On Human Rights - EWTS Session Four

Notes and thoughts on session 3 of the EWTS conference, which was about Human Rights. Speakers were Dan Barker, Maryam Namazie and Jane Donnelly. 

On the Separation of Church and State - EWTS Session Three

Notes and thoughts on session 3 of the EWTS conference, which was about Separation of Church and State. Speakers were Ann Brusseel, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Elida Radig and Michael Nugent.

On Secular Values in Society - EWTS Session Two

Notes and thoughts on session 2 of the EWTS conference, which was about Secular Values in Society. Speakers were Leonie Hilliard, Nina Sankari, Farhana Shakir and P. Z. Myers. 
Trigger warning - contains discussions about rape and rape culture.

On Reproductive Rights and Irish Abortion Law - EWTS Session One

Notes and thoughts on session 1 of the EWTS conference, which was about Reproductive Rights and Abortion Law in Ireland. Speakers were Ailbhe Smyth, Anthea McTiernan, Ophelia Benson, Ross Kelly and Clare Daly.
Trigger warning - contains discussions about abortion.

On an Introduction to Empowering Women through Secularism

Annie Laurie Gaylor is the co-founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation and editor of Freethought Today.

Freedom from religion foundations wouldn’t exist without the Catholic Church’s war on reproductive rights. Women have to save ourselves from theology-festered misogyny – the rising of women means the rising of us all.

In the wake of the child abuse scandals, Catholic Ireland must choose between women, children and their rights, or bishops and their wrong; between reproductive freedom or returning to the dark ages. Humanity should come before dogma, however as the tragic and unavoidable death of Savita Halappanavar last year proved, Catholic Ireland hasn’t reached this point of consciousness. A doomed fetus was placed above the life of a woman due to adherence to religious dogma. ‘But the Bible says abortion is murder’ many have cried, yet Gaylor notes that it doesn’t actually say this at all. What it does is provides ammunition for anti-women ideas, dooming them to be subservient, responsible for all of mankind’s sins though maternal servitude. Yupp, we get periods and the pain of childbirth in order to atone for sins on a global and timeless scale. Bit of a shit deal, in my opinion.

Gaylor goes on to tell us about her life growing up in Wisconsin before Roe vs Wade. Her mother was the one to go to if you had an unplanned pregnancy, and she would help you get to Mexico City for a termination. It was also illegal there, but considerably safer than back alley abortions in the US at the time. In 1971, Wisconsin’s first abortion clinic opened, and three weeks later a Roman Catholic attorney raided the clinic, stole records and appointment details, and removed a 17 year old girl from the clinic, despite being literally in the stirrups at the time of the raid. In response, Gaylor’s mother raised money to send the women who had appointments to New York for a termination.

Women were attempting to give themselves abortions using coat hangers and dying. Abortion was, and still is, a matter of life and death. No woman can call herself free until she has complete control over her body, until she can make the decision whether or not to become a mother. Yet legal abortion doesn’t mean much if it remains, or becomes, inaccessible; if it remains expensive, if clinics are shut down to the extent that entire areas are without a single clinic, if remaining clinics have strict regulations imposed on them.

The root of this bodily control is religious influence in governments and laws. Secularism (that is the removal of religious influence and dogma from all legislation, laws and governmental decisions, so that religious belief is a personal and private thing alone) is vital for women’s advancement, safety and control over their own bodies and reproductive healthcare choices. To empower women, we must disempower the Catholic Church, and all other religious institutions. Free thought is the best weapon women have in a world where religious dogma expects our silence and subservience.

We may not have a god on our side, but we have humanity and the enlightenment. Morality does not stem from theology, but from nature. 

On the Following Week's Worth of EWTS Notes

The Empowering Women through Secularism conference wasn’t, despite what the two posts below may lead you believe, a complete bust. Yeah, there were issues which really shouldn’t have been a thing, and it was incredibly disappointing, but I did learn a ridiculous amount about secularism, women and the links between the two.

There was an introduction, 6 sessions and a keynote speaker, all of which were fascinating and educational, and really made me think about my opinions and preconceived perceptions. I took nearly 30 pages of notes in my tiny, scrawly, note-taking writing and over the next week(ish), I’ll be writing up these and adding my opinions and afterthoughts. 

