Common myths about atheism, skepticism and social justice

There’s only so much time atheists, skeptics and social justice activists can spend addressing the same ill-informed claims before their brains try to escape through their ears. So in an effort to save time and patience whenever someone trots out the usual canards, I’ve decided to catalogue some of the most prominent attacks and falsehoods (and their easy refutations) that godless, evidence-following and equality-minded folks seem to encounter at every turn.

I plan to link to these entries from now on whenever I don’t feel like countering a particular lie for the tenth time that day; feel free to do the same. Just click on the linked prefix for any given entry (“A1”, “S3”, etc.) to get its URL anchor.

This list is periodically updated with new entries. Feedback and suggestions (and correction) are encouraged.

(Please note that whilst this list is written from the perspective of a predominantly Christian culture, terms like “God” and “believers” are intended to apply to all deities and all their religious adherents.)

SOCIAL JUSTICE:
J1 | “Women are already equal”
J2 | “Feminists hate men”
J3 | “Women/Blacks/Muslims/<etc.> have it better here than elsewhere”
J4 | “Trigger warnings = censorship”
J5 | “Safe spaces are for delicate snowflakes”
J6 | “There’s no such thing as rape culture”
J7 | “Feminists think all men are rapists”
J8 | “I have a hard life, so I don’t have privilege”
J9 | “SJWs are attention-seeking, self-righteous bullies”
J10 | “SJWs are just virtue-signalling”
J11 | “Equality activists think men and women are identical”

— Atheism —

Myths about nonbelievers, heretics and other godless rascals

A1 | “Atheism is a religion”
Also: “You need faith to be an atheist”
The most common anti-atheist claim is also the most easily disproven, in this case by opening a dictionary: Atheism is specifically the lack of any belief in any god(s). Now, strictly speaking, not all atheists are irreligious – for instance, Buddhism may be called an atheistic religion since it doesn’t include any creator or all-mighty god(s) – but the usual meaning of the claim, that most or all nonbelievers treat their atheism as a faith, is nonsense. Perhaps believers who make this assertion cannot imagine living without religion, but that is merely a failure of imagination. The fact remains that atheism fails to meet any criteria for being a religion; there are no divine beings, sacred texts or doctrines, nor are there any universally accepted leaders (they can’t even agree on which famous atheists to like or hate at any given moment). The saying goes that trying to organize atheists is akin to herding cats; it doesn’t make for much of a religion.

Some theists also claim that atheistic beliefs (“God doesn’t exit” and any variant thereof) require blind faith, implying that atheists haven’t, or can’t, reach the conclusion that God doesn’t exist rationally. This is merely projection; the reason most atheists reject God-belief is because they have, in fact, looked at the evidence and concluded that arguments against the existence of God are stronger than arguments in support of it. A believer accusing a nonbeliever of having irrational faith isn’t so much the pot calling the kettle black; it’s the pot hallucinating that there’s a kettle at all.

A2 | “Atheists are angry at God”
Also: “Atheists hate God”, “Atheists blame God for <etc.>”, etc.
Atheists don’t hate God any more than Christians hate unicorns. Someone cannot be angry at something they don’t believe exists. This accusation is usually brought out after an atheist criticizes a theist’s beliefs or expresses skepticism over the events depicted in the Bible, and so on. If some atheists appear angry when they criticize a fictitious entity (“Your God is a cruel tyrant!”), they are only angry at the concept of said entity as espoused by believers, or else they are angry at believers themselves when they use their beliefs as a basis for discrimination or other harmful acts.
Related: “Atheists secretly believe in God”

A3 | “Atheists are shrill and aggressive”
Theists hold a position of privilege in nearly every society on Earth, and the result is that it is considered disagreeable, or even tabooed, to question their beliefs. But with increased liberalization and the advent of the Internet, more and more people are free to speak their minds about the matter, which is often equated with rudeness and hostility towards religious people. But this is no different than what theists have been doing for centuries: criticizing any beliefs they don’t believe in. Theists simply need to disillusion themselves of the notion that their beliefs are sacred and untouchable, and to accept that they are as open to discussion – and criticism – as anything else.

