black and white photo of  vampire woman  bites a blind man

Censorship and stupidity from “free-thinking-feminists”


Justin Vacula is an atheist blogger, graduate student and proponent of rational thought and free speech, all of which is apparently too much for certain ‘Skepchick’ members of the atheist/free- thinking community. His blog posting, censored by a DMCA claim on the basis of an alleged copyright infringment – coupled with a Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) claim — of one so called skeptic ‘Surly Amy.’ Portions of Vacula’s original blog post, with added commentary concerning the DMCA claim, is included here.

Skepchick writer and Surly-Ramics creator ‘Surly Amy’ has recently argued that conferences should ban ‘fake jewelry’ after recounting her recent “The Amazing Meeting” (TAM) experience, in which she spoke of a group of “very vocal angry troll-like people that did some really awful things” to her.

I argue that placing restrictions on freedom of expression and speech would be unreasonable and disastrous. The mere suggestion of banning ‘fake jewelry,’ I argue, should disqualify ‘Surly Amy’ from being a participant in discussion concerning anti-harassment policies.

‘Surly Amy’ — blogger for the Skepchick network and creator of ‘Surly-ramics’ jewelry — has recently appeared on the August 5, 2012 episode of Amanda Marcotte’s “RH Reality Check” podcast, to discuss feminism within the atheist movement. Of particular interest in this short podcast were Amy’s comments on her experience at The Amazing Meeting (TAM) and thoughts on anti-harassment policies at atheist/skeptic conferences. During the discussion, Amy had said that she — and presumably other feminists in the atheist community (she uses the word ‘we’), wants conferences to have rules restricting particular types of jewelry people wear. For instance, Amy says atheist/skeptic conferences should have policies which restrict “fake jewelry” which is “intentionally offending.”

Near the 11:53 mark of the podcast, commenting on her experience at TAM, ‘Surly Amy’ said:

 

There was this group of, again, very vocal angry troll-like people that did some really awful things to me in real life – that sort of thing that you usually only see online I was actually face to face with. I had people wearing t-shirts saying that they were not a skepchick, people making fake jewelry that I make that said things on it like ‘you should be embarrassed.’ There’s this really crazy undercurrent of othering that I had never experienced before and it was really upsetting and I ended up leaving the event a day early.

It seems that ‘Surly Amy’ considers people wearing t-shirts she doesn’t like and ceramic jewelry bearing sayings like ‘you should be embarrassed’ to be indicative of “very vocal angry troll-like people” and people acting “really awful” (she doesn’t take time to mention anything else which warranted these labels and conclusions). This also apparently constitutes a “really crazy undercurrent of othering” which, at least in part, caused her to leave the conference a day early.

Further commenting, near the 14:22 mark in the podcast, Amy mentions what she would like to see anti-harassment policies at conferences to address. She explains:

We’re not asking for anything crazy – just basic rules so that we can say the sort of thing like making fake jewelry and intentionally offending people is not okay nor is grabbing someone’s ass. That’s it, that’s all we’re asking for.

What, anyway, is ‘fake jewelry?’ Since when did ‘Surly Amy’ have an exclusive hold on the market of ceramic jewelry? ‘Fake jewelry,’ it seems, is jewelry either meant to satirize Surly Amy’s jewelry, or jewelry which is not made by ‘Surly Amy.’ One example of this ‘fake jewelry,’ according to a James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) forum poster is as follows: “The fake Surlys I saw looked like a man and woman standing on either side of an elevator with a big red slash through the whole picture.” Anyway, returning to the issues:

It is reasonable for one to not only claim offense to ‘fake jewelry,’ but also to ask conferences to have policies which restrict what jewelry people wear…because someone like ‘Surly Amy’ happens to claim offense?

‘Surly Amy’ — and apparently others in the atheist/skeptic community — seemed to, for whatever reasons, have moved away from the common response of “Too bad, that’s your problem” when someone claims offense. This is, at least from my experience, the reaction that many atheists have when religious people claim offense.

