A few weeks ago I responded to a question on Reddit’s Ask Feminists board. The question was “How do we know when equality has been achieved, and feminism has accomplished its goals?”

One of the things I listed in my answer was “Rape would would be seen as an atrocity of the past like witch burning or slavery.” Two commenters took issue with this. They seemed to think I was proposing some kind of fascist state. I wasn’t. I was saying that in a feminist utopia, rape would not be commonplace. This could be due to several factors, but mainly I was thinking of better sexuality education and changes in cultural mores.

One commenter persisted.

It might be valid to say right now, the rights of the accused are given too much weight compared to the rights of the victim. But, if the goal is “no rapes” with no mention of the rights of the accused, the result may be problematic also. Some women will take advantage of any such system (very few, but not all sociopaths are male) and bring sympathy back to the accused. I guess what I’m trying to say is, if rape is eradicated at the cost of justice in the criminal court system (more innocents being convicted) that result is not an equilibrium that society will accept in the long run.
…
When feminist ethics says only one of those parties matters (the victim of rape, not the accused) then their analysis is incomplete.

Do you see how that works? In his mind, wanting to eradicate rape means wanting to get rid of the rights of the accused. I don’t see the connection, at all.

I responded

The point is that when feminists talk about rape, they are talking about rape. Not false reports of rape.

Talking about the rights of the accused, so as to prevent the punishment of an innocent individual is important. But it should not take the spotlight in discussions of rape.

Person A: Rape victims….

Person B: But what about the rights of the accused?

Person A: Rapists….

Person B: Don’t you mean alleged rapists?

This conversation goes nowhere. It’s as if feminists cannot address rapes that actually occur or talk about a hypothetical situation where a rape actually has occurred without always also addressing a parallel situation that was either just a big misunderstanding or where the woman was blatantly lying.

And yet he persisted.

The problem is, how do you distinguish between the two? Ultimately it comes down to a decision by some people with imperfect knowledge of what exactly occurred.

Do you see what he did there? I said that feminists need to be able to talk about rapes that occur. He insisted that we cannot, because even in hypothetical rapes of feminists own construction, they must consider that women are liars.

As frustrated as I was, I had a moment of clarity. I had always accepted arguments about “false accusations” in good faith. I thought that it was just simple misogyny that some people could not sympathize with a rape victim, but only with her attacker. Or possibly they are brought up by a person who was so repulsed by the idea of rape that they let themselves believe it was extremely rare as a way to comfort themselves.

But as the conversation above shows, it’s not just about those things. When someone enters a conversation about rape, and the only thing they want to talk about is the possibility that the victim is lying, they don’t want you to be talking about rape. They want to talk about how women are liars. Does any other conversation happen this way? When the Clean Water Act was proposed, did its opponents say that perhaps Federal Regulators, communities or private property owners would lie that their waterways were being polluted? (Hint: No.)

It’s no longer acceptable to suggest that rapists shouldn’t be punished or that their crimes aren’t a big deal. And so the conversation tactic of anti-feminists has shifted. Instead of denying that a rapist causes harm, deny that he exists at all in the first place.

Yesterday, Leah Libresco, a well-known blogger announced that she is converting from atheism to Catholicism. The reaction was immediate, chaotic and forceful. Catholics flocked to her comments section to offer congratulations and welcome her home. Atheists were largely confused, but also angry, saddened and sometimes cynical about the news. Some claimed to have seen this coming from a mile away – she had been studying Catholicism for a long time initially as part of a deal she made with her ex-boyfriend.

I have not been a regular reader of Leah’s blog, although I have read it on occasion. I’m a big fan of her ideological Turing test experiment – whereby atheists and Christians post both as themselves and as a person of the “opposite” viewpoint and others have to guess who is who.

