Read the full case here.

This case concerns a couple that divorced in 1999. At the time, they agreed that the mother would have primary physical custody of the children, with the father granted visitation.

In 2001, the mother moved to a different town for a new job. At this time, the custody agreement was modified to expand the father’s visitation privileges, including extensive visitation with the three children in the summer months.

Later in 2001, the mother was arrested for prescription forgery, after which she entered rehabilitation treatment and signed a “Recovery Contract Agreement” with the Mississippi Recovering Physicians Program. When he found out about the arrest, the father attempted to sue for custody but it was found that there was no material change of circumstances that warranted a change of custody.

In 2003, the mother remarried and moved with the three children to Maryland to live with her new husband. The father again filed for a change in custody, claiming that the children were having a hard time adjusting to the move. The mother at this time asked for an increase in child support. The court denied the father’s request for a change in custody but awarded the mother’s requested increase in child support based upon the change in financial needs of the children as well as a significant increase in the father’s income.

The 2005 case is the father’s appeal, in which he requests a change in custody only for his son as well as contesting the child support decision. He claims that his son is still having trouble and wants to come live with him. He further claims that the only reason his ex-wife asked for an increase in child support is because she and her new husband bought a $750,000 house and that it’s just not fair for him to have to pay an extra $500/month in child support when his income has only increased by $214,800/year since the divorce and the original child support judgement.

I won’t address the child support issue because it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Also, I think it’s ridiculous and that the father in this case is an asshole who is trying to punish his ex-wife for moving on with her life.

As far as the custody issue goes, there’s basically no evidence that religion or lack thereof had anything to do with it. Indeed, the only mention of religion at all in the case is in two paragraphs:

¶ 9. Ken asserts that he has a closer relationship with Kenny than Kenny has with Lynn. According to Ken, Kenny relies on his father for stability;  to discuss topics such as life, religion, and “what it means to be a man;” and to alleviate his worries.   Kenny testified at trial and expressed a desire to live with his father, and Ken argues that his wish should be honored.

and:

¶ 27.   Contrary to Ken’s assertions, the evidence is not overwhelming that Kenny’s problems would be solved if he lived with his father.   Kenny testified that he would miss his mother, Jeff, and Josh if he lived with his father.   Kenny stated that his mother takes good care of him.   His mother assigns chores for him and sets rules with respect to what television shows he can watch, what movies he can see, and what video games he can play.   While Ken is an agnostic and testified that religion is not important to him, Lynn testified that religion is very important to her.   While Kenny has acted reserved and guarded since moving to Maryland, Kenny behaved in the same way when he lived in Hattiesburg.   Such evidence supports a finding that there was no material change in circumstances adverse to Kenny’s well-being.

In neither case is it even remotely implied that the father’s agnosticism is the reason for his being denied custody. Indeed, it seems only to be mentioned at all because of the disagreement between the parents as to the importance of religion, and it’s not clear that this disagreement is a significant factor in the father’s decision to seek custody of his son.

In the end, the decision to leave the children in the custody of their mother hinged upon the fact that there was no compelling reason to change the situation. Basically, when parents are divorced and one parent chooses to move out of town or state, this is not considered a material change that necessitates a change in custody as the court holds that separation from either parent is disadvantageous to the children and switching custody to the non-moving parent doesn’t mitigate the ill of being separated from a parent.

While, on appeal, the father was only asking for a change in custody for his son, the court stated that it was important for the three siblings to remain together–again because there was no compelling reason to change the current situation.

Conclusion

There’s no reason to suspect that religion played any significant role in the determination in this case. It was not given as a reason for the appeal. It was not given as a reason for the father seeking custody in the first place. It was not given as a reason for the decision that the court made.

In fact, the decision that the court made seems perfectly reasonable under the circumstances described in the court documents. The father is not denied access to his children, as he presumably retains liberal visitation privileges, including long visitation during the summers, which is a pretty standard arrangement. It’s also stated in the court documents that the son is able to call his father as much and as often as he likes while living with his mother and step-father.

I suppose it could be argued that religion or lack thereof should not enter into the discussion at all in cases of child custody. However, these are issues that figure into the relationship between married parents as well as separated ones. In a marriage between people with different religious beliefs, they would generally have to come to some sort of agreement about how to raise the children, settling in all likelihood on a compromise that is best for the child and most fair to each parent.

When separated parents take their issues to court, they are asking the court to be a mediator in situations where they are unable to come to agreement between themselves. It’s my opinion that in the event that religious disagreements are brought to court it’s appropriate for the court to institute a solution to the problem where the parents are unable or unwilling to do so on their own. As long as the rights of both parents are respected, this would not be problematic. Fortunately, this case is not a case where religion was a central issue, but there will be a couple of cases I discuss later where I will discuss the opinion I stated here i more depth.

Read the full case.