For whatever reason, ‘Surly Amy’ and others seemed to have compartmentalized this attitude (assuming that she and others would respond to religious believers who happen to claim offense to atheists/ skeptics arguing against religious claims or otherwise being blasphemous) and afforded some sort of special rules for their own particular sensitivities. Note that ‘Surly Amy’ does not only condemn that which she finds offensive, but she also wants to squelch others’ freedom of speech at conferences by encouraging conferences to adopt policies restricting messages displayed on jewelry.

Banning others’ speech because one happens to claim offense or dislike speech seems to be ‘the coward’s way out’ that is often condemned by the atheist/skeptic community. What ever happened to “I might not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it?” What ever happened to tolerance and an understanding that other people should be afforded with the rights to express viewpoints which some might not like? What sort of ‘freethought response’ is banning speech and insisting that conferences adopt policies which restrict messages on jewelry?

What sort of consequences might follow if “I’m offended” is good reason for conferences to adopt policies restricting jewelry people wear? Should ‘Teach the Controversy’ t-shirts, which mock creationists, be barred from conferences should a creationist happen to attend a skeptic conference and complain? Should critical examination of Islam and pictures of Mohammad be barred from atheist conferences should a liberal Muslim happen to attend and complain? Should Tim Minchin’s “The Pope Song” be barred because people happen to take offense to vulgar language?

If ‘Surly Amy’ and others had their way — according to what she said in this podcast and logical conclusions which seem to follow — conferences would ban others’ freedom of expression and speech on grounds of a person claiming offense. I hope this day never comes, but it might just be on its way if people continue to consider ‘Surly Amy’ as a valid participant in the discussion concerning anti- harassment policies at conferences.

Her wanting to restrict which jewelry people wear at conferences, though, should hopefully disqualify her from this discussion. Is this the sort of feminism that is worth wanting? ‘Surly Amy,’ after all, is not some ‘rogue voice’ or ‘extremist’ who has little clout; she is a well-respected and listened to voice within in the feminist atheist community.

Following my post concerning thoughts of ‘Surly Amy’ on conferences banning ‘fake jewelry’ and t-shirts which one may find offensive, I received a DMCA claim which made led to a takedown of the post in question. Rather than responding to the criticism or simply ignoring it, someone (it is not yet clear if it was ‘Surly Amy’) decided to take legal action which resulted in censorship and a chilling effect.

If the use of the “This is what a feminist looks like” image were really the problem – although it was captioned noting it was a ‘Surly-Ramic’ and was in-line with criticisms of feminist ideas ‘Surly Amy’ holds – I would have expected an e-mail asking for the picture to be removed. Instead, heavy-handed legal action was taken sending a clear message to the skeptical community: if people are critical of ‘Surly Amy’ or other self-identified feminist bloggers, no matter how mild that criticism might be, they might be targeted with legal action. Don’t dare try it!

The post in question wasn’t even abusive nor did it contain harsh language; it was simply criticism of ideas that ‘Surly Amy’ presented on the podcast with Amanda Marcotte. As a public blogger, ‘Surly Amy’ should anticipate criticism following her very controversial statements. Instead of acting like other public figures do [assuming it was ‘Surly Amy’ who filed the DMCA] when being the recipient of criticism, legal action was the means of response…and ‘Surly Amy’ won’t even confirm or deny this.

Friends of ‘Surly Amy’ on the Freethought Blogs network – notably blogger ‘Lousy Canuck’ – has seemingly defended the use of legal action. In his recent blog post, he casts ‘Surly Amy’ as an oppressed victim – as has been the case with some feminists in the atheist community such as Rebecca Watson – and lumps all who voice disagreement, no matter how mild, into a group of bullies in his post which is essentialy appeal to emotion containing many distortions of fact.

Nevermind, though, that ‘Surly Amy’ and her blogging associates on both the Freethought Blogs network and the Skepchick network spent a significant amount of time levying attacks at D.J. Grothe, president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, and many others who have dared to openly disagree or voice ‘non-approved ideas.’