I was shocked by the news, and especially by her reasoning. In addition to atheist-to-Catholic convert Jennifer Fulwiler, Leah is the second atheist I have heard of to convert to Catholicism in part because of the belief that an objective moral truth exists and is incompatible with atheism. This is a belief I also hold, but it keeps me more in the spectrum of militant agnostic – weak theist than it convinces me that Catholicism is true or right. How could someone with the same belief come to such a different conclusion?

Although I was raised a Catholic, I left the church for several reasons. Mainly that I did not believe their teachings on sexuality had any place in reality and that I feared my disagreement on this topic would lead to my excommunication. When I embraced Unitarian Universalism, I did so because I could with the knowledge that any disagreements I have would probably not lead to my departure and because their statement of principles is an expression of my deepest moral beliefs.

This question of values is what boggled me so about Leah’s conversion. She is openly bisexual and a passionate supporter of same sex marriage rights. I don’t understand how someone who fits that description could make the informed decision to convert to Catholicism.

Nonetheless, in the comments section of her blog I wished her well. Changing religions is difficult, as I have experienced in my own life, and my conversion was not as public as Leah’s. And while I feel the urge to defend her from the mean spirited comments some are leaving – that she is doing it for attention, that she’s unintelligent, I also find myself bursting with questions, accusatory ones that I don’t know how to ask.

Someone in the comments, Matthais777, wrote:

I just sort wanted to say that I’m very sorry to hear this… Now that you’ve accepted catholisim, i hope your ready to accept what that means. Especially since you’ve chosen Catholisim.

It means, By definition, you must reject the GLBTQ community, like myself.
It means, by definition, you must believe that i and my fellow non-believers are going to hell. Whether that means eternal seperation, or eternal torture, you still believe that our actions deserve that.
…
It means, by definition, you believe in the subjegation of women through denial of abortion services, birth control, and the right to hold postion of authority on spiritual matters.
And leagues more.

And I couldn’t help nodding along. I’m frustrated that Leah would support such a sexist and homophobic institution that covers up the rape of children. I want to repeat every point Greta Christina made in her post “Why are you still Catholic?” But I feel oddly guilty demanding answers from this new convert. What about her free and responsible search for truth and meaning? It seems obvious to me that Catholicism is not a responsible choice, though I can’t help feeling arrogant in making that accusation.

In choosing to blog publicly about this to answer some questions and respond to comments, she’s opening up her decision for discussion. And there is so much to say.

I seconded the question someone else asked in the comments – “Why Catholicism and not some kind of virtue ethic deism?” And Leah responded:

The very short answer as to why not Deism is that it seems too hands off for the way Goodness would treat us, especially when we so badly need its help. The why Catholicism is mostly based in the fact that, while I’ve been fighting with Catholics for the last two years, they had a lot of times where they or the books they recommended exposed a major error I was making and helped me live better when I changed my philosophy or behavior on smaller scale things than this.

And the first thing I thought was, This totally ignores the problem of evil! My mind ping ponged back and forth between the various Catholic apologetics I am familiar with and my current lapsed beliefs.

It’s not just well known bloggers in the midst of a crisis of faith that I’m considering while writing this post. I often wonder how much I should talk up Unitarian Universalism to people who are considering changing their religion. I read today on a UUA blog that,

The average Unitarian Universalist only invites a person to church once every 26 years.

We have a long way to go before we gain a reputation for being pushy and evangelizing. But like most UUs, I have no desire to be anywhere near that line. Yet we are also frequently hearing from our leaders that as more Americans grow disenchanted with traditional organized religions, we are being presented with the opportunity to share our faith and gain new members in a way we have not before. Could Leah Libresco have become a Unitarian Universalist? Probably not – for various reasons she has been pursing Catholicism for a long time. But there are others out there who would benefit from our message. We have made the choice to become UUs, there are likely others who would given the chance.

Like everyone else, I’m going to wait and see what Leah posts over the next few days. I look forward to the conversation that follows.