This case concerns a mother and father who were never married. The mother re-enlisted in the military, but in order to do so she had to give custody of their daughter to someone else. At the time, both parents planned to marry once the mother had finished her military training, and it was also agreed that the transfer of custody to the father was only temporary.

After some time, the mother and father ended their relationship. When the mother was assigned to an air force base in San Antonio, Texas, she decided that she wanted to take the daughter with her. The father refused to allow her to do so, as he had custody at the time. When the case went to court, joint legal custody was established with the mother as the primary custodian and the father granted visitation and ordered to pay child support.

The father appealed the judgment. In the appeal, the court answered the following questions:

1. Did the trial court correctly determine that the [original] custody agreement was temporary?
2. Did the trial court properly apply the Albright factors to the evidence presented at trial?
3. Did the trial court use custody determination to penalize Adam Blevins, and if so applied, was it manifestly erroneous?

In the first question, it was determined that, although the original grant of custody by the mother to the father did not state that it was temporary, both parents agreed at the time that it was temporary and so it could therefore be treated as temporary and thus be revisited in court.

The Albright factors referred to here are a list of criteria that are used in Mississippi for purposed of determining the best interests of a child in custody cases. The best interests of the child are the primary concern of all child custody cases. The Albright factors are as follows:

• age, health and sex of the child
• determination of the parent that had the continuity of care prior to the separation
• which parent has the best parenting skills and which has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care
• the employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment
• physical and mental health and age of the parents
• emotional ties of the parent and child
• moral fitness of the parents
• the home, school and community record of the child
• the preference of the child at the age sufficient to express a preference by law
• stability of home environment and employment of each parent
• other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship

In this case, only a handful of factors were contested in the appeal.

The father argued that the child’s age (under 2 years) was given undue weight, as the mother had voluntarily granted him custody when she entered the military. The appeals court found that, while the previous court may or may not have given this factor undue weight, it could not be shown that it was “manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or the result of the application of an erroneous legal standard.”

The father claimed that the court gave the mother an edge in health because the father smokes and that the court did not correctly consider the mother’s health records, specifically regarding a couple of mental health issues that the mother had in 1996, before the daughter was even born. Apparently the mother had some issues with depression and trouble adjusting when she originally joined the military, and the father was trying to use these issues to show that she was an unfit parent. The original court found that these issues didn’t have bearing on the mother’s current ability to care for the child, and the appeals court found that these factors had been properly considered.

Finally, we get to the part that seems to have merited this case’s  inclusion on The Volokh Conspiracy’s list:

The Court slightly favors Dawn when considering Darby’s future religious example. Although Adam does at times pray with Darby and has attended a non-denominational `house of prayer’, Dawn seems much more committed and consistent in her Catholic upbringing.

It turns out that both parents in this case are at least nominally Catholic, although the father complained that there is no evidence of the mother being especially committed to her faith. His argument is that the mother never went to church or took the child to church while living in Mississippi. Additionally he complains that the mother’s committing adultery (with him, by the way) while married is against Catholic beliefs.

The mother says that the original court made the right choice, pointing out that the father says he’s Roman Catholic but admits that he doesn’t attend church at all. The father “also testified that he thought religion was important and that if he received custody he would send her to a private Catholic school.”

The appeals court had this to say on the matter:

Future religious example” is not a factor listed in Albright, although it could theoretically fall within “other factors relevant to the parent-child relationship” or under “moral fitness of the parents” as found in Albright. Albright, 437 So.2d at 1005. This Court, in McLemore v. McLemore, 762 So.2d 316, 320 (Miss. 2000), stated “[b]oth the mother and father should be vitally interested in seeing that their children get regular and systematic spiritual training. Whether it be by attending Sunday School each Sunday or Church or both is for the parents alone to decide.” The Chancellor did not abuse her discretion when considering future religious example in the custody determination of Darby.

My opinion is that the court was faced with a situation where both parents (1) claimed that religion was important to the; (2) tried to show in court that they were best suited to provide the child with religious upbringing; and (3) willfully put the determination in the hands of the court. The court made a decision, and the father is unhappy with that decision. In this case, I would also say that it’s difficult to even determine which parent was in actuality the less religious parent, as both parents claim to be religious and claim to have plans to raise their child in the Catholic faith.

The court probably could have decided either way, and likely would not have figured this into the decision at all if it was not brought to the court by the parents themselves. In any case, this was not the determining factor of the case. The father was not denied custody because he was less religious; he was denied custody based upon an assessment of all of the evidence presented.

The next point the father contested was that the mother’s home environment was judged better, claiming that the court focused to much on the fact that the father lived with his disabled father, an HIV-positive hemophiliac with terminal cancer. However, the main objection to this living situation was not the grandfather’s HIV-positive status; rather the objection was that both the father and grandfather smoked, with the grandfather smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day, creating an unhealthy environment for a child to live in. The father would also sometimes leave the child at home alone with the disabled grandfather, which counted against the father.