While it is the case that some people are engaging in troll-like abusive behavior online directed at ‘Surly Amy’ and other feminist bloggers, it is not the case that all who offer fair and civil criticism – like myself – are doing so. Totally ignoring this, the narrative of victimhood is being perpetuated and those who simply dare to disagree are branded as moral monsters. Bloggers are defending the indefensible — using legal threats which result in a censorship of criticism — while somehow maintaining that nothing is wrong with the behavior of ‘Surly Amy’ and everything is wrong with those who dare to criticize her.

For some time, I have remained quiet on these issues because of the repercussions one likely faces when daring to voice even the mildest dissent. The common tactics of labeling people as ‘misogynist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘trolls’ who ‘do not care about women’ have been used time and time again by particular feminist bloggers and those who defend them. Many people have even messaged me offering support with a general message of ‘I can’t go public about this, but I’d like to thank you for what you do and support however I can.’ Fear exists within a community that is supposed to be open to criticism rather than using shaming tactics to quell dissent as many religions do. What a shame.

About Justin Vacula

Justin Vacula is an atheist blogger, student and proponent of rational thought and free speech. Justin's blog can be found at http://www.justinvacula.com

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

    “Surly” Amy? She sound more like “Sulky, Whiny” Amy.

    • Raven01

      Not much of a skeptic if any little contradictory idea is so “offensive” it must be banned.
      She is as much a reasoned skeptic as a 5 year old allowed to play poker with the adults, using toothpicks for her bets. And, has convinced herself that she is of equal calibre to a WPT champ.

  • MrStodern

    This is why I don’t take part in atheist gatherings. They still have a lot of growing up to do before they deserve my participation.

    What I find funny about all this is that the coward who made this bogus copyright complaint will NEVER fess up to it. EVER. They will always operate in the shadows, because they’re scared.

  • Kimski

    We could have a long discussion about this, but, quite frankly, what did you expect, considering:

    “That’s it, that’s all we’re asking for.”

    Now, where have I heard this on numerous occasions before?

    • MrStodern

      I find the frequent use of the word “we” to be far more bothersome. I can only assume Surly Amy is attempting to make it seem like it’s more than just her whining about shit that shouldn’t even be bothering her in the first place.

      Leave it to a woman to – despite being part of a community that spends an awful lot of time offending the shit out of religious people – want everyone to make an exception for her just because she’s offended. Oh no! Someone named Surly Amy is bothered by something! Better suspend all the usual discussions and whatnot that we’re supposed to pride ourselves on having, we got a distressed woman over here!

      It’s hilarious how so many feminists embarrass themselves with their behavior, and they don’t even know it.

      • Kimski

        ‘I find the frequent use of the word “we” to be far more bothersome.’

        Agreed.
        Every time I hear that word used in relation to something that is obviously a personal issue, all I hear is the braying of sheeps, or imagine a herd of cattle stampeding.

        Have you seen the videos on Youtube entitled ‘This is what a feminist looks like’, and noticed the blatant lack of anything of substance in the general descriptions of what it entails?

        If not, go see them and then imagine that the title is: ‘This is what a herdcreature looks like’, and suddenly it all makes far more sense.

        • MrStodern

          Just watched it. As I would’ve expected anyway, there was a lot of talking, with no one saying anything.

          • Kimski

          • MrStodern

            I actually feel like I learned more about sheep in that video than I learned about feminists from watching their video.

        • Raven01

          This reminds me of a feminist confronted with logic.

          • MrStodern

            It’s missing the part where a bull rams his horns up a guy’s ass for “assaulting” the goats.

            Other than that, dead on.

    • droobles

      I wonder if they would censor her feminist speechs if someone took offense.

      Of course not, because they know that what they say is the “right way”.

      The irony and the hypocrisy of such a point of view is so big that I truly cannot understand how they don’t see it.