*The tagline of Leah’s blog has been alternately “A geeky atheist picks a fight with her Catholic boyfriend” “A geeky atheist picks a fight in good faith” and is now “A geeky convert picks fights in good faith.” She has stated, “It’s much more important to respect people than beliefs, and picking a fight is respect — it means you care about someone and want to lead them out of error.”

When I was at Netroots Nation, I got to experience what’s known in some circles as “the liberal white dude.” He is generally well meaning but also totally unaware of his privilege.

I got to see one of these “liberal white dudes” have a complete fail on race during a panel I attended. The panel was called, “Salsa, Cumbia and Merengue: Connecting to the Different Beats of the Latino Electorate,” and focused of various initiatives designed to increase voter registration and turnout among Latinos. The secondary point of the panel, as made evident by the clever title, is that Latinos are not all the same. A speaker on the panel explained that Latinos are more progressive on many issues than Americans as a whole, and the idea that they are conservative simply because of religion is untrue.

However, the first person to ask a question didn’t seem to have been listening. He appeared to be white. He said that he was working for a progressive Democrat running for office in a majority Black and Latino district and he wanted to know how “you people” think he can get “them” to vote when “their churches and priests” tell them that Democrats are bad and they have to vote Republican. Now, I can accept that this is possible, but this is not the type of question the panelists were looking to answer – they were presenting about their specific community outreach programs, not partisan political strategies. Secondly he took a long time to get to his point, when the panel was already running late (and they specifically asked for short questions). Third, his manner and tone were so demanding, it was very odd – as if he really thought that the panelists knew “THE ANSWER TO GETTING HISPANIC CATHOLICS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT” but they were just withholding the information enigmatically. The moderator told him they could speak after the panel about his specific question.

An audience member tweeted:

To frustrated Texas organizer: If u r going 2 reach “Hispanics”, stop referring to them as “those people”. @anaperiodista @eddymorales #NN12

— Elisa Batista (@ElisaBatista) June 8, 2012

Definitely step one for how not to be a whitesplainer.

I don’t know if this man ever figured out why he was coming off as patronizing and rude. Or what the panelists told him afterwards, as I left to attend the next event.

But what I can say to you, dear reader, is don’t be that guy.

Don’t sit through an hour long presentation about differences in various parts of the Latino community and then ask a question that assumes all Latinos are the same.

Don’t be patronizing – especially to groups you are not a member of and don’t treat their culture as a puzzle to be solved.

Don’t demand one person (or even a small panel) of people be able to speak for their entire ethnicity.

Don’t make assumptions about another culture and presume you know exactly why someone behaves differently than you would like them to.

Don’t otherize people just because they have a different ethnicity or religion than you.

Don’t define someone else’s reality for them.

Here’s some questions I think he could have asked:

-Do you have any information about the impact of church attendance on voting among Latinos?

-In your experience, what kinds of outreach work best in a community with a large Catholic/Pentocostal Latino population?

-Have you had success working with churches to increase voter registration and turnout?

There’s probably still a way to ask the above questions and sound racist. But they’re more carefully phrased, and more suited to the length of answer a person can give during a 75 minute panel. They also don’t require a long and patronizing back story.

There’s an almost unlimited number of ways to be racist, and I doubt I could list them all – thus the fact that this post is not a comprehensive guide.

During the keynote the next day, Nicole Austin-Hillery, Director and Counsel of The Brennan Center and Jakada Imani, Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center said that white people and white liberals have to get more comfortable discussing race and racism. I believe that is true. We might make mistakes, but if we don’t try at all it will be much more difficult to overcome. Talking about race is uncomfortable for many white people – there’s fear of saying the wrong thing and being perceived as racist, discomfort with or denial of actual racist thoughts or feelings, and sometimes guilt about what atrocities other white people have committed. But by refusing to talk, we are making the problem worse.

…And if you try and fail like the frustrated organizer from Texas, Do apologize, Do listen to people who are explaining what you did wrong, Do ask questions if you need to, and Do try not to make the same mistake again. Don’t disengage.