I'm also hoping that nothing else really horrifically disastrous happens during this time, because this is going to be like a calm writing period for me, as opposed to the weekend spent angrily hitting the keyboard as my blood pressure steadily rises.

On the Menz - EWTS Conference Part 2

TW: Transmisogyny, MRAs

I want you to imagine something for me. Imagine you are attending a conference entitled ‘empowering people of colour’. For the entire weekend, the discussion is about people of colour and how they’re discriminated against, and how they might overcome this. At the feedback session at the end, people, both white people and POC wonder why white people weren’t thought about, that white people need empowerment, even that to empower POC, white people need to be empowered also. There would be outrage.

Now, back to reality, and you’re attending an empowering women conference and a similar thing happens. You hear ‘what about the men?’ and ‘to empower women, we also need to empower men’. There is no outrage, only agreement. The few people who are a bit pissed off (and rightly so) are effectively told they’re not ‘real’ feminists, and there’s a ‘omg you obviously hate men!!’ attitude.

Had the Empowering Women through Secularism conference ended 30 minutes earlier, I would have left the hotel delighted. I would be able to say no, despite popular belief, atheist/secular spaces are safe and comfortable places for women, it was great. Alas, the feedback session did happen, and it began with the older woman who berated me and the other girl (her name is Anna, she’s a ledge) on Saturday (see On the Menz Part 1), saying we need to consider the men. That the suicide rate for Irish men is 4 times higher than for Irish women (a hugely important and legit issue) and that 90% of US inmates are male (quite irrelevant and also, not sexism because men commit more crimes, and more violent crimes, than women, so obviously will be more represented than women in prison).

Men are most definitely harmed by the patriarchy. I’m well aware of this. I took a ‘Men in Contemporary Society’ sociology module last semester and got an A. One of the reasons more men commit suicide than women is because they’re not encouraged to have support systems or talk about their feelings, because that’s a ‘feminine’ trait, and ‘feminine’ is synonymous with ‘bad’ and ‘weak’. Men are, for the most part, not given paternity leave. Again, this is due to what the patriarchy views as ‘feminine’. Women take care of children; it’s what they do, so why would men even want to do it? These, and many other legitimate men’s issues, are serious things which feminism also seeks to make right. But they do not belong in an empowering women conference. In order to make things better for men, we need to empower women in order to make ‘feminine’ traits (like feelings *gasp*) not a ‘bad’ thing.

Things went from bad to worse as the second person to give feedback took the floor. I’m not sure if she was one of the organisers, but I am fairly certain she was a volunteer, as she was in charge of handing out microphones during the weekend’s questions from the floor bits. She said that she was angry at the “misandrist language” used on Saturday (by myself and Anna, presumably), and then said (quoting a flag seen at Pride the day before) that if trans* rights are human rights, we should all “become transgender”.

Let that sink in a moment.

At an EMPOWERING WOMEN conference, someone used ‘misandrist language’ as though misandry was a legitimate thing. I, for one, would love to be told about the power structures and institutions women have which allow us the ability to oppress men. I would hand my CV in tomorrow.

On the weekend of Pride, at a conference about empowering women which seemed to forget that trans* women are also women and completely ignored the trans* community, members of the trans* community were fetishised.  Members of the trans* community, who arguably have fewer human rights than any other group, were part of a joke, made to be something that’s totes cool and fun to be! This is not ok, in any sense of the word.

This idea, that ‘we’re all human, let’s ignore differences’ was reiterated by many members of the audience who lamented that men were not discussed enough during the weekend. Yeah, we are all human, but not all of us are treated human or allowed to fully participate in society. To use the ‘we’re all human’ phrase ignores these disproportional disadvantages. An excellent metaphor is a running track. Those on the outside lanes have starting points farther away than those on the inside lanes, to ensure that everyone runs the same length. By saying ‘we’re all human, let’s give everyone attention’, it effectively makes all the starting points at the same point. For the sake of ‘equality’. Some people and groups need extra attention and support in order for society to be even a tiny bit equal. This is portrayed very well in the picture below. While the short person gets more boxes than the tall person in the right frame, it creates a more equal situation than when all three get the same number of boxes in the left frame.