A4 | “Atheists are immoral/evil”
This remark isn’t just pretentious and insulting, it’s demonstrably false. Many theists believe that morality is derived from their religion, and that anyone who rejects God also rejects any sense of right and wrong. This is absurd. Firstly, atheists are distinctly underrepresented in prisons (notably in the U.S.), and whilst this doesn’t prove that atheists are more moral than religious folks generally, it certainly blows a hole in the notion that nonbelievers are any less moral than their God-fearing counterparts.

What’s more, it appears the converse is also true: More religious environments, such as the U.S. South, is plagued with higher levels of crime and social problems such as murder, teen pregnancy, marital issues and others. This is not to say that religion inherently makes people bad, which it doesn’t; it just means that it isn’t necessary for someone to be a decent person and a responsible citizen. (Furthermore, when it appears that a fear of hellfire is the only thing that deters some religious folks from becoming the next Ted Bundy, that really doesn’t help persuade atheists that believers are inherently morally superior.)

In addition, this assertion doesn’t make even basic logical sense. If morality originated from God, irrespective of a person’s beliefs, then all would have a shared sense of right and wrong. Yet this obviously isn’t true, given the sometimes extreme disparity between what is considered acceptable or not across the world’s societies. The other, scientifically valid view is that morality comes from within and from each other. (See this primer on the evolution of morality for more information.)

A5 | “Atheists live without purpose or meaning”
Religious people often state that their beliefs afford them a sense of direction and contentment, and then turn around and claim that atheists, who have no such beliefs, therefore live incomplete, shallow, unsatisfying lives. This is false and silly. Even if atheists don’t believe that they’re all the apple of God’s eye, they still have their family, friends, career and hobbies from which to derive meaning and happiness. The same is true of the religious; the only difference is that atheists don’t misconstrue the satisfaction earned in pursuing their passions or accomplishing their goals as originating from some divine source.

A6 | “Atheists believe in nothing”
Also: “Atheists reject all beliefs”
It’s easy – as well as lazy and wrong – to assume that because atheists reject belief in divine entities, they must reject all beliefs. This is a classic false dilemma, assuming that only two binary options exist – in this case, God-belief or no beliefs whatsoever. Someone who discards any notions of a god can still hold beliefs in virtually anything, whether rational or not (there are plenty of atheists who believe in some vaguely defined spiritualism, or ghosts, or New Age nonsense, and etc.). Most skeptical atheists are happy to believe in credible scientific notions about the natural world (Big Bang, Evolutionary Theory, laws of physics, etc.) and simply reject anything that they feel is either unprovable or otherwise immaterial to their life. After all, why believe in something that cannot be shown to exist and doesn’t affect you or the physical world in any way?

A7 | “Atheists were abused as children”
This is no more than a ridiculous and entirely baseless attack used against virtually anyone whose beliefs or behavior goes against popular social norms (be they LGBT folks, polyamorists, feminists, nudists, etc.) There is no credible reason to believe either that atheists are particularly mistreated as children, or that child abuse has any effect on a person’s religiosity later on. (For instance, I had loving and caring parents and I still became an atheist all on my own.)

A8 | “Atheists are mostly/all old White guys”
Also: “Atheism is a boys’ club”, “minority groups are mistreated at atheist conventions”, etc.
There is a kernel of truth to this one, though not in a way that would lend itself to an attack against atheists generally as compared to the rest of society. It is true that the atheist movement, as it currently exists, is particularly Caucasian-male-centric, but this is a product of our culture at large and also applies to a majority of social movements. There are plenty of women and people of other ethnicities, and the atheist movement has taken great strides in recent years to analyze its assumptions and diversify its ranks, despite internal friction about the issue.

A9 | “There are no atheists in foxholes”
This claim means one of two things: taken literally, that there are few or no atheists in the armed forces; or taken figuratively, that atheists will go running back to the comfort of faith the moment things get tough. For the former, tell that to the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, to name two large groups of godless soldiers off the top of my head. And to address the latter, it’s merely a rephrasing of the myth that “Atheists secretly believe in God” with the added implication that atheists are cowards who will happily commit Pascal’s Wager just to “play it safe”. Either way, this is a feckless dismissal of the fact that atheists are no less sturdy in their beliefs (or lack thereof) than theists are. Nonbelievers have their own ways of coping; they just don’t rely on fantasy and delusion.