While in Providence, we had a chance to visit Trinity Brewhouse. Both times we ate there, the place was packed with convention goers, so I don’t know what the atmosphere is like on a typical night in Providence, but I did have a good time. Their seafood bisque is divine, and I mean that even by New England standards! We also enjoyed their french fries and sandwiches on homemade focaccia bread. The service was good and we appreciated that there was a lot of outdoor seating. Indoors, you could see the actual brewery, albeit behind a glass covered in bumper stickers:

Their beer list is simple, but has something for everyone.

I had the Hefeweizen (beer on the right in the above picture) which was a phenomenal pint of banana bread heaven, and the Saison, which was also very good and a nice compliment to my meal. Adam had the Kolsch (beer on the left, above), and Sir Perrys Pear Cider which he enjoyed as well.

If I am ever in Providence again I will definitely be heading back to Trinity Brewhouse, to check out the basement bar, try the Russian Imperial Stout I just did not have the time to savor, and to chat with the locals. Check it out if you are ever in town!

When I was at Netroots Nation, I had the chance to attend a screening of the documentary “The Purity Myth” featuring Jessica Valenti. I had read the book it is based on, which is in my opinion her best work so far, so I was excited to see the film.

The movie is short, about 45 minutes, and features Valenti explaining her thesis – that The Purity Myth is our cultural myth that a woman’s worth is based on her sexual behavior and not on her character or accomplishments – interspersed with short clips giving examples from popular culture, politicians, religious leaders and educators. The film draws heavily from the BBC Documentary, “The Virgin Daughters” about the Purity Ball movement in America.

What I liked about this documentary is that it is more open about the link between the moral panic around young women’s sexuality and religion than other panels I had attended. I was suprised that some of the people in the audience laughed while watching John Hagee rant about the “blood covenant” between a man and his virgin wife. It’s absurd, but I felt outrage, and sadness for the millions of women who approach their weddings in a state of panic instead of joy because they could potentially suffer harsh consequences if their vaginas do not bleed on their wedding night. Even in the United States, this is still a point of pride for some men.

The movie also featured a short vignette of adult women in wedding dresses, which were fairly revealing. Someone in the audience asked if they were supposed to be that sexy, and Jessica Valenti said that she was puzzled by them also and did not choose that clip. I think the film maker made a good choice here. This shows the paradox of the “sexy virgin.” Valenti explains in her book and during the film that by spending so much time and energy focusing on the virginity of young girls, we are in reality sexualizing them. I thought of the mania surrounding American weddings and that there are entire television shows about not only wedding planning in general, but just about wedding dresses specifically. The pressures put on brides to look beautiful but not too sexy are intense, and reminded me of this paradox.

The Purity Myth is a powerful idea against an oppressive cultural narrative. Valenti makes the case against it and in doing so, also against similar myths – that women are only good for sex, or for having babies. I think this film is an excellent tool for generating discussion, and for an insight into how sexist cultural messages are harming young women.

This year was my first Netroots Nation. For those of you who couldn’t make it, or who, like me, were unable to be in multiple locations at once, many of the panels were recorded and are available to watch for free online at NetrootsNation.org.

My favorite moments included:

Getting to see Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. He spoke at the opening keynote and during a panel about Citizens United.

Jasiri X performance:

Trayvon

Jordan Miles

I attended a training from the Analyst Institute called, “Randomized Controlled Experiment Results To Win Your Campaign: What We Know Works – Getting Closer To Your Goal With Proven Tactics.” It was a really fascinating look at the science of voting behavior, and my biggest takeaway was that no one should hesitate to conduct small experiments within their own campaign as it’s going on. For example, try several differently worded emails, and see which one brings in more donations or volunteers.

Frustrated with Eric Schneiderman’s slowness to act, The Progressive Change Campaign Committee distributed these placards before his speech at the opening keynote:


When he took the stage, a woman yelled, “INVESTIGATE THE BANKSTERS!” He paused and said, “Thank you. I’m getting to them.” He handled a very mixed reaction with grace, and even said “Thank you for pushing me.”

