AVfM Radio: What if God was one of us?

In a recent “experiment” I wrote an article on feminist influence in the atheist community. Given that the conversation that followed did not devolve into flame war between the Godly an the Godless, I think it turned out pretty well, and speaks to the focus of MRA’s, even those with vastly different views on religion.

What also came about in the discussion was an acknowledgement of the ideological parasitism that constitutes modern feminism, and how the philosophy mimics the characteristics of a virus in order to spread.

We thought this would make good discussion for the next episode of AVfM Radio, where we will examine how feminist ideology has begun to usurp the collective consciousness of a growing segment of the population that connect to each other based on their rejection of religion. And in that we witness the erosion of reliance on hard science and empiricism that many atheists would say is core to their system of beliefs.

Just as we have witnessed in some elements of the religious community, feminist influence has resulted in the undermining of the very principles on which these individuals rely.

While we will likely, predictably, need to over explain that we are not pigeon holing the entire atheist world, we do consider this show to be a challenge to vocal atheists to confront the pseudo-science, mythology and outright quackery that feminism is now bringing in to the realm of atheist expression.

Hopefully, before we are done, MRA’s of differing views will find more common ground, and PZ Myers will be limping to the drug store for some KY Jelly.


Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Dr. F

    Ah ha!

    When the thread was up there all on it’s lonesome for a while I knew you were up to something you crafty bugger.

    I thought maybe you stuck it up there knowing it would run like mad and give you a bit of a break for a day or so.

    ..but then again, when does our Paul put his feet up on the coffee table and smoke a cigar eh ?


    It’s me actually, now my cover is blown…

  • Raven01

    Would you like a.gif or .avi animated AVfM Radio button that could be be used as a link straight to the page for your radio shows?
    Thinking red bouncing text because I always get excited looking forward to the next installment. Not ideas for the roll-over yet though. But can make to order. Ask and you shall receive.

    • Paul Elam

      By all means!!

  • Steve_85

    As far as I’m concerned there are three groups that matter.

    1. Feminists.
    2. Not Feminists.
    3. MRAs.

    If you’re in Group 1, I’ll just mention that you’re either stupid, or bigoted. If you’re in group 2, you may not be my enemy, but you aren’t helping either. If you’re in group 3, then you’re worth fighting for and I would call you friend.

    These are the only groups that I recognize in this fight. I am an agnostic with atheistic leanings, but it doesn’t matter. God or not, if you’re an MRA, you’re on my side. If you’re not, then you’re either the enemy, or you’re helping the enemy.

    We can worry about god when we don’t have militant feminists trying to throw us in jail for the crime of having a penis.

  • Sickofit

    Just wanted to say that I think this was one of the best AVFM radio shows yet. Thanks to Paul, JtO, Keyster, Dr T and all the callers. Before listening in I hadn’t read this piece and hadn’t thought of the relationships between Feminism, MRM and atheism. This show kind of blew my mind to be honest. Great show!

  • lensman

    I really wanted to call in this show tonight, but unfortunately the time difference means that I have to stay up at 4 ‘o’ clock… when I have to get up and work at 6.

    Nevertheless, I just listened to the show and I have to say that it was fantastic.

    Now, conserning the “Amazing Atheist” incident…

    I have been a fan of TJ ever since his days at That Guy With the Glasses where he was known as the Distressed Watcher. He was one of the more villified reviewers on the site, but I liked him for some reason.

    In a somewhat related story, the reason he stopped posting videos there was because the Nostalgia Chick (aka Lindsay Ellis who openly admits that she has radical feminist leanings) got wind of his “Amazing Atheist” persona along with his anti-feminist rants and convinced Doug Walker not to associate with him any more. Doug being a budding enterpreneur and valuing The Nostalgia Chick persona (who draws in quite a lot of viewers to the TGWTG website) dropped TJ as a contributor, along with “That Aussie Guy”, who also didn’t get along with her, again mostly due to his anti-feminist stance.

    I have found out about the reddit fiasco from the show and just read most of the sites associated with this incident (I read fast).

    Was TJ’s language inappropriate? Certainly.
    Was it gross beyond belief? Definitely.
    Was it funny? Abso-fuckin-lutely.

    The thing is, to anyone who is following the “Distressed Watcher” and the “Amazing Atheist” this should come as no surprise. TJ is the guy that said Kevin Smith’s “Cop Out” was worse than the death of his own father and that Jake Lloyd (the kid that played Anakin in “The Phantom Menace”) should get cancer for starting the ruination of the Star Wars franchise.

    The guy is an internet comedian, he is supposed to make his living this way. He is supposed to cross the line and say things that probably shock you and disgust you. He does this regularly, and with a debateable rate of success.