A10 | “Atheists can’t cope with death/loss of loved ones”
Because atheists don’t typically believe in any afterlife, theists assume that the death of loved ones, or the idea of one’s own mortality, presents a crushing blow that leaves nonbelievers incapable of dealing with grief or fear. This is absurd for the same reasons as with the myths that “Atheists believe in nothing” and “Atheists live without purpose or meaning”: The fact that atheists don’t believe their loved ones continue to exist in some other fantasy land (or that such is where they are themselves headed when they die) does not hinder them from dealing with grief like anyone else. True, it deprives them of the comfort of thinking that their loved ones still exist somewhere and that they’ll be reunited someday, but they understand that this is only a delusion to begin with. Rational people prefer reality, no matter how cold, to false hopes that invariably bring you crashing down once they unravel.

A11 | “Atheists hate religion & want to destroy it”
This is used by theists who are troubled at how atheists are increasingly vocal about their unhappiness with religion’s grip on society, especially when it comes to the mixing of church and state. Theists often take this to mean that atheists hate religion as a whole and wish nothing more than to eradicate it from modern civilization. This is simply false; what most atheists would like is for people to liberate themselves from religious belief, through education and critical thinking, rather than them being forced to deconvert by anyone. What’s more, there is nothing wrong with trying to force religion out of governmental functions. Leadership works best when applied equally to all people without any groups afforded preferential treatment based on their religious creed.

A12 | “Atheists hate religious traditions/holidays”
Also: “War on Christmas/Easter/<etc.>”
One heated point of contention with theists is the growing secularization of society, including all the traditions and rituals with religious roots. Naturally, atheists are the first to be blamed, and are further accused of wanting to eradicate all religious presence in society and culture (shades of “atheists want to destroy religion”), something epitomized every holiday season with the “War on Christmas” nonsense. The reality, of course, is that most atheists have no problem with Christmas, or any other holiday for that matter, and they celebrate Christmas like anyone else. Atheists just don’t want Christians forcing their beliefs down anyone else’s throats and encroaching upon the separation of church and state. The U.S. Government, as in many other countries, is secular by law. Trying to make sure this is respected, to the benefit of all citizens, is not Christian persecution. It’s following the law.

A13 | “Atheists secretly believe in God”
Also: “Atheists are just confused”, “atheism is just a phase”
It takes a special kind of arrogance to declare that you know what someone believes better than they do. As previously stated, atheists are just as secure in their beliefs (or lack thereof) as theists are in theirs, and in fact are often even moreso, given the critical scrutiny that often led them to losing their faith in the first place. Asserting to anyone, atheist or otherwise, that you know more about what they believe than they do is not only foolish, but is also an amazingly effective means of getting on their bad side. If someone says they don’t believe in God, chances are they truly don’t. Arguing otherwise is a surefire way of getting ignored or worse.

Of course, some atheists do have doubts about God and whatever cultural beliefs they were brought up in. After all, many (if not most) atheists were once religious and went through a deconversion process that was, itself, a prolonged period of doubt and questioning until they made up their minds. But even then, someone who’s trying to figure things out is unlikely to appreciate someone else barging in with their own ready-served answers.

A14 | “Atheists are just ignorant about religion”
Also: “Atheists just haven’t heard enough about God/Jesus/Muhammad/etc.”, “sophisticated theology”
Another favorite argument is that if only atheists knew more about a given religion and its theological details, they’d realize it was true and they’d come around to it. But this assumption that atheists know less about religion than adherents do is not only false, it’s the opposite of reality, as atheists (at least in the U.S.) generally know more about various faiths than their own believers do. This logically extends from the fact that minority groups have an added incentive to educate themselves about the reigning majority in order to defend against oppression.

