Reasons for Quitting the Atheist Community of San Jose

(This probably will not make sense except to members of the Atheist Community of San Jose as there probably will not be enough context. https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply)

The following is in response to comments from two ACSJ members (public postings on the ACSJ meetup.com website) concerning not "splintering" the atheist community because of disagreements over whether or not ACSJ was endorsing the women's movement.

Technically, there was no official endorsement. However, I think almost anybody from the women's movement would interpret the postings and commentary (see: https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply ) as an endorsement from ACSJ. Similarly, I think almost anybody who opposed any part of the women's movement would see it as an endorsement of those parts they opposed as well as those parts they agreed with. Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment. I tried to explain my assessment in a private email to the two aforementioned members. Except for replacing some names with letters, here is my email:


=======================================================

Thank you both for being considerate and respectful. 

 My sense is that, despite its mission statement, ACSJ already has been operating as a de facto "progressive" atheist society. 

 First, X comments: [note Head of the group. ]

 "However, as individuals, we know that atheists often care about progressive movements, so members will often post them (or ask that we post them) for other members to potentially join." Note that he could have simply said "other movements" rather than "progressive movements." 

 Second, Y comments that the reason for not carrying the ACSJ banner is that it is awkward in the wind, not a concern about a blanket ACSJ endorsement of the women's movement. 

 Third, there were no comments sympathetic to the idea that ACSJ should be acting consistent with its mission statement and not giving blanket endorsements. 

 To be fair, people were quite clear that not attending was OK. But, for me it has much of the same character and feel as opening city council meetings by asking people to stand and pray because most people at the meeting are religious. Nobody is going to force an atheist to stand, but having the prayer at all shows government endorsement of religion, which would seem to be at odds with the government's own stated principles in the Constitution. 

 Tom

===========================================================

I received a private email response from one of the two aforementioned members. The first paragraph of the person's (Z) response was a restatement that there was no "blanket endorsement." We disagree, no problem to me. Maybe Z is even right in a very technical sense. That was part of the reason I tried to explain my publicly posted comments.

The second paragraph conveys two things. First, it is more or less an attack on me. (Indeed in the third paragraph Z indicates that it may "sound offensive.") Second, Z seems to have appointed Z to speak for the membership of ACSJ and Z indicates that there is "us" and "you." Inasmuch as I wasn't part of "us," Z seems to take umbrage that I had the temerity to express a different opinion than "us."

Z's email certainly added additional evidence to me that ACSJ was a de facto "progressive" atheist organization and, at least Z, had little tolerance for atheists who were not "progressive."

I suggest that Z give me permission to make Z's email public and Z make it public as well. Presumably, as a speaker for the correct thinking "us,"  Z should have no objection. 

Perhaps the thing that most disturbs me is not Z's intolerance of my assessment, not Z's self-appointment as a speaker for "us", but rather the fact that Z may, in fact, speak for the ACSJ membership. 

Inasmuch as "you" is not part of "us," it makes little sense to belong to ACSJ for much longer.

Muslim discrimination: Trump versus George Washington

President Washington:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

The Democratic Party, Men, and Winning Future Elections

First, for the record note that I have no special political expertise,  so my assessments are likely incomplete and at least partly wrong. Second, to the extent that I am wrong, I have lots of company from high-level political experts. These experts miscalculated the electorate so badly that Trump won, despite being so flawed that even the Republican Party had trouble supporting him. They neither liked him, nor trusted him, nor agreed with his bigotry, nor believed he could win the election. Trump's assessment of the electorate, despite essentially no political expertise or experience, beat the highfalutin expertise of both Republican and Democratic political experts. So, if I am wrong, I have plenty of company.


Some of the post-election assessments of some of my more liberal friends seem almost designed to lose future elections. It may be that the country will endure scandal after scandal in the Trump era and fare so poorly economically and internationally that the Democrats can win elections even with their 2016 election strategies, but this is not guaranteed. When I pointed out that the Democratic Party might be having trouble getting men to vote Democratic because the Party's policies and rhetoric had basically ignored roughly half the electorate, I was told that the real reason that Democrats lost was because of male sexism.  ("Joe the plumber is afraid of women taking jobs that he thinks only men should have.")