Cecile Richards speech celebrating Planned Parenthood’s victories this year.

Darcy Burner’s speech, even if it depressed the heck out of Adam, and the rest of her panel about the War on Women featuring Mazie Hirono and Elizabeth Warren.

The story of how Netroots Nation came to Providence this year. The conference had been scheduled to be there last year, but was moved in support of union workers fighting for a contract.

The Center for Reproductive Rights party on Friday night was an amazing success! Amanda Marcotte and Marc Faletti DJed as lots and lots of people danced the night away at the basement of The Salon.

The Daily Kos 10th Anniversary Party on Saturday night at Whiskey Republic was also a great party, featuring a performance from the What Cheer band.

Netroots Nation Link Roundup – Below are organizations I became aware of or learned more about during the conference:

Advocates for Youth – “champions efforts that help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health.”

350.org – “a global, grassroots effort to solve the climate crisis.”

Ella Baker Center For Human Rights – “The Ella Baker Center is named for an unsung hero of the civil rights movement who inspired and guided emerging leaders. We build on her legacy by giving people opportunities and skills to work together to strengthen our communities so that all of us can thrive.”

CREDO PAC – “The CREDO SuperPAC is launching the Take Down the Tea Party Ten campaign to hold the worst congressional extremists accountable for their radical attacks on women, science and equality. We’ll engage millions of activists to power a unique, effective and unabashedly progressive field campaign, with staff, offices and volunteers in all 10 districts — and deal a knockout blow to tea party extremism in Congress.”

Mom’s Rising – “MomsRising takes on the most critical issues facing women, mothers, and families, by mobilizing massive grassroots actions.”

Much has been written about the lack of enthusiasm displayed at the conference, and how this portends badly for President Obama. It’s true that liberals are frustrated with the President and that we have been for a while. However, I saw plenty of exuberance from Netroots Nation – for labor, for feminism, for civil rights and social justice. I think that the same enthusiasm that elected Barack Obama in the first place is still available. It’s just going to require a little more than a “Hey guys…. I’m over here…” video address.

There was so much going on that I’m going to be blogging more about the convention with additional posts. Upcoming topics including a review of a film I saw, the beer scene in Providence, my previously promised post on race, several Letter Writing Sundays!

Recently, Ellen hosted Rainer and Atticus – two charming red-headed children who know a lot about the Presidents of the United States. (Disclosure: In real life, I am acquainted with Rainer, Atticus, and their parents.) Apparently their age and their cuteness do not shield them or their mother from attack by the right wing media.

During the clip, Ellen asked Rainer what was happening this year. He said he thought that Barack Obama should win reelection because,

“Barack Obama said that men and men can marry each other and woman and woman can marry each other and I think that’s right.”

You can watch the whole thing here:

Newsbusters, a conservative website touting itself as, “the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias” published a post in response to the clip. I don’t see why this was necessary. Young Rainer was simply stating his opinion; “I think that’s right” – even at the age of six he knows not to phrase an opinion as a fact.

What’s more disturbing is the way the post attacked the boys,

Rainer and Atticus are liberally raised by their literary parents Matt Pasca and Terri Muuss. (The little fact they use their mother’s surname signals the feminism.) Muuss is a survivor of incest and travels with her own stage show called “Anatomy of a Doll.”

Let’s count the layers of this attack:

1. There is something wrong with having parents who teach children their own, liberal values.
2. There is something suspect about a woman keeping her name when she gets married, or naming her children after herself instead of her husband.
3. There is something wrong with being a feminist.
4. If a woman is open about being an incest survivor, she is an unfit parent.

I contacted Tim Graham, the author of the post on Twitter, wondering how someone mean-spirited enough to write a shallow hit-piece on small children would respond.

Elizabeth: “Nyah-nyah your mommy’s a feminist!” You dont have to respond to children as if you were one yourself.