The appeals court found that there as no clear error or abuse of discretion in the original court’s judgment of the Albright factors.

The next issue the father raises is that the court was basically punishing him for two reasons: (1) that he didn’t execute a medical waiver in order that the court could access his medical records and (2) that he (allegedly) was uncooperative with allowing the mother visitation with the daughter prior to trial.

The appeals court had this to say about the medical waiver issue:

What Adam is being penalized for by the Chancellor is for making an agreement with the other party to have both waive their privilege; getting the sought after medical records from the other side; and subsequently deciding to not waive the medical privilege, leaving the other party at a disadvantage. Such conduct by a party should not be condoned or ignored by a Chancellor.

About the visitation issue, the appeals court also found the previous court made no mistakes. The father argued that his failure to allow visitation did not constitute a change that would necessitate a change in custody. The court decided that since there was never a permanent custody agreement to begin with, no material change in circumstances was required to justify a hearing to make a permanent agreement.

Conclusion

Religion or lack thereof was not the deciding factor in this case. To the extent that religion was considered at all, it was because the parents of the child were arguing who was better equipped to provide “future religious example,” leaving the court to decide between them. Under the circumstances, I would not consider this to be out of line on the part of the court, and there is no evidence, explicit or otherwise that the father was specifically discriminated against because of his religious beliefs or lack thereof.

This case has nothing to do with anti-atheist discrimination whatsoever.

Greta Christina recently posted on Alternet and on her own blog a piece titled “4 Reasons Atheists Have to Fight for Their Rights.” I have, admittedly, become increasingly critical of organized, activist atheism over the last couple of years, and so I responded to the piece with my opinion that what Greta presented was essentially a straw man argument that dismantles criticisms that almost no one is making. Greta responded in turn, taking issue with what I said and accusing me of being uninformed, specifically in regard to my skepticism of allegations of discrimination against atheists in child custody cases, and suggesting that I had not bothered to read the links she included in her piece.

I of course had clicked the links, and the link that she included about the child custody issue was to a piece that I have seen floating around the atheist blogosphere for as long as I have been reading atheist blogs. It’s not something that I thought to question very much, even as recently as a year or two ago, but the allegations that atheist parents are denied child custody simply for being atheists are claims that I have become increasingly skeptical of, although I had not before now actually read the court cases that are cited in the Volokh Conspiracy post.

I explained in my final comment at Greta Christina’s blog that my issue was less a matter of necessarily disbelieving the possibility of this sort of discrimination happening and more a matter of being unwilling to accept simplistic claims (e.g. “I lost my kids just because I’m an atheist”) about child custody cases, in which court decisions are complex and based on a number of different factors. At this point, Greta Christina accused me of not arguing in good faith and of being unreasonably skeptical in the face of what she presented as incontrovertible evidence–in her words:

“documentation of judges explicitly stating that they were granting custody to the religious parent and denying it to the atheist parent, and explicitly stating that they were dong so because the atheist parent was an atheist.”

Now, having read the post at The Volokh Conspiracy, I knew that the explicit statements Greta was talking about could not be found there. It’s simply an overview of the issue, the opinions of the author, and a long list of court cases (without links to the actual court documents) purported to support the thesis. Namely, that courts regularly discriminate against less religious and non-religious parents in favor of religious ones–not, as Greta Christina claims, that atheist parents are routinely denied custody simply because of their atheism. This may sound like I’m splitting hairs, but it’s an important nuance that was not found in either Greta Christina’s original post or in her response to my comments.

The 2005 post at The Volokh Conspiracy cites the following cases as examples of “discrimination against the irreligious or less religious”:

• Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166, 175 (Miss. 2001)
• Staggs v. Staggs, 2005 WL 1384525 (Miss. App.)
• Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So. 2d 280, 282 (Miss. 2004)
• Turner v. Turner, 824 So. 2d 652, 655-56 (Miss. App. 2002)
• Pacheco v. Pacheco, 770 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (Miss. App. 2000)
• Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So.2d 581 (Miss. 1999)
• Johnson v. Gray, 859 So. 2d 1006, 1014-15 (Miss. 2003)
• McLemore v. McLemore, 762 So. 2d 316 (Miss. 2000)
• Hodge v. Hodge, 188 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1966)
• Johns v. Johns, 918 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. App. 1996)
• Ark. Sup. Ct. admin. order no. 15 (enacted 1999)
• Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So.2d 506, 513-14 (La. App. 2005)
• Pahal v. Pahal, 606 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (La. App. 1992)
• Ulvund v. Ulvund, 2000 WL 33407372 (Mich. App.)
• Mackenzie v. Cram, 1998 WL 1991050 (Mich. App.)
• Jimenez v. Jimenez, 1996 WL 33347958 (Mich. App.)
• Johnston v. Plessel, 2004 WL 384143 (Minn. Ct. App.)
• In re Storlein, 386 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
• McAlister v. McAlister, 747 A.2d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 2000)
• Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 1999)
• Gancas v. Schultz, 683 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1996)
• Scheeler v. Rudy, 2 Pa. D. & C. 3d 772, 780 (Com. Pl. 1977)
• Shainwald v. Shainwald, 395 S.E.2d 441, 446 (S.C. App. 1990)
• Hulm v. Hulm, 484 N.W.2d 303, 305 & n.* (S.D. 1992)
• In re Davis, 30 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000)
• Snider v. Grey, 688 S.W.2d 602, 611 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985)
• In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980)
• In re Marriage of Moorhead, 224 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa 1974)
• Ahlman v. Ahlman, 267 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Neb. 1978)
• Dean v. Dean, 232 S.E.2d 470, 471-72 (N.C. App. 1977)
• Robert O. v. Judy E., 90 Misc.2d 439, 442 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1977)

