I should have stopped reading there. If you think this issue is significant, you're crazier than the average suicide bomber.
But they've already BEEN making the decision to let nuts where things on their heads in official ID photos. Just not all nuts. That's a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.
No, it's not. Religion, as you know, is specifically protected by the first amendment. Your desire to wear a silly hat is not afforded the same protection as a hat worn for religious purposes. The exceptions to the no-hat in your photo ID rules exist specifically to keep the government out of the religion business. This is a first amendment issue, with the relevant part being "or prevent the free exercise thereof". Exemptions must necessarily be made to accommodate religious beliefs.
If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment to remove the protections afforded to religion. Wearing a colander on your head isn't going to get you anywhere. It's not even going to make anyone think that "religion is silly" or even that "religious protections are silly." The only message it sends is "atheists are silly".
You're obsessing about one rhetorical device and deliberately covering your ears whenever anyone talks about what's actually at stake.
What, exactly, is at stake? These protections have existed since the nation was founded. Whatever imaginary harm you think this has caused is minimal compared to the damage should those protections be removed, and the government was free to involve itself in the business of religion.
No, I do not imply such. I imply that is what the SJW's, such as feminists, want.
You're deeply confused. Try reading that section again.
No, they don't face artificial barriers not faced by men.
Nonsense.
They once did, but they haven't for well over a decade
At least you acknowledge those barriers exist! Now, what do you think changed? How were those barriers universally lifted in the last decade? As far as anyone else can tell, things are the same as they were in 2005.
You are just incapable of seeing through the veil that has been pulled over your eyes
Lol! It's a conspiracy, man! They've been, like, lying to you about everything. The truth is out there!
Think, for just a few moments, about why your argument isn't convincing to anyone. It's better if you figure this out for yourself.
give me your safe, high paying job that you worked hard to get
You imply here that women don't work hard to get those safe, high-paying, jobs and that they're forcing men in to dangerous low-paying jobs. This tells me a couple things: First, you don't think women are as capable or hard-working as men. Second, you're afraid that you can't compete in a job market that doesn't marginalize women.
The facts are that women face artificial barriers not faced by men, meaning they need to work harder than men to reach those safe, high-paying, positions. Attitudes like yours, such as believing women to be less capable, contribute to those barriers. The glass-ceiling is so named because it's an invisible barrier, imposed by regressive attitudes, not written rules, that keep women from reaching the same heights.
Let's try an example: We have two candidates for promotion, Alice and Bob. Alice is the obvious choice, having both seniority and better numbers than Bob. Bob's no slouch, being a hard-worker with decent numbers. Alice and Bob both have families. People wonder why Alice even wants the promotion as she has kids at home. At the same time, they hope Bob gets the promotion as he's a good family man who could use the pay raise. These regressive attitudes regarding traditional gender roles give Bob an edge over Alice -- even without the blatant misogynistic attitudes you express.
For all of humanity, which would benefit greatly from a reduction in magical thinking and especially in government endorsement of magical thinking.
And you believe you can accomplish this goal by wearing a colander on your head in your drivers license photo?
The FSM letter challenged the state government to either embrace the FSM as another "legitimate" perspective or explain why the more popular mainstream religious mythology WAS "legitimate" while the FSM was not.
You mean annoying a few folks at the DMV and, in your best case, wasting tax dollars and the limited resources of our courts. Rest assured, it was not the glorious victory you believe it to be but more along the lines of "we don't want to deal with this, let the nut wear their hat".
Luckily for atheists, they don't have to "be associated" with other atheists.
Well, that's where you're wrong. Like it or not, as a member of a group, you'll be judged by the actions of other members of that group. Don't like it? Neither do Muslims, who have suffered no end of harassment and discrimination post 9/11. Ask any Christan how they feel about the idots complaining about red cups at Starbucks. I'll bet a nickle that you didn't think about the complaintants in individual terms, just a few select nuts, but as Christians in general. A few morons made them all look foolish.
Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
That's no different than any other religion. No central authority, singular group, or means by which to communicate directly with most adherants. Even the Moroms, small and young as they are, have multiple groups that don't answer to the same central authority. There are groups and people influential across multiple groups, naturally, but, again, the same is true for atheism. There are media personalities that speak on behalf of atheists, just like there are media personalities that speak on behalf of Christians. There are even organized atheists groups, just like there are organized groups for virtually every religion. There are even atheist churches.
You may not like it, but that's reality.
So all morons here are only making themselves look like morons.
