July 9, 2012
merdre: So this just got posted on R/atheism. Let’s get the superficial/ relatively unimportant stuff out the way. The art is shitty and the joke is self-satisfied and smug and unfunny. But none of that is problematic in the same way that last panel is. I’m pretty agnostic about the possibility that the word ‘slut’ can be reclaimed. It sure as hell isn’t my job to decide. But I think everyone who hasn’t been living in some underground bunker understands that it’s most commonly used as a sex-negative word that dehumanizes women because they are or are thought to be sexually promiscuous/ open about their sexuality.Is the comic sex negative? Depends what you mean by sex negative. The comic is pretty sex-positive from the enlightened-male-atheist view-point but it doesn’t give much thought to the lives or feelings of women. Perhaps somebody should explain to this web-comic artist that women are not fried eggs. They are not breakfast. They will not be “rustled up” for your specific enjoyment. At what point exactly did your “capacity to reason” fail to detect that women do not exist specifically to cater for your sexual needs?Something that somebunall* atheists need to understand: deciding to not believe in God does not give you a Guaranteed Intelligence Licence. It does not invest all your subsequent opinions, decisions and ideas with ‘reason’. It does not absolve you from the responsibility of thinking. It does not justify lazy sexism or intellectual complacency.This sort of nonsense is especially embarrassing when it’s coming from people who  consider themselves the height of intellectual superiority because they don’t believe in a fucking sky man.*some-but-not-all 

merdre:

So this just got posted on R/atheism. 

Let’s get the superficial/ relatively unimportant stuff out the way. The art is shitty and the joke is self-satisfied and smug and unfunny. But none of that is problematic in the same way that last panel is. I’m pretty agnostic about the possibility that the word ‘slut’ can be reclaimed. It sure as hell isn’t my job to decide. But I think everyone who hasn’t been living in some underground bunker understands that it’s most commonly used as a sex-negative word that dehumanizes women because they are or are thought to be sexually promiscuous/ open about their sexuality.

Is the comic sex negative? Depends what you mean by sex negative. The comic is pretty sex-positive from the enlightened-male-atheist view-point but it doesn’t give much thought to the lives or feelings of women. Perhaps somebody should explain to this web-comic artist that women are not fried eggs. They are not breakfast. They will not be “rustled up” for your specific enjoyment. At what point exactly did your “capacity to reason” fail to detect that women do not exist specifically to cater for your sexual needs?

Something that somebunall* atheists need to understand: deciding to not believe in God does not give you a Guaranteed Intelligence Licence. It does not invest all your subsequent opinions, decisions and ideas with ‘reason’. It does not absolve you from the responsibility of thinking. It does not justify lazy sexism or intellectual complacency.

This sort of nonsense is especially embarrassing when it’s coming from people who  consider themselves the height of intellectual superiority because they don’t believe in a fucking sky man.

*some-but-not-all 

(via stoicmongoose)

12:38am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZgYPCxO-KNxA
(Notes: 5)
  
  1. thebearwritesdeath reblogged this from stoicmongoose
  2. merdre posted this