I have now finished reading, and I will be writing to discuss each of these decisions over the next few days, with the exception of the two I was unable to find court documents for.

What I have found so far confirms to my satisfaction that my skepticism was not unreasonable as Greta Christina claimed. Moreover, in not a single one of these cases is there anything resembling explicit language that would indicate that any parent was denied custody as a result of their atheism. Indeed, the majority of these cases do not involve atheist parents at all, and to characterize them the way Greta Christina did–as clear and obvious evidence of discrimination that I was just stubbornly ignoring–is at best ignorant and at worst downright dishonest.

Fortunately, court records are public and easy enough to Google. I’m looking forward to going through this list, and I believe it will show that, at least when based on the cases presented here, discrimination against non-believers is grossly exaggerated to the extent that it exists at all and based primarily on cherry picking damning quotes and removing them from their appropriate context in order to prove a point that is simply not supported when one reads the entire documents.

I expressed skepticism regarding the whole issue in a comment at Greta Christina’s blog earlier today, saying that I find it suspect when people make simplistic statements (e.g. “I lost my kids because I’m an atheist”) about something as complex as child custody decisions.

Greta Christina herself accused me of not arguing in good faith and asserted that I was being unreasonably skeptical in spite of “documentation of judges explicitly stating that they were granting custody to the religious parent and denying it to the atheist parent, and explicitly stating that they were dong so because the atheist parent was an atheist.”

I re-read the Volokh Conspiracy post to see if there was something that I missed when I had previously read it, then I thought that maybe Greta Christina had actually read the court decisions that were cited as evidence in that post.

A cool thing about court records is that they are public, so that’s what I’ve been reading for about the last 5 hours or so, looking in vain for a case where any court made a decision based upon one parent’s atheism. So far, I have not found one. Not a single one.

I’m 22 cases into the list cited at the Volokh Conspiracy, and I’ve got another 20 or so cases to read tomorrow, but I’m really starting to think that the allegations of discrimination against atheists in regard to child custody are almost entirely fabricated. I will be writing about each case individually over the next few days, with direct links to court documents and pertinent quotes.

I’m a little angry, in all honesty, to have such a prominent atheist take me to task as unreasonably skeptical, especially when it seems that she has not bothered to read these documents herself, choosing to trust hearsay and quote-mining instead. As I mentioned above, this list of court cases has been circulating through atheist blogs and being used as a reference for several years, and I’m frankly amazed that no one else seems to have bothered to read these cases either.

The interpretation of any of the cases I have read so far as discrimination against atheists would require an extremely active and creative imagination as well as a willful disregard for anything resembling intellectual honesty.

I’m looking forward to continuing my reading and sharing my findings over the course of this weekend.

After much discussion with my partner on the topic of atheism and privilege dynamics, I’ve realized that maybe I’ve been going about explaining it all wrong, so I’ll try to explain again in the way that helped him to understand what the heck I was talking about.

What I think it really comes down to is that in atheist groups, unlike in any other social justice group, white men aren’t the oppressor. It’s not that anyone is joining a group in order to be oppressed or to feel oppressed. I think that on the whole, atheist/skeptical spaces have been, are, and will likely continue to be dominated by white men because they are spaces in which those men aren’t at risk of being seen as part of the problems trying to be addressed.

In feminist groups, for example, men in general (white men in particular) are generally only conditionally welcome–contingent upon their ability to check their privilege at the door and to understand that they themselves are likely part of (or at least beneficiaries of) the societal ills that feminism attempts to address. And this tends to go for pretty much any social justice group; white men, as the most privileged members of society are welcome conditionally only if they are willing to do their best to no longer be part of the problem. This is an incredibly humbling position to be in.