Then there’s the corollary that people who learn more about religion tend to be less religious as a result; see the recurring testimonial amongst atheists that reading the Christian Bible made them lose their faith. Similar arguments exist for every religion.

Finally, accusations that atheists aren’t religious out of ignorance are rather ironic, given that the central reason why most atheists dismiss religion in the first place is because believers offer no credible empirical or logical evidence (much less “proof”) for their claims, including the one at the core of all religion: that God exists. It’s akin to defending the majesty and stability of a palace that’s built upon quicksand; anyone with a shred of critical thought can see right through the ruse. (See the Courtier’s Reply.)

A15 | “Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/<etc.> were atheists”
Also: “Atheistic regimes are responsible for <ridiculous number> of deaths”
This anti-atheist trope is so tired and overused that rather than offend, it mainly bores anyone receiving it. It’s also highly misleading and is often downright false, depending on the villainous figure in question. Taking Hitler, for instance: Although the Nazis’ religious beliefs and positions were complex and difficult to analyze concretely, it’s very difficult to argue that they strove to erect an atheistic society, given that atheism was, itself, banned under Hitler’s rule. For his part, Hitler repeatedly referenced “God’s will” and regularly attributed his survival of various assassination attempts to a divine power and “divine providence”, which rather bluntly refutes any claim that he was an atheist.

Furthermore, even if every bad person in history had been an atheist, that still wouldn’t have any bearing on the moral ramifications of atheism or atheists themselves, anymore than if they’d all been redheads, or had all worn Nike sneakers. (In fact, every single criminal who ever lived did have one trait in common: they were human. Should all people everywhere be blamed or treated with suspicion because of this?) Atheism is no more or less than a disbelief in the existence of gods. Any dictators who enshrined it into their regimes simply used it as a structure, not as any sort of cause or driving force. The only reason these dictators might have resorted to “organized atheism” (as some fallaciously call it) is so that they could declare themselves to be gods in the eyes of their subjects, thus cementing their influence and control. And even then, this hardly qualifies as atheism, given that calling yourself a deity rather goes against the definition of godlessness.

Finally, no-one in the history of humanity has ever done anything “in the name of atheism”, which makes as much sense as acting in the name of not believing in fairies. People act in the name (or influence) of whatever human and earthbound motive compels them (love, hate, loyalty, vengeance, greed, etc.), not because they don’t believe in something. (And regarding the possible argument that atheists turn evil because they have no good sense of morality, see the “Atheists are immoral/evil” myth.)

A16 | “Atheists/evolutionists believe in social Darwinism”
This might better be classified as a myth about Evolutionary Theory and those who accept it, but it’s so often used against atheists (of whom the common assumption is that they’re all evolutionists – as if that were a bad thing) that it merits mentioning here. “Social Darwinism” is the notion of applying a distorted version of “survival of the fittest” to human society, involving the ostracism or active elimination of the weak, the sick and the elderly, in a similar vein to eugenics. Anti-atheists who believe that godless folk have no moral compass thus assume that Evolution-accepting atheists espouse this view. This is utterly baseless; atheists are as moral as anyone else, given that morals originate from society and not from some cosmic entity. It also assumes that all atheists somehow share the same socio-political ideology, when the godless are in fact present in every political division.

A17 | “Atheism is a childish/immature belief”
This claim comes in two varieties: as an infantile swipe that merits little more than an eye-roll, or as a fallacious argument that atheism is immature (and therefore wrong) because many atheists lose their faith before they become adults. Ignoring the massive hypocrisy inherent to this (given that most believers are taught what to believe during their own childhood), it’s also highly irrational; the same (il)logic could be used to defend belief in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, given that those are also myths that people lose faith in when they’re young. Children and teenagers are perfectly capable of rational thought, and they certainly continue to reflect on their beliefs after they become adults (when they’re supposedly better suited to thinking about such things, according to the assumption this myth makes). In short, it’s unfair and foolish to dismiss someone’s beliefs on the grounds that they originated during their formative years, particularly given how trivial it usually is to turn this argument back on its user.