That's just delusional. Particularly in this case as the Pastafarians appear to be exactly what you think doesn't exist: an organized atheist group with a central authority. It could be argued that is just that, offering ordinations, handing down edicts, and providing a way for followers to interact -- even organized in-person meetings.
As an atheist, these people make you look foolish. There's simply no way around that. You can deny it, as you've been doing, or stand-up and face reality.
The point of parody is to act exactly like the object of the parody, minus the context, thereby displaying the stupidity of the object of the parody.
You don't seem to realize that it has failed to convey that message.
FSM appears to have worked beautifully as a parody of a belief in an invisible all-powerful sky-friend who has no power.
Nonsense. All it's done is to give a few attention-starved people a few minutes of fame and to make atheists, not theists, look foolish. It has had the exact opposite of it's intended effect. By any measure, it's an abject failure.
Where to begin? The question I have here is what you believe they're taking to an absurd conclusion? I'm not convinced you know. There's also the implication here that what other groups are doing is necessarily less absurd than wearing colanders in their ID photos. Is that intentional or did you simply not think this all the way through?
Moving on, if there is some message here, it's certainly not being communicated to the audience they're intending to reach. (I say "if" as it look a lot more like a cry for attention than a serious attempt to do... whatever it is they're trying to accomplish.) The obvious end result being that they make atheists look foolish, rather than the religious. It's counter to their goals.
Actively working against your own interests is just as ridiculous as going around wearing cookware on your head. They're doing both in tandem.
I seriously doubt any religious person is offended by this, or the many other, lunatics wearing colanders on their heads in their photo ID's. If anyone should be offended, it's atheists as these folks make them look so damn foolish.
Christians don't want to be associated with the WBC, nor Muslims with ISIS. They know that those crackpots make them all look bad. Why any atheist would want to be associated with these people is beyond me. Why the American Humanist Association stepped in and helped to make atheists look like morons is completely inexplicable.
No, no. Your "equipment" was "bottled rationality". The implication being that atheists are necessarily rational; should any such equipment exist, bottled rationality would be standard issue. The absurdity being that we're clearly dealing with an irrational atheist, which undermines your implication.
Though the implication is absurd on it's face. Atheists are, I shouldn't need to point out, no more or less rational than theists. It's simply a delusion held by a minority of atheists. The one's who "live in some warped fantasy land where reality never enters." You'll find no shortage of those irrational or laughably delusional atheists at the forefront of modern atheism, just as you find no shortage among popular/media savvy religious figures. This is simply reality.
It's true that he has no right to not be offended. He's also free to express his discontent when he's offended.
Equally, you are free to say and do offensive, inconsiderate, or just plain mean things. You're under no obligation to do so, however. The choice is yours.
For whose benefit is this being done? Who is intended to receive that message? What makes you think it was effective?
to point out another area of nonsense, separate from the intelligent design masterstroke with which it all started.
The whole FSM thing was absurd from the start. The argument from the ID crowd wasn't "I believe this, so it should be taught", as Bobby Henderson seems to believe. It was "there is some legitimate scientific controversy, so it should be taught". That's wrong, but not in any way addressed by the FSM letter that started this nonsense.
To call this a "masterstroke" is the height of absurdity. It is obviously completely unrelated to the claim it was intended to parody. You'd think that self-described rationalists wouldn't immediately abandon reason the instant something comes along that appears to support one of their positions!
All the FSM thing did was highlight how irrational atheists and self-described skeptics and rationalists can be. This "masterstroke" completely undermines their image and their efforts. It does the exact opposite of what it was intended to achieve.
War is rarely about religion. It's usually about money, power, etc. and only later justified by religion. I can't even think of a solid example of a war primarily motivated by religion.
In the case of Stalin and Mao, there was a strong cult of personality which is functionally identical to religion.
You can label anything religion if you try hard enough. It gets a bit less convincing as you go along.
Do you really think ISIS is primarily motivated by religion? That would be a pretty hard sell, given the other, far more likely, factors.
If there's some booing/whistling/hissing there's a small chance they'll listen and stop.
Don't be ridiculous. They want just one thing: page views.
Do you know why they post stories like this so frequently? Because it gets people to click, comment, and check back for replies. Stories like this keep eyeballs on the site. The more you boo/whistle/hiss the happier the overlord's become. They made the right decision. "Look at how many people commented! Look at that bump in page views! Our advertisers will be pleased!"
Personally I now steer clear of women coworkers. The risk of triggering a feminist is just too big.