As a person of no small privilege myself, I can certainly sympathize. No one likes to be the bad guy. I don’t think many people like to be not just aware of, but constantly mindful of and alert for, the ways in which their own privilege clouds their thinking, twists their perceptions, and interferes with their ability to interact in healthy and helpful ways with marginalized people. It’s uncomfortable. It’s hard. It’s easy to fuck up, and in many social justice groups you will be called out when you fuck up. It requires a level of humility that I know I find hard to muster at all times, and which many people just seem incapable of achieving at all. The men who dominate the atheist movement have managed to create spaces where they can avoid the unpleasantness of ever being the bad guy.

I think it’s less that men find atheist activism/community appealing because they want to feel oppressed and more that it’s appealing because it offers them a way to not be reminded that they are themselves often oppressive.

By, for the most part, avoiding addressing things like sexism, racism and the like, atheist and skeptical groups seem determined to pretend that everyone in their group is on an equal footing, united under the shared experience of being atheists but without any recognition or appreciation whatsoever of differences in experience, even within the movement. I continue to see that any attempts by women or minorities to point out problems within atheist and skeptical groups aren’t even ignored, but instead bring out all the worst of the men in these spaces. Even otherwise “nice” men tend to trivialize and gloss over any complaints or criticisms by women.

The problem that I have with atheist groups and spaces is not about any particular instance of sexist behavior, but rather about what I consider to be a structural fault in the hierarchy of the atheist movement that leads to a pattern of nastiness towards women especially, but also toward various minority groups. As long as men (especially white men) are the driving force behind atheist thought, politics, philosophy, and activism, atheist spaces will continue to be safe spaces for men and uncomfortable and unpleasant spaces for many others.

Unfortunately, years of leadership by men has created an atheist movement that doesn’t require them to examine their privilege and in which they are able to say and do mostly as they please when it comes to the treatment of women–creating an environment where not only do men get to avoid recognizing their roles as oppressors, but where they can be actively oppressive without being called out on it very often.

This is starting to change, and the habit of calling out sexism and other -isms seems to be catching on in certain segments of the atheist blogosphere. It seems like at least some atheist conferences and such are making at least a nominal effort to include women and minorities and to discuss issues that are unique to those groups. At the same time, however, my observation is that there has been quite a bit of backlash to this. More women participating seems to have served largely to make more visible the problems within atheist groups, as women continue to be taken less seriously than men while also continuing to be treated as if they exist primarily to be objects of male lust. Some male atheists are just incorrigibly sexist, while others are more actively unpleasant toward women. Others content themselves with acting as apologists for the poor behavior of others.

Regardless, it’s clearly (to me, anyway) more than just a few bad eggs that are ruining things for everyone. The comments on blog posts pointing out sexism regularly turn ugly, and several notable atheist ladies have reported receiving some pretty vile hate mail. Just since Hemant Mehta posted about my Tumblr comment, I’ve gotten a couple of particularly nasty anon messages and one commenter on my original post who popped in to tell me I’m a dumb bitch (plus the guy who had to try and explain to me how much men are oppressed, too), and I’m, frankly, an internet nobody.

As far as whether or not all these sexist douchebags are true misogynists (as Hemant Mehta seems to think they are not)? Well, I’m honestly not sure what difference it makes. Even if it really, truly is the case that sexist atheist men aren’t really and truly haters of women, they certainly hold hateful opinions of women, do and say hateful things towards women, and defend other men who do and say hateful things towards women. And there seems to be a woeful lack of any real desire on the part of most men to improve matters much.

After the original Tumblr discussions, I never expected to hear anything more about it, honestly, but a few days ago I woke up to find that someone had sent this screenshot of the original post to Hemant Mehta over at Friendly Atheist. After reading Hemant’s man-splaining of the sexism situation in general, I read through the comments on his post and basically hated everything far too much to be able to respond right away. I’m finally feeling at least somewhat up to that challenge.

First of, for full disclosure, let me say that I am not terribly active in any atheist communities on- or offline. This is almost entirely due to my general disenchantment with atheist communities and what passes for atheist activism. This disenchantment is due to several factors:

1. Atheist communities are often hostile to women, and (being a woman) I don’t feel as if my presence is welcome or that my opinions are particularly valued or sought after.
2. Atheists as a group tend to be relatively privileged, whether it’s white privilege, class privilege, education privilege, or whatever. Because of this sort of homogeneity of privilege, there is an amazing lack of any sort of privilege going on. This creates an unpleasant environment for those who lack the privileges of the majority as well as those who are actively trying to unpack their own privilege.
3. Atheist activism tends to be towards decidedly narrow goals. Some of these goals are important (improving science education, combating religious child abuse), but some of these goals are trivial (getting God off the dollar bill, etc.). The trivial goals get a disproportionate amount of attention, while at the same time there is little recognition of the intersectionality of the broader goals with the aims of other social justice movements.

What has happened as a result of this is that I’ve heavily cut back on the number of atheist blogs that I read, and I have essentially no desire to participate in atheist groups whatsoever. That being said, however, even in the limited number of atheist blogs that I read, I still have days where there is much that just disgusts me, and my statement on Tumblr was born out of that disgust and the frustration I feel at the ability of atheist communities to be consistently disappointing to me.