A18 | “Atheists cannot love or grieve”
This is loosely related to “Atheists can’t cope with death/loss of loved ones”, but taken further to declare that nonbelievers aren’t even able to grieve, or love, in the first place. The theistic claim is that since the spirit of life comes from God, therefore, those who reject belief in him are thus deprived of this source of emotion and passion, leaving them empty and unable to form strong connections with other people, or to feel pain at their passing. It’s ridiculous (and outrageous) to claim that atheists are somehow less than fully human (or humane) as a result of their lack of god-belief. Emotions in all their depth and complexity (love and grief included) are entirely physical phenomena, the result of complex yet scientifically understandable biochemical reactions in the brain; lacking some particular belief does not in any way hinder this process.

— Skepticism —

Myths about critical thinkers, debunkers and defenders of reality

S1 | “Skeptics don’t believe in anything”
Directly related to “Atheists believe in nothing”, but since it’s used just as frequently against skeptics it’s still worth touching on here. Some folks take skeptics’ rejection of superstition and paranormal phenomena as an admission that they don’t have any beliefs or convictions of their own. But a lack of belief in supernatural nonsense doesn’t imply a rejection of other values; there’s plenty in real life worth believing in – love for your family, the wonders of the natural world, fighting for social progress, and so on – without also needing to believe in silly myths.

S2 | “Skeptics think they know everything”
This easily applies to atheists as well, but it’s used so broadly against anyone who speaks with any confidence on matters of science and belief that it really belongs here. There isn’t much to be said in response to such a silly accusation; skeptics are well aware they aren’t all-knowing – professing ignorance about topics that science doesn’t understand is kind of their m.o. – and the fact that they speak with certainty about whether specific phenomena does or doesn’t exist indicates how much time and effort they’ve spent learning about those topics, not that they think they have all the answers. (They’d be the first to proudly tell you they don’t.)

S3 | “Skeptics demand impossible evidence”
Also: “Skeptics want absolute truth”
This is also something atheists are often accused of. Many people mistake skeptics’ desire for rational answers and scientific evidence to mean that they require absolute, irrefutable truth before accepting anything as real, the kind that proponents for various supernatural claims can’t possibly produce. The truth is that skeptics refuse to settle for unreliable sources of information (such as testimonials, which are so unreliable that psychologists warn against their use in court). But extraordinary claims typically require extraordinary evidence, and it’s only the reasonable thing to dismiss such claims when their proponents fail to produce any convincing evidence.

S4 | “Skeptics treat science like a religion”
Also: Any mention of “science fetishism”
One particularly uninspired attack against people who rely on the scientific method is that they regard science as a religion. Such a sophomoric remark hardly deserves a response, other than to point out how the scientific principle of requiring evidence to support conclusions is inimical to the nature of religion and that anyone who makes such a comparison doesn’t deserve to sit at the big-person table.

S5 | “Skeptics deny any possibility of paranormal phenomena”
Also: “Skeptics are just closed-minded”
Because skeptics spend so much time refuting unproven (or disproven) claims, those who make such claims naturally lash out by accusing skeptics of rejecting the very possibility that supernatural activity might exist, as if they’d refuse to believe even if they had proof shoved in front of their eyes. But the reason skeptics are so quick to dismiss supernatural claims is because none have ever been scientifically established. Of course they’re going to roll their eyes the next time someone claims they were abducted by aliens (since all such stories always turn out to be hoaxes or misidentified phenomena), or that they can move objects with their mind (an ability that always vanishes once scientists are watching), or that John Edwards really did speak with their dead grandmother (no, he didn’t) – there have been too many thousands upon thousands of such claims over the centuries to count, yet not a single one has ever been credibly substantiated, and the vast majority fall apart under minimal scrutiny. If things such as UFO encounters, precognition and the Loch Ness monster existed, they wouldn’t be “paranormal” activity – they’d be the hottest thing in modern science.

Skeptics aren’t stodgy cranks who hate wonder and mystery; they know very well there remains plenty to discover about our world. But they also know that when those discoveries arrive, they’ll be in the form of evidence-backed research and expert analysis, not unverifiable claims from the pages of the Daily Mail or the ravings of some History Channel buffoon.