    But because now TJ took an anti-feminist stance and insulted a member of the protected demographic (an alleged rape victim) he crossed the moral event horizon, and he is now a complete monster that need to be bought down -at least that’s what his page at TV Tropes says.

    A question for the Atheist Witch-Mob: Why shouldn’t a guy like TJ have the right to offend and disgust you? The internet is the place that gave birth to “2 Girls 1 Cup” for fuck’s sake! It’s what it’s there for!

    I guess the problem that people that PZ Myers and the Camel Hammer guy have is that, offensive or not, the Amazing Atheist’s message resonates with a lot of people. He has a big following. He is spreading a message that is coming in direct contrast with their world views and their feminist belief system and people are starting to actually listen to him. And that’s why he needs to be bought down and censored.

    I say fuck this. I say we use x-video-service-thief and httrack to back this guy’s words and videos. If youtube decides to bring him down, we need to keep him up, and spread the word that censorship, no matter in what shape and form it comes is wrong and will not be tolerated.

  • Booyah

    Looking forward to the show Paul. I was wondering if there is any way you can be contacted privately about an idea ive been chewing over?

  • Codebuster

    Regarding the Amazing Shrinking Atheist story…

    What’s the big deal? It’s only rape for chrissake. Rape means something very different today to what it did 50 years ago. These days a woman can lie about rape and expect to get off scott-free, as per the Duke Lacrosse case. It therefore follows that, given that lying about rape is unlikely to be prosecuted, then rape itself cannot be a big deal. These days, a woman can consent to sex, then regret it the next day, and have the man charged with rape merely on her say-so. The message this sends is that a rape is about as traumatic as a woman experiencing a change of heart.

    Lying about stealing a car is very different to lying about stealing a cookie. You cannot expect to avoid jail time for lying about something unless what is being lied about is a trivial affair. Does this suggest that rape may be about as insignificant as stealing a cookie? Well, maybe not stealing a cookie, but it does suggest something blown up way out of proportion to what it really is.

    The reality is that rape is about as meaningful as a woman changing her mind. If it’s ok to lie about rape, or if it’s ok to change your mind the next day and call it date-rape, or walking-across-campus-rape, or I’ve-changed-my-mind-rape, or that-time-of-month-rape, or I’m-not-in-the-mood-rape, or take-back-the-night-rape or how-much-is-that-doggie-in-the-window-rape then clearly rape is not a big deal. At worst, it is a matter purely of convenience.

    It is true that 50 years ago, rape was a significant, traumatic and life-altering event, and we would never want any innocent or loved-one to experience that kind of trauma. Back in those days, loyalty, virtue and integrity were inextricably tied in with notions of shared lives, family and virginity. This is not so these days. Nowadays, virginity is an inconvenience best dispensed with at the earliest opportunity and the nearest pub. And the risk of giving birth to unwanted thugspawn is dealt with, with all the convenience of a visit to the local abortionist. Rape is just not the big deal that it used to be before feminism came along and opened everyone’s eyes, flies and vaginas.

    Also, given that lying about rape is perfectly acceptable these days, does this not then suggest that whenever anyone claims that they’ve been raped, we should assume that they’re lying? Of course it does. Lying about rape is a very feminist thing to do. It’s the very thing that feminists do do, whether it’s conjuring up statistics to support fraudulent studies, or fabricating “evidence” of hostile work environments. Feminists do it all the time. If, on the off-chance, said rape victim was telling the truth, then they have only feminists to blame if everyone is, or should be, laughing at them.

    • Perseus


      The fact is, “rape” is an ethereal concept to begin with. That is why x-chromosome racists are getting such play out of it. The law is supposed to deal with the tangible. Deconstruct the notion of “rape” and what do you have? 1) You have physical assault as a tangible transgression. 2) On top of that you have an added layer of abstraction. A contrived abstraction that their is something particularly bad about physical assault which involves genital parts of the anatomy. We must question, in this day and age, with all of the sexual liberation, sexual expression, sexual manipulation and the wielding of sex as a coercive tool exercised by females against males, what is ‘sacred’ or particularly bad about physical assault which happens to include genital body parts. Genital body parts are thoroughly covered under the term ‘physical’, absolutely redundant to specify ‘genital body parts’. This whole business about ‘penetration’ being promoted as an exceptional form of physical assault is absurd, ludicrous. The extent of bodily injury and physical pain inflicted is and must be THE tangible measure of physical assault. “Rape” and “penetration” are obsolete notions that ironically are artifacts of ‘Patriarchal religion’ and ‘the sacredness of virginity’ or whatever. A little consistency, maybe?

  • just some helpful troll

    The person The Amazing Atheist was mocking was a MAN who had been raped by a WOMAN, you guys.

    • Paul Elam

      Link to that thread?