On to the criticisms of my statement!

The most common criticism, which Hemant avoided but that I faced on Tumblr and saw in the comments at Friendly Atheist, was that I was wrong to say that the only reason white dudes become atheists is to get in on being oppressed. Fortunately, that is not even remotely what I said. While I admit that my original statement might have been confusing to some (but not to some others), what I meant was that I think that many men–especially an all-to-common type of upper-class, white, educated men–attach to movement atheism as their activist community of choice (as opposed to some other activist community) because they don’t experience oppression in any other way. For some people, “In God We Trust” being on the dollar bill really is the worst form of oppression they will ever face, and unfortunately atheist groups are simply crawling with these people.

What I see in a lot of atheist groups is that these men are the ones who drive the majority of discussion and decide on courses of action for the group. These men are also, sadly, the ones responsible for the majority of contributions to making atheist spaces unfriendly for anyone who isn’t one of them. As I said originally, I attribute a lot of this to unrecognized privilege, and as long as that privilege goes unexamined and unchecked, atheist spaces will continue to be dominated by white men as they alienate and drive off women and minorities.

Hemant’s post didn’t criticize, per se, but rather defended against charges of sexism within movement atheism in general. He starts off by saying the bolded part of my original statement is incorrect, insinuating that maybe I was joking (nope!), but admits that atheist groups could benefit from increased diversity.

Well, Hemant, you can of course disagree with me, but my opinion remains that white men dominate the atheist movement because it gives them a platform to advance a narrow agenda that addresses issues that effect them. Atheists who are interested in addressing sexism, racism, economic injustice and so on largely head elsewhere because the majority of people inhabiting atheist/skeptical spaces are unmitigated assholes when it comes to those topics. As far as this opinion “demeaning” the people I am talking about, I can only hope that maybe my statement will trigger an epiphany for a few of them, who will take a look at their privilege, think about the way it shapes their interactions with others, and work to recognize and be mindful of that privilege in a way that fosters community rather than driving away otherwise like-minded people.

Hemant then goes on to say that of course women have to deal with a lot of shit, which he knows because he listens to women. Gold star, Mr. Mehta!

But, oh shit, what is this?!

I’ve experienced the Boys’ Club mentality myself, where something I said was taken more seriously than a similar suggestion made by a woman. Are the people I’m talking about deliberately thinking, “She’s a woman, so who cares what she says”? Of course not. These are good, decent people who don’t hate women or go out of their way to belittle them. That’s part of the problem, though. They don’t realize when they’re effectively keeping women out of the conversation.

Oh, well, that’s okay then. As long as people don’t really mean to be sexist, then we should give them a pass, right? We certainly wouldn’t want to demean them by pointing out the colossal amount of privilege they have that enables them to do and say extremely sexist things without actually meaning to. That would just be mean, because they don’t hate women; they just treat women like garbage, but in a benevolent way. Gotcha.

Here’s more honesty for you: Many of the women I know who have worked for a while in any of the various national atheist organizations have been propositioned for sex (directly or indirectly) at some point or another. It’s not rape. They say they’re not interested and the men back off. But it’s to the point where I’ve seen women joke about it with each other because so many of them have been in that situation. I’m glad they can find humor in it, but humor comes from shared experiences, and it’s sad that this is one of the things they have in common.

I am simply awed by this insight. It’s just being propositioned for sex. It’s not like women are getting raped or anything! Some women even make jokes about it, so I guess it’s not that bad, even with Hemant’s rhetorical sadface at the end of the paragraph.

Obviously, there are women who run a couple of these groups. There are women who don’t have these experiences. There are plenty of men who don’t do these things and actively fight against it. But if these were isolated cases, we wouldn’t be giving this subject this much attention.

No joke? Honestly, there is not a day that goes by when I am not aware of the misogyny that is endemic in the atheist movement. And the men who supposedly fight against this sort of thing aren’t doing that great a job. I have a feeling that Mr. Mehta here is including himself in that group of white knights, and yet here I am pointing out how full of fail his grasp of the situation is. And I’m not even trying very hard.

If there’s an upside to all the posts that have been made about sexism in the past year, it’s that some people who weren’t aware that this is a serious issue are more aware of it now. And that’ll hopefully lead to more productive conversations in the future. (Right now, comment threads everywhere seem to resemble a giant cesspool.)

Probably more people are aware that some women consider this a problem; there’s not really much sign that it’s being taken very seriously or treated as an issue that really deserves to be addressed. And yes, your comment thread is a giant cesspool.

Here’s the question that’s still lingering in my mind hours after I saw it: Why would anyone think that in the first place? And whose fault is that?