— Social Justice —

Myths about feminism, LGBT rights, racial issues and the fight for equality at large

J1 | “Women are already equal to men”
It’s easy for many people in the modern Western world to roll their eyes at the idea that gender equality is an ongoing fight (a textbook example of male and First-World privilege). But the fact that women usually aren’t discriminated against by the written law (and even here, this has only been true for the last few decades) doesn’t mean society isn’t rife with inequality in everything from employment (where women face a tougher time getting hired for jobs made harder by sexist attitudes, all so they can get paid less for the same work) to the media (where women are sexualized far more than men even though “sex sells” doesn’t) to healthcare (where reproductive health rights are constantly under politicized attack) and far too many other areas to count in our generally sexist culture. See this Wikipedia article for a long list of examples.

Women’s rights have unarguably come a very long way, but the fact that they can now vote, own property, initiate no-fault divorce and enjoy other rights that historically belonged to men is no reason to believe things are perfect now and that they shouldn’t continue to improve.

J2 | “Feminists hate men”
Also: Almost anything involving “misandry!”
The lazy taunt that feminists are just a bunch of man-haters has been around since the days of suffrage and likely isn’t going away soon, no matter how ridiculous it is. A feminist is simply someone who believes in equality between the sexes and wants to see women enjoy the same rights and opportunities that men have. Note how this applies to a rather large number of men as well as women. Whilst misandrists do exist, they are no more than a small fringe that doesn’t represent the vast majority of feminists. After all, the irrational hatred and exclusion of half the human race is precisely the reason feminism exists in the first place.

J3 | “Women/Blacks/Muslims/<etc.> have it better here than elsewhere”
Whenever someone points to an example of discrimination (be it anti-Black, anti-woman, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, etc.), reliably as rain someone else will point to some other place where Blacks/women/Muslims/gays/etc. have it even worse, implying that minority groups that are better off here should quit complaining about their comparatively minor issues. The obvious problem with this “not as bad as” fallacy is that just because one problem is worse than another doesn’t mean people need to choose which to focus on. We can still oppose transphobic “bathroom bills” at home even as we decry the murder of trans people abroad.

Moreover, this argument is also used as an excuse to silence or ignore people who face real discrimination that the user doesn’t want to deal with, thus allowing genuine problems to go unaddressed.

J4 | “Trigger warnings = censorship”
In the pantheon of social justice terms that are mocked by critics who clearly don’t understand their meaning, few are as divisive as the “trigger warning”, which is all the more baffling considering how innocuous the term is. Simply put, a trigger warning is no more than a content advisory aimed at people who’ve experienced various kinds of trauma (physical, psychological or emotional) so that they may prepare themselves before browsing material that may “trigger” them, or elicit sudden and powerful negative emotions and memories. For someone who’s dealt with such things as rape, or being in an active war zone, or suicidal depression, trigger warnings are a simple heads-up letting them know either to gird themselves for the unpleasantness ahead, or to steer clear. Whatever choice the reader makes is up to them; the trigger warning exists only to inform them about the subject matter ahead.

Yet somehow, this equivalent to “viewer discretion is advised” is regularly bashed as a form of “censorship”. This makes no sense; putting a content warning at the top of an article or in the foreword of a book does not block access to the rest of the content. The same applies to any other context where a trigger warning is used. At worst, someone may argue that a particular trigger warning may be unnecessary in a given context, but even that would hardly constitute censorship. And whilst there are some people who protest a little too loudly when confronted with opposing views, such incidents are rare and have no bearing on the matter of whether trigger warnings have anything to do with censorship; they don’t.

J5 | “Safe spaces are for delicate snowflakes”
Also: “SJWs don’t tolerate disagreement”, “Safe spaces = censorship”
For someone, particularly a member of a minority group, who spends most of their life immersed in a hostile environment (be it sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.), it’s only natural to want a certain area to themself where they can gather with like-minded people without fear of being insulted or persecuted for a little while. That’s all a “safe space” is, be it a social-justice-friendly online community, a supportive teacher’s classroom, etc. After all, everyone has the right to choose where to assemble and whom to do it with, and what the rules are in that assembly.