      • just some helpful troll
        • Paul Elam

          Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of that stuff has been deleted. It is hard for me to tell if he knew it was a man when he went off. In the end it doesn’t matter, though. Most everyone has agreed that TJ was in the wrong for saying what he did, AND that anyone who plays their alleged rape as a trump card in a debate is pretty fucked up as well.

          Bottom line, this changes nothing about the nature of what we were talking about on the show.

        • Tom Snark

          The problem with TAA is his delivery. And that includes the above citation.

          He’s so full of ‘fucks’ and ‘shits’ and ‘cunts’ he comes off sounding like a feminist. Or just immature. When I watched his video response to the Sharon Osborne incident, I thought, I admire this guy’s passion, but he sounds like he’s about to burst into tears. He needs to stop shouting about it and channel that fury into constructive anti-feminist discourse.

          I suppose it’s a natural reaction when one first realises the depth of feminist hate for men, though. You WANT to rage. Hell, you WANT to do a lot of things that probably wouldn’t help in the long run.

          If it were anyone else, I’d say that he might become more constructive in his approach in time, once the initial shock wears off.

          But … his delivery is consistent in everything he does. Leaving his views aside: he’s just a loudmouthed dick, screaming and swearing and being sardonic. I can’t say I’m surprised that he would leave that bile-filled rant in response to someone who claims to be a rape victim. I understand where his rage comes from, but I can’t condone his lack of rhetorical discipline.

          Too much fire, too much uncontrolled anger. It lets the other side point at him and say “see! Men are angry and violent!”

          Yes, anyone would become angry and violent in response to the kind of hatred that we have been subject to. But we learned some time ago that it doesn’t help to approach the problem in this way. We have learned that ‘ice between the ears’ is a more effective way to expose feminism and spread our discourse.

          This doesn’t mean ‘toning down’ the message, obviously. That would be a losing strategy, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in earlier incarnations of this movement, which sought to ‘work with feminists’ (who proceeded to mock men for their disadvantages and amp up the hate even more), or to ‘moderate our views’ to be more palatable (the limp dick approach to activism).

          Message and delivery are separate issues. I’d say that Paul Elam and other well-known MRM figures get both right. The message must be hardline and consistent, the delivery, calculated and cool (although this may vary based on the reaction you want to get). The problem with TAA is that although his message is on target, his delivery is appalling and will alienate people. Form is as important as content when you’re trying to mainstream.

          Just in case I am misunderstood, what TAA says to the alleged rape victim is not part of ‘the message.’ That’s part of where he fails in the delivery. He responds with rage and tries to hurt his opponent’s feelings, rather than consistently arguing his point and refuting challenges.

    • Codebuster

      Why should it matter? FYI, my own response was worded to allow for all possibilities. Troll, not-troll, feminist victim, gay progressive and all variations in-betwixt. All possibilities fully accounted for. Check.

  • keyster

    It’s ironic that the atheist community had been comprised of a majority intellectual middle-aged white guys, only to be usurped by feminization.

    …which is exactly what happened to western religion.

    Centuries old Gender-seperatism is something Muslims are fighting to hold on to, despite our efforts to “save women and girls from oppression” in foreign lands; such as enforcement of Sharia Law.

    At least they’re people of conviction.
    The Holy Bible is no less harsh about “keeping women in their place”.


    Anyone that believes they are a feminist and an atheist at the same time is delusional.

    Feminism is a cult of evil lemmings…

  • Eoghan

    Flying Spaghetti Patriarchy.

  • Kimski

    “Given that the conversation that followed did not devolve into flame war between the Godly an the Godless”

    Another good reason I’m damned proud of being an MRA.

  • Perseus

    keyster: “..very, very good clerks at the time they enlisted..”
    Ha, Fuck yeah.

    Paul: “MRA’s are everything feminists claim to be, but aren’t.”

    The TJ case and the theatric ‘firestorm’ around it is simply a tired old case of female tactic to control male behavior through histrionics, feigned outrage, and most critically- shame. SHAME ON YOU, CUNT.

  • Perseus

    Ron Paul on abortion.

    The Libertarian approach upholds individual liberty. A fetus is a legal entity. Consider the charge of double homicide upon murder of a pregnant female. Consider the liability of a doctor who fucks up prenatal care. The fetus is a legally recognized entity, because it is recognized as human life.

    An abortion is an act of aggression against human life. It is a calculated, premeditated act of infinitely more powerful persons- doctors and adults, devising, preparing and sharpening tools of mutilation and death for use upon human life that is infinitely weaker and incapable of defending themselves. As an act of aggression against human life, abortion is inconsistent with the libertarian value of non-aggression and respect for human life, as is murder.

    Equal Rights Amendment !

    • Rad

      That is circular reasoning: It’s a person because it’s a person.