Interacting with women in the workplace is pretty easy. All you need to do to is behave like a professional and treat them like human beings. It's that simple. No special treatment or changes in behavior should be required.
Or does that require a change in your behavior? Do you find that need distasteful? The fact remains: if you're not acting like a professional, you're a problem for all of your coworkers and your employer.
. How about men in nursing? There aren't any significant barriers keeping men out of nursing.
But there are, as you point out:
In this case, the answer seems mostly to do with expectations about gender roles for caregiving.
Which is why we have things like
organizations devoted to increasing the number of men in nursing.
So why aren't there more unemployed or underemployed men training and taking these positions??
In this case, the answer seems mostly to do with expectations about gender roles for caregiving.
Adding:
There's the weird gender role thing that still seems to assume a man in a hospital must be a doctor, while a woman is likely a nurse -- which carries all sorts of bad stereotypes about qualifications, knowledge, etc. between the sexes.
Why does this nonsense persist?
(These sorts of things regarding nurses also get reinforced in popular culture all the time, where just about any portrayal of male nurses in movies or in television is used for comedy or ridiculousness.)
Everyone seems okay with this, but when you apply the exact same reasoning to women in tech... ugh...
It takes a special kind of person to see celebrating greater diversity as celebrating the decline of another group.
I don't understand it myself. What's wrong with increasing diversity? Is it that you feel threatened because you think you can't compete in the job market? Are you afraid of interacting women and minorities? You strongly imply that white males are being attacked or otherwise oppressed and that some unnamed other takes pleasure in causing that harm.
Do you remember that "pac-man" pie chart of religious affiliation in the US? The one where the largest piece is saying "help, we're being oppressed!"? Your comment reminds me of that.
It's really easy to be a Christian in the US. You're in the majority. There are even social benefits that come simply from self-identifying with that majority. Though, as many atheists know, there are also social consequences for those on the outside. The larger group benefits from something called "privilege".
I couched that in religious terms for your benefit. It's easy to see that Christians in the US are not, in fact, being oppressed and that they enjoy numerous social benefits. It's also easy to see why atheists often need to hide their beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict. It should be simple to understand (and acknowledge) the concept of privilege in this context. That should bring us a step closer to understanding the privilege that straight white males enjoy. (If you're still having trouble, add additional characteristics like 'tall' and 'attractive'. Don't those guys surely have it easier that you? Why do you think that's the case?)
That brings us back to your post. Do you think that by elevating atheists we necessarily hurt the religious? Shouldn't they be just as free to express their views and Christians, without fear of social repercussions? Don't they deserve equal treatment and opportunity?
Are those atheist groups interested in oppressing Jews, Hindus, and other religious groups? Obviously not. For the most part, they just want a "safe space" where they can meet with others who share the same beliefs without facing the nasty social consequences they would otherwise. They want society as a whole to stop discriminating against them, and thus do community outreach. Inexplicably, some Christian groups see this as an assault. Doesn't that seem foolish? They're not under attack just because another groups doesn't want to suffer discrimination at their hands!
They shouldn't need to hide their atheism any more than a girl should need to hide her gender playing an online game as folks like you insist they should. They should be afforded safe spaces where they can focus on learning without the continual sexual comments, pick-ups, and challenges to the authenticity of their interest in the subject they face in a typical male-dominated classroom. Adding opportunities for others doesn't reduce your own opportunities any more than opening up an atheist club diminishes Christian churches.
In this case, it's even simpler than that. These aren't "for girls" boot camps. Women just feel more comfortable in these environments and thus are more likely to participate. This is reflected in the enrollment statistics. Yet, just because they're not behaving like you believe they should (by staying out of tech) you see this as an assault on white males. That is, the majority group. The Christians of the industry, if you will.
You're not being oppressed. No one is out to get you. You're terrified by a monster under your bed. It's time shine a flashlight under there and face reality. There's nothing there. It's all in your imagination.
Except when you have years gaming online that counts as research, if someone has played multiplayer games for years, that would be the equivalent of research fron a statistical standpoint (aka enough datapoints to draw a valid conclusion).
Slashdot Mirror
The issue of photo IDs is a very significant one,
I should have stopped reading there. If you think this issue is significant, you're crazier than the average suicide bomber.
But they've already BEEN making the decision to let nuts where things on their heads in official ID photos. Just not all nuts. That's a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.
No, it's not. Religion, as you know, is specifically protected by the first amendment. Your desire to wear a silly hat is not afforded the same protection as a hat worn for religious purposes. The exceptions to the no-hat in your photo ID rules exist specifically to keep the government out of the religion business. This is a first amendment issue, with the relevant part being "or prevent the free exercise thereof". Exemptions must necessarily be made to accommodate religious beliefs.
