Brent Rasmussen

Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.

Jim Downey

UTI Associate blogger Jim Downey is a former newspaper columnist and also writes at the Daily Kos under the handle Shadan7. "I'm the fat old man of the crowd (well, make that middle-aged and overweight). My life's arc has been colorful in some odd and delightful ways, and though by most conventional standards I'm not 'successful', I've mostly enjoyed the ride. I now keep busy writing, playing with my dog, and as a book & document conservator in private practice."

Paul Fidalgo

UTI associate blogger Paul Fidalgo is an actor, musician, and writer with a background in political media, communications, and research. He holds a master's degree in political management from George Washington University, and blogs on atheism in American culture. He blogs at Examiner.com as the DC Secularism Examiner, and maintains two blogs, Near Earth Object, a blog of several overlapping magisteria including political satire and his own musical work; and Bloc Raisonneur, specifically concerning atheists' precarious place in American politics and culture. Paul's music can be purchased for mere pennies at Amie St.

Navigation

Rick Ulrey

UTI Associate blogger Rick Ulrey comes to UTI by way of the Marine Corps: "I'm 31 and I earn my living fixing computers. I served 6 years in the Marine Corps and consider myself a liberal libertarian with conservative leanings. I am a firm believer that the world would be a better place if people took responsibility for themselves and their actions. As you can see from the picture I love food. That's me eating a banana fritter in Australia with a nice cup of coffee. I love to cook and my other hobbies include hiking, camping, reading and on and offline gaming."

Steven Darksyde

UTI co-blogger and friend DarkSyde has this to say about himself: "I'm in my 40s, I work out a lot, I'm a personal trainer as a hobby, I've worked mainly as an investment advisor, stocks and bonds. I've done quite a bit of sky diving. I live a few miles from the Space Center in Florida. I have a strong background in math and physics and I'm an active advocate for Evolution in the Evolution vs. Creationism issue."

Empowered by isms

Submitted by Alon Levy on June 15, 2006 - 8:33am.

Hank has just posted about why atheism is a good thing, which is the second time in three days I see it implied that cultural liberation is a difficult feat. The first was in Violet's post eviscerating Hugo Schwyzer for treating feminism as a religious transformation akin to joining AA. In both cases, I saw an unquestioned assumption that there's something inherently hard about not supporting a cause of cultural liberation (I see feminism and Hank's humanism as different forms of the same basic anti-authoritarian idea).

Normally I'm not the kind of person who's into questioning assumptions - I'd rather work with what I have till I reach an absurdity - but in both cases I found myself asking, "Why is that even non-trivial?". I know that usually it's hard for a person to change his mind and become an atheist, or a feminist, or a liberal. But what I don't get is why The Lifestyle is so difficult.

I don't feel like all my isms - liberal-, femin-, real-, individual-, etc. - are constraints. Maybe it's just that my brain is wired in such a way that I can't stand authoritarian systems. But for me, individualist liberalism is empowering. I like it that I don't have to answer to a god, or act like a real man, or worry that I'm morally weak. I like not participating in any system of slavery, regardless of whether I'm the slave, the overseer, or the master. Is it that unusual?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

My answer

Submitted by Hank Fox on June 15, 2006 - 11:06am.

It shouldn't be unusual. But ... if you grow up with a peer group, a culture, and a family who were mostly that other way, it's so unusual that you feel oppresed for even thinking the kinds of things you come to think.

When I was about 13 and growing up in East Texas, I admired Muhammad Ali immensely. I loved the fact that he said "I am the greatest!" and then BACKED IT UP, over and over. That kind of boisterous confidence and physical prowess is one in a billion. But because Ali was black, I caught no end of shit from my friends and family. I don't think I ever got to actually explain to any of them what I was thinking, or why. So I just shut up.

Atheism was even trickier. It took me a good 20 years to really get there, and I probably only accomplished it because I'd learned earlier to keep my own counsel on the deeper stuff. I really do believe that reaching the place I finally reached was the most singular and wonderful achievement of my life. To me, I climbed Everest in my head. It was steep and cold and long and tough, and I did it all by myself.

I probably still couldn't get it across to any of those people back in East Texas (Hey, there's this high, wonderful place you can get to! I could show you the way!"), but those specific people are not so important anymore.

I do hope to reach others, however. Judging from my own journey, for adults, getting gods out of your head is one of the most difficult things you can do.

That's why I feel it's important to make the pitch to young people.

My answer is simple

Submitted by RickU on June 15, 2006 - 9:10am.

It's not unusual if you're already rational and openminded.

Why, then...

Submitted by Alon Levy on June 15, 2006 - 1:22pm.

...is there an assumption that you have to market feminism/atheism/racial equality as a religion? I know this applies less to Hank's post and more to Hugo's (well, Hugo's an Evangelist, so it's understandable in a way), but still, I don't see why you have to use that rhetoric. There's nothing wrong with saying "You know, there's nothing within feminism that precludes having fun," excluding non-consensual fun, of course.

And, of course, there's the question of why some people still find it so difficult. I know many believe the stereotype of the liberal as a prude who doesn't need birth control to avoid having 20 children because he's content with having sex twice in his life, and I know this stereotype is strongest when discussing gender issues. Atheists are grumpy ingrates, feminists are humorless prudes, racial egalitarians are over-sensitive, and so on.

Essentially I'm asking how come plenty of people still adhere to those stereotypes instead of telling themselves, "Well, atheists may be grumpy, but screw that, I can be happy and still not believe in sky fairies."

You missed a key point...

Submitted by Kian on June 15, 2006 - 10:52pm.

Hank said "But ... if you grow up with a peer group, a culture, and a family who were mostly that other way, it's so unusual that you feel oppresed for even thinking the kinds of things you come to think." and I think that alone essentially sums up the answer to your question.

You grew up with very few social boundaries. As a teenager, you didn't/don't have a tightly knit group of friends, or a family that holds their values and views on you so tightly that it gags you. I can speak out of experience here that what Hank is saying is spot on. I grew up fitting into everyone elses mold, so when I started discovering new 'ism's I felt like I really needed to play them up. If I didn't, I would get "you're not a really environmentalist because you didnt just yell at me for littering" or "you're not a real athiest because you think life is awesome" or the big one was that I looked plain, so I wasn't an individual...so I went out and stuck a peice of metal in my chin and colored my hair pink. So because I still cared about what they thought I felt like I needed to cohere to those formulaic, and oversimplified conceptions.

You, on the other hand, were not pressured into those stereotypes because you weren't with people *daily* who inforced them. Now, however, I don't try to adhere to those stereotypes, but I think that comes with time, because one really has to stop caring about what everyone else thinks first. Another reason I played it up was because I wanted people to *know* that I was whatever 'ism' I was sporting that day. This isn't a general statement as to why *everyone* inforces the stereotypical 'ism' act, but it's why I always did.

That can easily be exaggerated

Submitted by Alon Levy on June 16, 2006 - 6:31am.

If you think I didn't have to take shit from people, you're wrong. I was an anarchist for about two years, before settling on a my present hardcore liberalism, which meant I had to constantly defend myself from people who told me I was really a conformist at heart (mostly my parents). It's just that my reaction to it all was "Screw that, I'm gonna do what I want to do, not what you think I have to do."

Im not saying that...

Submitted by Kian on June 16, 2006 - 9:09am.

I know you took some shit from some people. I wasn't denying that. I'm saying that you didn't have something like I did. You were brought up in a way that you could be an individual right away, and not think twice about people around you. I was raised to be social, and to be nice and keep friends so it was harder to say "screw them", until I broke from caring about what they all thought.