For July 4th: Atheism, women's rights, and a history of oppression.

Am I making a valid comparison? Is it reasonable to compare life as an atheist in America in 2011 to life as a woman in the early 20th century? Clearly there are significant differences. Atheists can vote. They can, in theory, hold public office. They can get married, sign contracts, work wherever they're qualified. So, do we atheists have a right to be angry in the same way suffragists had?

To answer that question, I'll recall some more history. In Mosaic law, as we all know, women were slightly better than slaves. They had no property rights. In Roman law, women were completely dependent on male relations for all legal matters, and when they were married, it was a matter of purchase between two families.

Here, we can ask a pointed question. Do women have the right to be angry that they're not making as much as men in the workplace? After all, they can vote, own property, divorce their husband, sue him for child support and alimony, and live quite happily on their own. This country is one of the best places in the world to be a woman! What right do women have to be angry?

If your skin prickled a little bit when you read the previous paragraph, good for you. You're halfway to understanding why atheists have a right to be mad. The reason women still have a right to be mad is that things are still not equal. They have no obligation to remain silent simply because they have it better than someone who lived a hundred, or a thousand years ago. The reason women have it better now is that people were angry all through history, and made small gains here and there over many generations. Without the fuel of anger, women would still be property, and wouldn't even have the opportunity to be mad about making less money in the workplace.

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/for-july-4th-atheism-women-s-rights-and-a-history-of-oppression-1#ixzz1RNk3DgUj

sometimes the "longness" of it was a rather relative thing, and in some circumstances the intolerant responses seemed to depend mostly on the "shortness" of the hair of the person objecting to the "longness" of ours

We sometimes felt very strongly that we were discriminated against because of our views -- and, in fact, that was often true: there were, then and for many years afterwards, businesses that would not serve hippies, bosses who would not hire hippies, and so on: moreover, in many places around the country, it could be an uncomfortable proposition to express certain "hippie" ideas. Screamed insults and thrown glass bottles were not uncommon

This was undeniably, I think, a form of prejudice -- but it took me a while to understand that such prejudice was not entirely equivalent to racism or sexism: the black person could not eliminate prejudice against himself or herself by getting a nice haircut and putting on a suit and tie, nor could the woman eliminate sexist attitudes towards her simply by keeping her political and social views to herself

Perceptions are curious things. Once, when I had a full beard and hair down to the middle of my back, I shaved and got a very short haircut for Halloween; I wore a suit and tie around all that day and went to my usual public hangouts and mingled with my usual crowd -- most of whom never recognized me unless I had repeatedly transgressed the acceptable boundaries for interaction with strangers. After a month or so, a number of people independently began to "compliment" me on my "improved attitude" -- I actually considered the whole thing a rather silly joke on them, since my "attitude" remained unchanged

America is a land of many prejudices. No guy with a full beard and hair down the middle of the back will be elected President anytime soon. Nor will anyone who says anything like "Although I'm not a Marxist, I think Marx might have made some very interesting and important observations about capitalism." One can, of course, be an offensive jerk and still get elected to public office -- but only when an offensive jerk in certain conventional ways, not in unconventional ways: gaming the system is, after all, a numbers game, in which one must not make too many enemies too quickly

Not that it's critical to the argument, but they (Roman women) were well off under Roman law compared to practically the entirety of the ancient world, and miles better off than in the eastern world.

Just sayin.