Tim: I’m merely stating that Ellen put on cute little kids who just happened to tout Obama and gay marriage. My, what an accident.

Elizabeth: I doubt families opposing Obama or same sex marriage are beating down the door to have their children on Ellen.

Then it got weird.

Tim: As if they had the chance?

As if they had the chance? What family who opposes same sex marriage would want their children to appear on television with a lesbian? Conservatives frequently attack any positive portrayal of GLBT people in the media. Why would they want to expose their children to people they think are depraved and evil? Is there some kind of conservative group I haven’t heard of – the Million Moms Who Want Their Kids On Ellen?

Elizabeth: All people teach their children values, be they liberal or conservative.

Tim: Yes, I acknowledge my kids would have been cute little Catholics at that age. I haven’t really drummed my politics at them.

This is ignorant at best, but I think it’s plain intellectual dishonesty. Catholicism is a religion first and foremost, but the teachings of Christ, especially as explained by the Catholic Church are deeply political – even at the level a child could understand them. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard a conservative tell a story about how they explained to children why they shouldn’t give money to homeless people. I was a small Catholic when I was Rainer’s age, and I wanted to help poor people – because of what my family, my Sunday School teacher and the priests at church had told me about Jesus!

Chatting with Tim on Twitter was illuminating in that it revealed two additional assumptions – firstly that Ellen was somehow “biased” in choosing Rainer and Atticus to appear on her show. Ellen’s website asks anyone to submit a show idea or to make their case as to why they should be a guest. But Ellen is in no way obligated to include homophobes on her show. The idea that this is necessary for “balance” is ridiculous and hurtful.

Secondly, Tim draws a distinction between values and politics. A family’s religion might be a part of their values, but somehow their politics cannot be. Politics and policy are the way we transform our values into reality – be they power, liberty, charity, lower taxes, freedom of speech, or anything else.

As the public increasingly supports same sex marriage, conservatives have the choice to accept this, or to be left behind. Their exaggerated reaction to a child who believes differently than they do reveals the weakness of their argument.

Just wanted to share this link right now, I have a lot more to say about Netroots Nation and race, even as it pertains to Elizabeth Warren. But I’m glad the reporter got the gist of what I said, even though I wish she would have done some research to confirm what I was referring to about Native Americans.

Elizabeth Warren to ‘Romney-Brown Republicans’: ‘We don’t run this country for corporations’

One of the things both of the panels I have been to this morning Have made me think about is the ubiquity of religion in American politics.

The first panel was called “Inside the Activists Studio: What to do when the right comes after you” and featured people from AFSCME, Planned Parenthood, and Jewish Voice for Peace. I found myself surprised that unions were currently under as great an attack as people who advocate for Peace between Israel and Palestine – rather than always thinking Israel is right, and reproductive justice. It quickly dawned on me that unions have been demonized in the United States almost as long as they have existed. Why was I surprised then to see them lumped in with Planned Parenthood and Middle East Issues? The common thread between opposition to reproductive justice and conflict in the Middle East is that they are both fueled by religious fervor. There is no religious justification, as far as I can tell to oppose worker’s rights.

The second panel was sponsored by Advocates for Youth and was called, “Paying the Price, Leading the Fight: Youth and the Politics of Reproductive Rights.” Panelist Debra Hauser stressed that we live in a sex negative culture. But when the panelists were asked why they think this is so, not one person named religion as the reason. A representative from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State spoke up, and the conversation shifted to the “Our Whole Lives” Curriculum and how some members of the religious left support the sexual health rights and education of young people. While as a Unitarian Universalist I am proud of OWL, I find it ironic to suggest that religion is the solution to the problem that it largely created.

Just my thoughts for now, there’s a lot more to unpack here.

I am so excited to be at my first Netroots Nation! Adam and I will be here all weekend. Follow me on Twitter @MissCherryPi, check out the happenings on #NN12, or watch video feed from NetrootsNation.org Send me a tweet if you want to meet up!