Yet once again, misinformed critics somehow see this as a form of censorship, promoting the myth that social justice activists are so intolerant towards any views but their own that they want to designate echo chambers where no-one but latte-sipping, Whole-Foods-shopping hipsters may exist. That this is egregiously and transparently false has done little to dent the smear’s popularity. There is a sliver of truth to this; there have been a handful of examples where students attempted to designate entire dormitories or other public spaces as safe spaces. But as with other examples of well-intentioned individuals doing misguided things, this is proof of nothing more than that outliers and instances of bad judgement exist in every group.

J6 | “There’s no such thing as rape culture”
The main problem with the term “rape culture” is that it isn’t self-explanatory to newcomers, and someone who’s first told they’re a part of it may be excused for rebelling until they learn what it means. But the less-than-ideal name aside, what rape culture refers to is an absolutely real thing: the collection of social attitudes and assumptions about gender roles and sexuality that contribute to the normalization and perpetuation of sexist behaviors, up to and including rape. This includes everything from joking about how someone else (typically a woman) deserves to get raped for having this or that opinion, to dismissing online rape threats as nothing serious, to blaming a sexual assault victim (especially because of their choice of clothes, or because they “didn’t resist enough”) rather than the aggressor, to perpetuating the insanely creepy notion that “no means yes” and any variant thereof, and so on and on. Rape culture happens all around us every day, only most people are so inured to it through lifelong exposure that they don’t notice it. But those who are aware of it can’t help but see it in every aspect of life.

J7 | “Feminists think all men are rapists”
No, they don’t.

Fine, I’ll elaborate: The refrain that “not all men are rapists” is an understandable (at least at first) response to the idea that all men are potential rapists. This is a simple truth if you understand its meaning – that to a woman who doesn’t know a particular man, that man is an unknown variable, an entity made up of possibilities rather than facts. This is aptly represented through “Schrödinger’s Rapist”: In a culture where approximately one in six women is raped at some point in her life, any unknown man she encounters may or may not be a rapist, and she won’t know until the man does, or doesn’t, rape her. That this is an incredibly unpleasant thought doesn’t make it any less true.

Those who react with #NotAllMen are missing the point: The idea isn’t to accuse all men of being rapists, or to impugn the character of all those who haven’t raped by implying they’re the kind of person who might. The point is to recognize that, by definition, a woman who doesn’t know you (as a stranger) can’t know what your intentions are at first sight, and that it falls upon you not to behave in a manner that would further discomfort or frighten her. This is the sort of reaction that should come naturally to most people.

J8 | “I have a hard life, so I don’t have privilege”
Also: Any complaint about the phrase “check your privilege”
It’s understandable for someone to get defensive when they’re told they have “privilege” when they’re living in poverty or face constant sexual discrimination at work, but that’s because the sociological theory of privilege is easily misunderstood. Simply put, privilege (in this sense) refers to the often subtle but no less real social advantages that someone has simply by dint of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and other attributes, usually ones they have little control over. The fact is that everyone has some form of privilege over other people in society, one way or another. A man has male privilege, meaning he won’t face the sort of sexual harassment and gender-based glass ceiling that a woman has to deal with; conversely, a heterosexual woman won’t face the same sort of clueless prejudice that an asexual person endures; and an asexual woman who’s White won’t constantly be told to “go back to her country”, an increasingly common refrain hurled at people with differing ethnic backgrounds. And the list goes on and on.

Another, related misunderstanding is the idea that privilege is a bad thing, or that it should be apologized for. There’s nothing wrong with having privilege; as noted previously, everyone has some sort of privilege, no matter their circumstances. The problem arises when someone who’s oblivious to their own social advantages speaks or acts in a way that’s dismissive towards other people’s concerns, even if they aren’t aware of it. This is when they may be told to “check their privilege”, which really just means to assess whether your experience in life may be clouding your ability to understand what someone is going through in that specific instance. It’s easy to get defensive when on the receiving end of this rebuke (especially if it’s delivered in a less-than-patient manner), but it’s important to remember that it’s (usually) not a personal attack, nor a presumption that you’ve had an easy life. It’s a call for compassion and understanding, essentially saying, “Hey, you’re coming off as kinda insensitive right now.”