Few deny that sexism exists nor that racism exists in America, but two points are worth noting:

1.  It is unlikely that these "isms"  are going away any time soon. The Democratic Party is going to have to win in spite of these "isms."  I do not believe that most American men think of themselves as "sexists." The lunatic (20% ?) fringe of the women's movement has had some success in squelching free expression when it offends the movement. (Trigger warnings, safe spaces, opposition to men's groups on college campuses, for example.) But despite the efforts of the women's lunatic fringe, men are still free to express themselves in some important ways.  One of these ways is voting. It is difficult to understand how many liberals' penchant for pejoratively describing men as "sexists" or harping on "male privilege" is going to help win men's votes. To many men this is an unjustified and slanderous attack. Whether or not you ascribe to the "male privilege" ideology, an undeniable fact is that men still have an equal right to vote. 
2. Unless one believes that sexism is a much more serious problem than racism in America (I do not), then the two elections that Obama won indicate that the Democrats can win elections in spite of the "isms." Perhaps it is not the most important difference between Obama's campaign and Clinton's campaign, but one significant difference is that Obama made few (zero?) comments about policies specifically to help black people. Clinton seemed to emphasize policies she  championed that were specifically designed to address women's issues and hardly ever (zero?) even mentioned policies to address men's issues. 

The Democratic Party seems to be ceding the men's vote to the Republican Party. I suspect many men now view the Democratic Party as the women's party whereas in the past the Democratic Party was often viewed as the common people's party. What evidence would the Party supply to convince men that the Party actually cared about men to even one tenth the degree that the Party cares about women? Maybe it goes against decades of tradition at this point, but maybe liberals could stop dissing men if only enough to get Democrats elected so that they can pursue policies to help women?

The following would help Democrats win male votes:

1. Stop dissing men. Encourage all Party members to drop the pejorative attacks on men borrowed from the lunatic fringe of the women's movement.
2. To win back a few male votes, it is probably enough for Democratic politicians to pretend to care about men's issues. If your website has a link (or email list) for comments on "women's issues," add a link (or email list) for comments on "men's issues." ( https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html ) The software can be programmed to delete automatically any resulting comments about "men's issues,"  so a Democratic politician can still keep 100% focus on "women's issues." Still, it will look good and win at least a few extra votes.
3. If, even after making the efforts in steps 1 and 2, a Democratic politician still has concerns (say the polls look bad) about the male vote, a low level staff member could read the comments about "men's issues" and respond by saying that the politician thanks the constituent for the comments and would keep them in mind. This will, unfortunately, take some staff time away from "women's issues," but it need not take any of the politician's time. This will look even better than item 2 and win even more extra votes than item 2.
4. If even item 3 does not work well enough the politician may want to actually read the comments on "men's issues" and pretend to care by introducing a bill. Fortunately, unless the politician really spends significant time promoting the bill, the bill will never even make it out of committee. Inasmuch as the bill has no chance of becoming law, very little time, consideration, or effort need be expended to write a good bill. Even a very bad bill is good enough to give the appearance of caring. The attempt can at least be advertised on a website and pointed to if questions arise about what the politician has done to help men. This will look even better than item 3 and win even more extra votes than item 3.
5. It is somewhat drastic, and it breaks with decades of Democratic tradition,  but as a last resort, the politician might consider actually spending enough time, effort, and political capital to get at least one law passed addressing one "men's issue." With luck, the politician will still be able to partition effort between "women's issues" and "men's issues" at a 99% to 1% rate. This will gain many male votes out of all proportion to the effort involved because it will be a symbolic sign that "men's issues" will, at least sometimes, get more than  trickle down considerations via "women's issues." ( https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-democratic-partys-trickle-down.html )

In summary, if the Democratic Party wants to win more male votes it will help if it actually does something for men. The Party seems to understand winning female votes by doing things for women, but it seems to be a novel idea to win male votes by doing something for men.

The Democratic Party's "Trickle Down Consideration" of Men

As indicated in previous posts,

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html

the Democratic Party seems to believe that, unlike women's issues, there are no men's issues that need attention or are even worth considering.

Are there any efforts that the Party has made that were directed specifically at improving men's lives in the same way the Party directs efforts specifically at improving women's lives? I cannot think of a single one.

Winning elections is going to remain difficult as long as the Democratic Party remains hostile to men and the only "benefits" to men that the Party can point to are simply side effects of policies to help women.

To borrow from a Democratic Party slam on "trickle down economics" in which lower income folks will do well when upper income folks do well, the Democratic Party's policy is that no focus on men's issues is necessary because a focus on women's issues alleviates any men's issues via "trickle down" effects. If there is a better explanation, I have not heard one yet.