If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment to remove the protections afforded to religion. Wearing a colander on your head isn't going to get you anywhere. It's not even going to make anyone think that "religion is silly" or even that "religious protections are silly." The only message it sends is "atheists are silly".
You're obsessing about one rhetorical device and deliberately covering your ears whenever anyone talks about what's actually at stake.
What, exactly, is at stake? These protections have existed since the nation was founded. Whatever imaginary harm you think this has caused is minimal compared to the damage should those protections be removed, and the government was free to involve itself in the business of religion.
No, I do not imply such. I imply that is what the SJW's, such as feminists, want.
You're deeply confused. Try reading that section again.
No, they don't face artificial barriers not faced by men.
Nonsense.
They once did, but they haven't for well over a decade
At least you acknowledge those barriers exist! Now, what do you think changed? How were those barriers universally lifted in the last decade? As far as anyone else can tell, things are the same as they were in 2005.
You are just incapable of seeing through the veil that has been pulled over your eyes
Lol! It's a conspiracy, man! They've been, like, lying to you about everything. The truth is out there!
Do you hear yourself?
Maybe the DHKP-C?
Think, for just a few moments, about why your argument isn't convincing to anyone. It's better if you figure this out for yourself.
give me your safe, high paying job that you worked hard to get
You imply here that women don't work hard to get those safe, high-paying, jobs and that they're forcing men in to dangerous low-paying jobs. This tells me a couple things: First, you don't think women are as capable or hard-working as men. Second, you're afraid that you can't compete in a job market that doesn't marginalize women.
The facts are that women face artificial barriers not faced by men, meaning they need to work harder than men to reach those safe, high-paying, positions. Attitudes like yours, such as believing women to be less capable, contribute to those barriers. The glass-ceiling is so named because it's an invisible barrier, imposed by regressive attitudes, not written rules, that keep women from reaching the same heights.
Let's try an example: We have two candidates for promotion, Alice and Bob. Alice is the obvious choice, having both seniority and better numbers than Bob. Bob's no slouch, being a hard-worker with decent numbers. Alice and Bob both have families. People wonder why Alice even wants the promotion as she has kids at home. At the same time, they hope Bob gets the promotion as he's a good family man who could use the pay raise. These regressive attitudes regarding traditional gender roles give Bob an edge over Alice -- even without the blatant misogynistic attitudes you express.
This isn't complicated.
For all of humanity, which would benefit greatly from a reduction in magical thinking and especially in government endorsement of magical thinking.
And you believe you can accomplish this goal by wearing a colander on your head in your drivers license photo?
The FSM letter challenged the state government to either embrace the FSM as another "legitimate" perspective or explain why the more popular mainstream religious mythology WAS "legitimate" while the FSM was not.
You mean annoying a few folks at the DMV and, in your best case, wasting tax dollars and the limited resources of our courts. Rest assured, it was not the glorious victory you believe it to be but more along the lines of "we don't want to deal with this, let the nut wear their hat".
Talk about delusion and magical thinking...
Luckily for atheists, they don't have to "be associated" with other atheists.
Well, that's where you're wrong. Like it or not, as a member of a group, you'll be judged by the actions of other members of that group. Don't like it? Neither do Muslims, who have suffered no end of harassment and discrimination post 9/11. Ask any Christan how they feel about the idots complaining about red cups at Starbucks. I'll bet a nickle that you didn't think about the complaintants in individual terms, just a few select nuts, but as Christians in general. A few morons made them all look foolish.
Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
That's no different than any other religion. No central authority, singular group, or means by which to communicate directly with most adherants. Even the Moroms, small and young as they are, have multiple groups that don't answer to the same central authority. There are groups and people influential across multiple groups, naturally, but, again, the same is true for atheism. There are media personalities that speak on behalf of atheists, just like there are media personalities that speak on behalf of Christians. There are even organized atheists groups, just like there are organized groups for virtually every religion. There are even atheist churches.
You may not like it, but that's reality.
So all morons here are only making themselves look like morons.
That's just delusional. Particularly in this case as the Pastafarians appear to be exactly what you think doesn't exist: an organized atheist group with a central authority. It could be argued that is just that, offering ordinations, handing down edicts, and providing a way for followers to interact -- even organized in-person meetings.
As an atheist, these people make you look foolish. There's simply no way around that. You can deny it, as you've been doing, or stand-up and face reality.
