In my quibble with the Atheist Community of San Jose (ACSJ) over whether ACSJ should tie itself so closely to the women's movement, I was wrong on one key point. Some background is needed. Here is the ACSJ posting:
https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply
Note the comment below about "empower everyone."
"The Women's March is a national movement to unify and empower everyone who stands for human rights, civil liberties, and social justice for all. We gather in community to find healing and strength through tolerance, civility, and compassion. We welcome all people to join us as we unite locally and nationally. Join us on January 21st."
Me:
This is out of place. What does this have to do with atheism?
As far as "empower everyone," I cannot think of any way that the women's movement has empowered me.
ACSJ member:
"I think you're looking for a MRA forum." (There were more moderate clarifying comments, but this was his very first sentence directed at me. One can find his full comments on the link. Google MRA for greater clarity about possible intentions for his comment.)
Me: (In a comment to a different ACSJ member from the one immediately above.)
I don't think that the one male empowerment group that I am associated with would bother anybody.
For the record, I give money to the "Male Contraception Initiative" that allows men to control their fertility. I suppose that this "empowers" men, but apparently some women are bothered by this and see this not as "empowering men" but rather as "disempowering women." So, my comment to the Atheist Community of San Jose apparently is not true.
I was wrong on this key point.
For example, consider this article (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11693171/Five-reasons-why-the-male-pill-isnt-coming-any-time-soon.html )
When launched at the 1974 World Health Conference in Budapest, religious groups voiced concern and feminists staged a boycott, storming Coutinho’s presentation and demanding that only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood.
Think attitudes have changed? Don't be so sure. Not long ago feminist site Jezebel dubbed the idea "whore pills for men", while Angela Phillips wrote in The Guardian that "the bigger issue behind the development of a contraceptive pill for men is that women risk losing control of conception".
(See
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss )
"
Sometimes it is not so much convincing him as presenting him with a fait accompli - just letting nature take its course." I do not know what percentage of women have this view, but I have heard comments from women (about other women) that "she got pregnant 'accidentally on purpose.' " Apparently this is not just my limited experience. Google "pregnant accidentally on purpose. "
So, not only am I unaware of anything the women's movement has done to "empower men," it seems that a vocal fraction (presumably a small minority?) specifically want to prevent men from being empowered to make choices about parenthood. How else should one interpret the demand that "only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood"?
Yes, yes, I know that these women do not speak for all women, but this is the reason that people should support "women's movements" only on specific issues and not as a blanket endorsement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251868/Of-course-women-dont-want-male-pill--end-happy-little-accidents.html
http://jezebel.com/5059686/getting-knocked-up-accidentally-on-purpose-is-all-the-rage-in-london
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1162248/Kate-Spicer-getting-pregnant-night-stand-happy-mistake.html