Well, golly gee. I can’t imagine how you might find out the answer to these questions. Clearly, the solution is to make a blog post about it, fail to even attempt to contact the original poster of the thing you are confused about, and then wring your hands in dismay over how uncivil the discussion gets:

It’s annoying to see all the posts about sexism in our movement. Not because it doesn’t exist or because bloggers are wrong to call it as they see it, but because I know how the story will end: With lot of people saying a lot of ignorant things, with huge generalizations being thrown all over the place, with people dismissing anyone who disagrees with them, with people talking past each other and arguing about completely different things, with people tearing down others who don’t deserve it… and with people not interested in the discussion giving the entire movement a giant middle finger and walking away from it for good.

Yep. The really annoying thing is when people point out sexism.

I want to prevent that from happening. That requires us to be able to confront the issues in a civil way. We haven’t figured out how to make that happen yet.

I have a few suggestions:

• Don’t minimize and trivialize the complaints about sexism (or any other -ism) by pointing out that it could be worse.
• Don’t say how annoying it is for you to see posts about sexism in the atheist movement. (Seriously. Just keep that to yourself until you realize why it’s a terrible opinion.)
• Don’t complain about how mean people are when they complain about being treated like crap, ignored, and made to feel unwelcome in your group.
• Ask the negatively affected people (in this case women) what can be done to change the hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere of your communities.
• When you are told what you can do to make things better, do it.
• If you aren’t willing to do the things that will improve the situation, don’t complain that it’s not getting better.

It’s just not that difficult.

Unfortunately, I just don’t see it improving. I’ve read the Friendly Atheist for years, but I have never felt so disappointed with Hemant Mehta as I am right now.

P.S. “This is About Rainbows and Kittens…”? How much more childish and insulting could that be? This is not how to take the issue of sexism seriously.

So, I was planning on writing a post tonight about skepticism and home birth, but then Hemant Mehta mansplained all over something I posted on Tumblr last week and I was going to respond to his post.

Instead, after I popped over to Friendly Atheist and read the comments, I made this. It’s like regular sexist bingo, but with SCIENCE!

My response to Hemant will be incoming tomorrow, but this is all I’ve got tonight.

Queereka is a place for skeptics and nonbelievers who are interested in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer issues. We seek to promote the inclusion of LGBTQ topics, voices and individuals in the skeptic and secular community and movement, promote rational and evidence-based approaches to LGBTQ topics, encourage critical thinking about gender and sexuality, and combat misinformation and mistaken pseudoscientific, superstitious, biased, religious, irrational, unsubstantiated or bigoted beliefs about LGBTQ topics, lives, individuals and experiences.

I highly recommend checking it out; although there isn’t a whole lot to see just yet, you can sign up for their RSS feed, follow them on Twitter, and like them on Facebook.

I’m particularly interested in reading the Perspectives column, which plans to examine queer genders and sexualities from an anthropological/historical/cross-cultural standpoint, but I’ve already learned some things from a pair of posts on 13 Myths and Misconceptions About Trans Women. Part One was posted at Skepchick, and Part Two is over at Queereka. Both seem worth a read, and there is some interesting discussion going on in the comments as well.

It’s good to see a space like Queereka being built in the skeptic community, which so often fails to address these sorts of issues, and I’m looking forward to seeing it grow.

The good news is that I’m not horribly disappointed in myself or discouraged yet. The bad news is that I don’t have a plan of how exactly to make this resolution happen.

My thought right now is that I need to have a project. Something I can do every day and that will, preferably, take around an hour of my time (maybe less). I have a few ideas, but I’m not sure exactly what I want to do.

1. A Song of Ice and Fire
   Pro – There is so much material here, it would probably take me a full year to get through it all.
   Con – I’ve already read the first four books twice each, so I don’t have a fresh perspective on it. Also, I don’t know if I could be brief enough with writing my feelings about it for this to be a daily project. It’s on my list of things to do, but I think I should give myself more flexibility with such an ambitious project.
2. Xena
   Pro – I haven’t watched this show in years, and I’ve never watched it critically, so it would be sort of new-again for me. I could easily do one episode a day, and if I take notes while I watch it, I could do a recap in an hour. Also, this is a show I could watch while my daughter is awake, so it could be a fun mother-daughter activity when she’s not at her dad’s.
   Con – I don’t think my partner likes the show that much, and I suspect that he would get bored with it if I didn’t.
3. Chapter-a-day book reviews
   Pro – I have a few books that I plan on reading this year that I know will be lighter fare than ASOIAF. Right now, I’m planning on reading the Hunger Games trilogy and the Lunar Chronicles as they come out (Cinder hits shelves tomorrow). I have a few other things in mind, too, but nothing else really specific.
   Con – This will have to wait a little while, as I don’t have the money right this moment to buy any new books and probably won’t until February. I don’t want to put off a project that long because I know how I am, and I suspect that sort of delay would mean I’d have to wait til next year before I feel this motivated again.
4. Some kind of art blog
   Pro – This is somewhat applicable to my profession. I work primarily with artists, and it’s reignited my interest in art, so it would be fun to do some sort of artist-of-the-day type blog. I could broaden my horizons and learn some stuff. I’m thinking I could do theme days or something, which would make planning and preparing for writing easier as well (i.e. Renaissance Thursdays, New Artist Sundays, or something).
   Con – This is somewhat applicable to my profession. I wouldn’t want this to in any way feel like an extension of my job, especially as my job is about to become a lot more time-consuming and stressful now that I’m permanent. While I love what I do, I would somewhat prefer that writing be a way for me to relax and wind down from work.