Overall, the conference was amazing. I met some utterly fantastic people and I learned so, so much. But I would not go to a similar conference again, unless it was organised by a feminist organisation. A friend turned down a ticket because she feels that secular/atheist conferences tend to not be overly friendly and comfortable spaces for women. This was my first and only conference of this sort, and from this alone, I feel that she is right.

My experience was not one shared by everyone in the room. Many people, both in the conference and on twitter using the conference tag afterwards, believe that it was acceptable to bring up men’s issues in this space, and that I was overreacting when I got upset. Beinga relatively new user of twitter I was shocked at the way in which I was attacked by people who weren’t even at the conference who sought to invalidate my experience. Having had to talk myself into coming at all on Sunday morning, I was already not in the best place mental health-wise. Perhaps my reaction, which was to nearly cry down the back of the hall in sheer disbelief, was not the most dignified reaction I could have mustered. But it’s what happened. It’s how my body tried to deal with everything. But my experience is still valid. My concerns are valid. I can only hope that the conference organisers agree.

On the Menz - EWTS Conference Part 1

Note - ‘the menz’ is basically the men who like/benefit/don’t see much wrong with the patriarchy. It’s intentionally incredibly patronising, and I use it to differentiate between men as a gender identity and those who are misogynist patriarchy loving dicks. Not all men are ‘the menz’, because I would have very little hope in humanity if this were the case.

So today I was able to attend the Empowering Women Through Secularism conference in Dublin due to being offered a free student ticket by a femmo friend/blogger (check him out, he’s fab). Lots of notes were taken and I’ll do proper posts on them during the week, but there was one massively depressing point during the day. The amazing Elida Radig was speaking and saying how we need to come together as sisters and not back down when we’re told we’re too loud etc. During the questions for that session, a young woman fangirled on behalf of all of us and made the point that we, as secular feminists, shouldn’t have to *ask* feminist men to help us - if they are going to call themselves feminists, they need to be proactive about it, they need to work hard to, we shouldn’t have to *ask* to be treated with equality and respect. 

And then a man got up and said ‘not all men are like that, most of the misogyny *I* see is women being misogynistic against other women’. Classic ‘what about the menz??’ and I feel this picture is very appropriate (see also feminazi stole my ice cream).

When someone says but ‘not all [men/white people/straight people/dominant group known for oppression others] are like that’, they effectively prove that they do not get the point being made. All they heard was their group being attacked, and instead of admitting that there’s a problem, they turn on defensive mode and shift the blame. In this situation, a man attending an empowering women conference shifted the blame from men to women. Like really, why are you even here?

After the questions were over and we had a little break, I went up to the woman who had made the comment to tell her that she’s a ledge and to give her a cuterus I had drawn for her. We were mid conversation when an older woman who had been sitting in front of me came up and berated us for believing that we shouldn’t have to *ask* men who call themselves feminists to actually act like feminists. Apparently, we need to make feminism accessible for the menz so they’ll come to our side - we need to show them how the patriarchy is bad for men. I made the point that the ways the patriarchy harms men is often attributed to feminisim, a point she immediately dismissed. Basically, not only should men who call themselves feminists *not* call out their guy friends when they contribute to rape culture/lad culture/general sexism, they shouldn’t be expected to be involved in feminism unless it directly impacts them as men. They shouldn’t want to be a feminist because the patriarchy adversely affects other human beings, if they don’t know that it’s bad for them, they’ll never be involved. 

Not only was this incredibly offensive, but it was shocking too. To hear this from a woman who, I presume, identifies as a feminist, at what is a feminist and secular conference, was the last thing I had anticipated. Again, I was wondering why she was there, not because she shouldn’t be there, but because she holds views which are at such odds with feminism. She essentially told me and another young woman that our belief that male feminists should be feminists for the good of all people, not just their own gender, was wrong. That our belief that young men who are feminist and feminist allies should be active, regardless of whether that activism is directly impacting their lives as men, is wrong. That we, as secular feminists, need to make room in feminism for men. And despite the truly wonderful day and all the amazing, inspirational speakers, I left the conference slightly more disillusioned than when I walked in that morning.