J9 | “SJWs are attention-seeking, self-righteous bullies”
The image of social justice activists (or “social justice warriors”) as histrionic muckrakers comes from the same place as do accusations that feminists are man-haters, or that atheists want to do away with all religion: the proud tradition of trying to dismiss social movements, especially those that protest the uneven status quo, by tarring everyone who supports them with the same brush as their most extreme fringe-dwellers.

Yes, there are those who take things too far, or who only care about drawing attention. Every group has members who embarrass the rest on occasion. But as is also true of most social movements, the vast majority of social justice activists are reasonable people who speak out because they care about rectifying injustice and preventing needless harm done to disenfranchised groups. As a general rule, activists don’t protest police shootings of unarmed Black people, or tasteless jokes about the mentally ill, or the abuse heaped upon the impoverished, or a multitude of other social ills, because they want attention. They do it because they actually give a damn and because vying for a future where all are treated fairly and equally can only benefit everyone; because (in the words of a particularly famous social justice activist) injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

In other words, if some social justice activists behave like jerks, that’s not an indictment of the whole movement. It only means that some people are jerks.

J10 | “SJWs are just virtue-signalling”
In the same vein of insinuating social justice activists only talk about social issues for the in-group cred rather than out of genuine concern, “virtue-signalling” is an epithet tossed at anyone, especially online, who professes their support for a particular cause in a “superficial” manner, such as by changing their social media avatar, or circulating a popular post or meme, and so on, rather than getting physically involved in some way. It’s essentially an accusation of slacktivism in the name of promoting one’s own image within the social justice sphere. As before, there is a kernel of truth, as (again, as in all groups) there are always some people who act for selfish and shallow reasons – the popular example of someone taking a selfie whilst dropping a homeless panhandler a few coins so they can later brag about it on social media comes to mind – but as with previous accusations, spending any amount of time amongst actual social justice activists is enough to reveal how false the claim is. (I write as someone who’s been around social justice circles since before “SJW” was a thing.)

True, not everyone who supports a given cause will take to the streets or flood their elected representative with phone calls. But that’s simply because people have different ways of showing support and different opportunities to do so. Someone might hate public rallies and instead send what money they can spare in an online donation, or they might work to keep a forum running that’s used by other activists to organize, or they might simply be overwhelmed between work and school and anything else in their life so that all they can find the time to do is share a hashtag or two on Twitter. The point is that it’s always presumptuous (and often hypocritical) to declare that someone else ought to do more in support of a cause when you don’t know what factors may be affecting their ability to do so. In the end, any help is help, and all of it spreads awareness, which is always a key first part to solving any issue.

J11 | “Equality activists think men and women are identical”
When someone says they’re an egalitarian, or that they want equality between the sexes, there are some who misconstrue this (intentionally or otherwise) to mean that egalitarians think men and women are identical, or that they should be treated as if they were. It should go without saying this is false; equality activists (feminists included) can see the physiological and other differences between men and women as well as anyone else. The idea isn’t that men and women are (or should be considered as) carbon copies; it’s simply that what sexually dimorphic distinctions exist between the sexes/genders aren’t any reason for treating either as superior to the other. That men are typically physically stronger than women, for example, is no excuse for treating women as a weaker second class, just as the fact that women generally live longer than men and do better in higher education would be no justification for treating men as particularly endangered or stupid. Equality means recognizing that both halves of the species complete each other and that both deserve the same rights and opportunities.

Note: This post has been republished and revised from the original on my old blog.

04/23/19 09:11 PM ET

Banner

Menu bar

About me

Twitter

Search this blog

Blog feeds

Latest posts

Browse post labels

Archive

Latest comments

Places and people

Politics & legal links

Atheism & skepticism links

Culture links

Science & tech links

Miscellaneous links

Quote to remember …

Statistics

Mobile search box