getting higher education than there are men, actually.  We've turned that corner.  We just have to work on the rest of the world.

I made my point, repeating it any further is futile.  

Once in a while it is important to take a clear stand, when pornography is creeping even into AN.  

I want to encourage other women to stand up too.  

We have dignity.   We are made to be companions, not objects.  

Well, your point is crap.

I sense the "morality" police at work here.  Women must be monogamous, whether they personally want to or not. Women must refrain from being a sex worker, whether they want to or not. And why? Because "someone" knows what's best for them. Talk about personal restriction of other people's freedom!

I'll grant you that many women working as prostitutes are slaves, who are bought and sold by despicable, immoral bastards, and that should be stopped. I blame a lot of that however, on phony moralizers who wish to turn a blind eye to the reality of the sex trade. And, in so doing, make it more difficult for governments to regulate the industry and protect the workers, i.e. collective bargaining, recognition of unions, health and safety laws, and a willingness of law enforcement to do their job. And, before I get comments about "protecting" the women by male dominated governments, I would point out that in many western nations, we have similar safety  protections in place for industrial workers and those engaged in high risk occupations (nuclear power industry, chemical manufacturing, etc.).

As to the comment Animals lack cognition and complex emotions, I don't buy that for one second. Familiarize yourself with research being done on our nearest relatives, the great apes. Chimpanzees make and use tools, form social groups, cooperate to hunt, make war on other social groups, protect their territory, and show evidence of what we would describe as "mourning" over the death of a parent or child.

If a female and male, willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily agree to enter a contract for the purpose of engaging in a sexual relation, without coercion, duress, or undue influence on either person, what business is it of anyone else? Or, for that matter, if a female chooses to have multiple sex partners for her own enjoyment, other than foisting your own personal squeamishness on them, who gives a damn?

Reminds me of the joke about the woman complaining of a nudist resort behind her house. She calls the police complaining about all the naked people. The police tell her that there are 3 acres of forest between her and the resort, and they can's see a thing. She tells them that she can see them from her 2nd floor bedroom. They go upstairs, look out the window, and still can't see anything. She tells them to get on the step ladder. They still can't see anything. "Well dammit, you've got to use the telescope."

One more clarification for the attention of any decent guy reading this.  

There is a big difference between the worst jerks, who are mainly animals using women, and the most evolved decent nice guys, who are able to consider women as equal partners and companions.    

Innately decent guys are only a precious minority, but they do exist.   They know, that women have dignity, they are not driven to use women.  There are a few high quality man, who are not attracted to pornography and who are innately monogamous.  I am looking for one of them as a mindmate.   I do not want any of them to feel offended by my aversion against two legged animals and jerks.  The jerks' dislike of my scorn does not bother me.   But I do not want to discourage any decent guy from contacting me.  

Oh, dear.  Oh dear oh dear oh dear!  It is not at all clear to me what makes the parallel you seem to be drawing legitimate.  Nonbelief in God is the default position simply because one requires reason to think it is true that a thing exists before he is justified in believing that that thing exists.  Nonbelief in male superiority, while a position I endorse, seems to be a moral position, justified by a value judgment.  The two are really not the same.

 

Moreover, it is not at all clear to me that a belief in the moral equality of the sexes leads to a belief in the wrongness of men's or women's using other men's or women's bodies for their own--and each other's--pleasure, or in the wrongness of the creation of images some people find sexually stimulating (or merely like to see), or in the wrongness of multiple sexual partners, or even in the wrongness of bdsm or of prostitution.

 

What *is* clear to me is that if one believes in the moral equality of the sexes, then he will want there to be ethical considerations guiding the implementation of the use of each other's bodies for personal pleasure, the creation of sexual images, and so on.  I do not think that belief in the equality of the sexes automatically makes those things wrong, however.  To convince me of their wrongness, I think you'll have to do more than just point to the moral equality of the sexes.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service