My question for my followers is just this: What do you think?

Do any of these sound like something you might be interested in reading if I wrote it? Am I right to think that a project would be a good way motivate myself and have a bit of direction in 2012? Is there some other great idea that I’m not thinking of?

I was laid off from a job in early January with the promise that I would be called back by the end of February. That never happened, and I spent a full 5 months being unemployed, struggling to keep the lights and phone turned on so I could look for work as I slipped further and further behind on everything.

Just when things were looking hopeless, only a few weeks before my unemployment would have run out, I got a call from the temp agency I had worked with in 2010. A publishing company needed a sales assistant. Was I up for it? Goodness, yes.

I didn’t think I was going to get the job when I walked out of the interview that day in late spring. I had no college degree; I had no experience in the industry; I had been out of work for months; I was a good 5 years older and a great deal shabbier in my 3-year-old suit than the girl who had the interview after me. I’m not young and naive enough to think that being smart and personable is enough to get my foot in the door.

So I was surprised when I got the call a couple days later telling me I had gotten the position. I had full-time employment through August at a company in an industry I would love to work in.

I loved it. I worked with people who were smart and interesting. I dealt with books all day every day. The salespeople I supported appreciated me and the work that I did. I was able to make a tiny bit of headway in getting caught up financially, which was imperative given that the nature of temp work is that, well, it’s temporary.

August was nerve-wracking. I still hadn’t found permanent employment, and the end of my temp contract was quickly approaching. Then, my boss told me about another temp position in the company, this time in ad sales. I jumped on it.

I struggle with anxiety and depression occasionally in the best of times, and I frankly don’t think I could have dealt with another bout of unemployment. I don’t even like to think of what would have happened if I hadn’t had this stroke of luck.

Things have still been hard, both financially and emotionally. There have been a few times that I haven’t been sure that I could keep going, and many times that I wasn’t sure I wanted to keep going. There’s good news, though!

My temp contract ended yesterday, but I’ve got an offer to stay on permanently in ad sales. I’ll be filling out paperwork on Tuesday, and I’m hoping to be settled in completely by the end of next week or so.

This is the first time in my adult life that I’ve ever been on what I would call a career trajectory. It’s the first time in over three years that I have been fully employed at a job that will comfortably support me and my family. It’s the first time in I don’t even know how long that I’ve been able to start a new year off with hope.

And I am hopeful. I’m grateful that 2011 is over, finally, and I’m more than ready to put it behind me. Mostly, though, I am hopeful for 2012, at least on a personal level.

Between dealing with crushing poverty and my often crippling depression, I’ve put off doing a lot of things that I want to do for far too long, and I plan for 2012 to be the year that I get back on track and get my shit together. In making my New Year’s resolutions, though, I’m trying to be realistic. Here’s what I’ve come up with:

• Write something every day, even if it’s just a line or two. My goal is one blog post per day, even if it’s just something short. If things go well, I’d like to give NaNoWriMo an honest try, too.
• Read 12 books that I’ve never read before. I’m taking suggestions for this one. I like 19th century English literature, high fantasy, hard sci-fi, science, economics, feminism, and politics, but the goal is to expand my horizons.
• Eat more vegetables. Seriously. I hate vegetables mostly, but I want to eat less meat and fewer carbohydrates. My goal, I think, is going to be one new vegetable dish per week as soon as I get caught up on all my bills and have the money to experiment.
• Walk for at least 30 minutes each day. This is another thing that will have to wait a little while, because I’ll have to get a decent pair of shoes when I have the money, but it’s on my list of things I need to do to live a bit healthier lifestyle. Working in offices the last couple of years coupled with depression and feelings-eating has caused me to be in pretty poor shape, and I want to change that.

I have no illusions that this is going to be a perfect year. I expect that I will continue to struggle with depression and anxiety. I’m worried about how my tendency to be a workaholic is going to affect my relationship and my family as I transition into this job. I’m probably not going to quit smoking, which is why I didn’t even put it on my list of resolutions this year–who am I kidding? I am concerned about the next year in politics and the upcoming elections. I’m not sure that my car is going to make it another year. And so on.

I survived 2011.

Here’s to surviving 2012, but with a bit more panache.