The point of parody is to act exactly like the object of the parody, minus the context, thereby displaying the stupidity of the object of the parody.
You don't seem to realize that it has failed to convey that message.
FSM appears to have worked beautifully as a parody of a belief in an invisible all-powerful sky-friend who has no power.
Nonsense. All it's done is to give a few attention-starved people a few minutes of fame and to make atheists, not theists, look foolish. It has had the exact opposite of it's intended effect. By any measure, it's an abject failure.
Where to begin? The question I have here is what you believe they're taking to an absurd conclusion? I'm not convinced you know. There's also the implication here that what other groups are doing is necessarily less absurd than wearing colanders in their ID photos. Is that intentional or did you simply not think this all the way through?
Moving on, if there is some message here, it's certainly not being communicated to the audience they're intending to reach. (I say "if" as it look a lot more like a cry for attention than a serious attempt to do ... whatever it is they're trying to accomplish.) The obvious end result being that they make atheists look foolish, rather than the religious. It's counter to their goals.
Actively working against your own interests is just as ridiculous as going around wearing cookware on your head. They're doing both in tandem.
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people.
What frightens me is that you actually believe this is the message that wearing a colander on your head in a photo ID sends to others.
I seriously doubt any religious person is offended by this, or the many other, lunatics wearing colanders on their heads in their photo ID's. If anyone should be offended, it's atheists as these folks make them look so damn foolish.
Christians don't want to be associated with the WBC, nor Muslims with ISIS. They know that those crackpots make them all look bad. Why any atheist would want to be associated with these people is beyond me. Why the American Humanist Association stepped in and helped to make atheists look like morons is completely inexplicable.
The FSM is used to fight against stupid allowances that government make in the name of religion
"Fight" in the same way I buy kosher pickles to protest the Chinese occupation of Tibet. It's just as effective.
No, no. Your "equipment" was "bottled rationality". The implication being that atheists are necessarily rational; should any such equipment exist, bottled rationality would be standard issue. The absurdity being that we're clearly dealing with an irrational atheist, which undermines your implication.
Though the implication is absurd on it's face. Atheists are, I shouldn't need to point out, no more or less rational than theists. It's simply a delusion held by a minority of atheists. The one's who "live in some warped fantasy land where reality never enters." You'll find no shortage of those irrational or laughably delusional atheists at the forefront of modern atheism, just as you find no shortage among popular/media savvy religious figures. This is simply reality.
Yes, it is absurd. There's nothing rational about going around wearing a colander on your head. It's not even particularly sane.
To equate atheism with rationality in this context undermines your point considerably.
It's true that he has no right to not be offended. He's also free to express his discontent when he's offended.
Equally, you are free to say and do offensive, inconsiderate, or just plain mean things. You're under no obligation to do so, however. The choice is yours.
For whose benefit is this being done? Who is intended to receive that message? What makes you think it was effective?
to point out another area of nonsense, separate from the intelligent design masterstroke with which it all started.
The whole FSM thing was absurd from the start. The argument from the ID crowd wasn't "I believe this, so it should be taught", as Bobby Henderson seems to believe. It was "there is some legitimate scientific controversy, so it should be taught". That's wrong, but not in any way addressed by the FSM letter that started this nonsense.
To call this a "masterstroke" is the height of absurdity. It is obviously completely unrelated to the claim it was intended to parody. You'd think that self-described rationalists wouldn't immediately abandon reason the instant something comes along that appears to support one of their positions!
All the FSM thing did was highlight how irrational atheists and self-described skeptics and rationalists can be. This "masterstroke" completely undermines their image and their efforts. It does the exact opposite of what it was intended to achieve.
You missed the bit about the colander on her head.
No, he doesn't.
War is rarely about religion. It's usually about money, power, etc. and only later justified by religion. I can't even think of a solid example of a war primarily motivated by religion.
In the case of Stalin and Mao, there was a strong cult of personality which is functionally identical to religion.
You can label anything religion if you try hard enough. It gets a bit less convincing as you go along.
Do you really think ISIS is primarily motivated by religion? That would be a pretty hard sell, given the other, far more likely, factors.
If there's some booing/whistling/hissing there's a small chance they'll listen and stop.
Don't be ridiculous. They want just one thing: page views.
Do you know why they post stories like this so frequently? Because it gets people to click, comment, and check back for replies. Stories like this keep eyeballs on the site. The more you boo/whistle/hiss the happier the overlord's become. They made the right decision. "Look at how many people commented! Look at that bump in page views! Our advertisers will be pleased!"
You've played right in to their hands.
To:
Are you afraid of interacting women
You replay with a solid 'yes':
Personally I now steer clear of women coworkers. The risk of triggering a feminist is just too big.
Interacting with women in the workplace is pretty easy. All you need to do to is behave like a professional and treat them like human beings. It's that simple. No special treatment or changes in behavior should be required.
Or does that require a change in your behavior? Do you find that need distasteful? The fact remains: if you're not acting like a professional, you're a problem for all of your coworkers and your employer.
. How about men in nursing? There aren't any significant barriers keeping men out of nursing.
But there are, as you point out:
In this case, the answer seems mostly to do with expectations about gender roles for caregiving.
Which is why we have things like
organizations devoted to increasing the number of men in nursing.
So why aren't there more unemployed or underemployed men training and taking these positions??
In this case, the answer seems mostly to do with expectations about gender roles for caregiving.
Adding:
There's the weird gender role thing that still seems to assume a man in a hospital must be a doctor, while a woman is likely a nurse -- which carries all sorts of bad stereotypes about qualifications, knowledge, etc. between the sexes.
Why does this nonsense persist?
(These sorts of things regarding nurses also get reinforced in popular culture all the time, where just about any portrayal of male nurses in movies or in television is used for comedy or ridiculousness.)
Everyone seems okay with this, but when you apply the exact same reasoning to women in tech ... ugh...
When's the last time the government went out of their way to cost themselves income?
When's the last time they instituted tax cuts that benefit the top 1% of income earners?
It takes a special kind of person to see celebrating greater diversity as celebrating the decline of another group.
I don't understand it myself. What's wrong with increasing diversity? Is it that you feel threatened because you think you can't compete in the job market? Are you afraid of interacting women and minorities? You strongly imply that white males are being attacked or otherwise oppressed and that some unnamed other takes pleasure in causing that harm.
Do you remember that "pac-man" pie chart of religious affiliation in the US? The one where the largest piece is saying "help, we're being oppressed!"? Your comment reminds me of that.
It's really easy to be a Christian in the US. You're in the majority. There are even social benefits that come simply from self-identifying with that majority. Though, as many atheists know, there are also social consequences for those on the outside. The larger group benefits from something called "privilege".
I couched that in religious terms for your benefit. It's easy to see that Christians in the US are not, in fact, being oppressed and that they enjoy numerous social benefits. It's also easy to see why atheists often need to hide their beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict. It should be simple to understand (and acknowledge) the concept of privilege in this context. That should bring us a step closer to understanding the privilege that straight white males enjoy. (If you're still having trouble, add additional characteristics like 'tall' and 'attractive'. Don't those guys surely have it easier that you? Why do you think that's the case?)
That brings us back to your post. Do you think that by elevating atheists we necessarily hurt the religious? Shouldn't they be just as free to express their views and Christians, without fear of social repercussions? Don't they deserve equal treatment and opportunity?
Are those atheist groups interested in oppressing Jews, Hindus, and other religious groups? Obviously not. For the most part, they just want a "safe space" where they can meet with others who share the same beliefs without facing the nasty social consequences they would otherwise. They want society as a whole to stop discriminating against them, and thus do community outreach. Inexplicably, some Christian groups see this as an assault. Doesn't that seem foolish? They're not under attack just because another groups doesn't want to suffer discrimination at their hands!
They shouldn't need to hide their atheism any more than a girl should need to hide her gender playing an online game as folks like you insist they should. They should be afforded safe spaces where they can focus on learning without the continual sexual comments, pick-ups, and challenges to the authenticity of their interest in the subject they face in a typical male-dominated classroom. Adding opportunities for others doesn't reduce your own opportunities any more than opening up an atheist club diminishes Christian churches.
In this case, it's even simpler than that. These aren't "for girls" boot camps. Women just feel more comfortable in these environments and thus are more likely to participate. This is reflected in the enrollment statistics. Yet, just because they're not behaving like you believe they should (by staying out of tech) you see this as an assault on white males. That is, the majority group. The Christians of the industry, if you will.
You're not being oppressed. No one is out to get you. You're terrified by a monster under your bed. It's time shine a flashlight under there and face reality. There's nothing there. It's all in your imagination.
I'll just leave this here.
Except when you have years gaming online that counts as research, if someone has played multiplayer games for years, that would be the equivalent of research fron a statistical standpoint (aka enough datapoints to draw a valid conclusion).
No.