      Well, I guess I still expect the best of people, Schopenhauer why didn’t I listen to you??

      • Kimski

        If you mate alleged victimhood with the inherent desire to protect women from anything that might upset them in any way, this is what you get.

        Spoiled toddlers with ‘issues’.

      • The Real Peterman

        They would never censor feminists because women are already the most oppressed people ever in the whole wide history of the world ever. So that wouldn’t be fair.

    • Kimski

      Oh, yeah, now I remember..
      The toxic environments for men and boys in the learning institutions and in the workplaces all started with:

      “That’s it, that’s all we’re asking for.”

      Looks like the complete removal of free speech will be the next thing they ‘only’ ask for.

      I sometimes wish Aldous Huxley and George Orwell were around to see where it ended.
      They would have scrapped their manuscripts immediately, while shitting their pants in horror.

  • Arvy

    “Fear exists within a community that is supposed to be open to criticism …”

    No kidding! That surprises whom? And to what particular “community” do you refer. Feminism is a vast collection of weird wooly-minded cults with fear, hatred and victimhood as their only common religion.

    Some may profess atheism, but their self-worship is a highly questionable form of atheism, especially when combined with a whole gamut of “new age” mysticism and other illogical nonsense that many of them seem to believe in. It’s really quite predictable in the circumstances that they would fear any intrusion of logic or contradiction more than anything else and seek to suppress its expression.

    One can’t help wondering whether there’s any point in even trying to engage with such idiocy. Perhaps more worthwhile to save one’s efforts for the relatively sane.

    • MrStodern

      There seems to be a growing number of “not fully dedicated” non-believers out there, which I suspect is a result of atheism becoming kind of a, dare I say it… “trend”.

      Perhaps that’s not the right word, but I have no doubt that atheism is luring people in who may not be completely ready to “cut the cord”, as I like to call it, and embrace a life without worship.

      Then there’s the atheists who simply aren’t as open-minded as they like to pretend. Like I posted earlier, the movement has a lot of growing to do.

      • Arvy

        I guess I’d classify myself as an agnostic, although some people call that a cop-out. In any case, it seems to me pointless to try to apply a whole bunch of rationalisation efforts to what are essentially matters of personal faith — and even sillier to get into heated Jesuitical debates about it leading nowhere.

        As I tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses who occasionally come to my door: Whatever reassures and comforts you is fine with me. Just don’t expect to convert me with quotes from a self-serving book written centuries ago by a bunch of desert nomads professing God’s special choice as their divine real estate and resettlement agent. You’d just be wasting your time as well as my own.

        • MrStodern

          I don’t agree with agnosticism being a cop-out. To be agnostic is to not know one way or another. To be atheist is to think you know what’s really going on, just as being a theist is. They both think they’re right, while the agnostic doesn’t know which side to take.

          There’s nothing wrong with not being ready to come to a conclusion at any point in one’s life. It’s not about being part of a team, it’s about discovering as much as you can about the world before you die. We’re all allowed to draw our on conclusions, Some atheists (perhaps a lot of them) have lost sight of that.

          I can understand why, to an extent, because a lot of atheists feel like religion is more akin to a disease than a flawed perspective steeped in primitive fear.

          Like I said, lot of growing to do. :P

          • praxis

            I disagree with your definitions. As a general rule, as far as I know, agnosticism deals with knowledge of the supernatural and answers the question: Do you think it’s possible to know whether deities exist or not? It has no bearing on one’s belief. Theism, on the other hand, deals with belief: Do you believe in deity/ies (regardless of whether you think it’s possible to ascertain their existence or not)? The two are not mutually exclusive, and agnosticism is not a middle path between theism and atheism since it’s a different question altogether.

            I consider myself an agnostic atheist. The atheists who think they know 100% there is no god/s are gnostic or “hard” atheists. I’m agnostic because I don’t know whether a deity/ies exist/s or not, and I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in one anyway.

            I also know a lot of agnostic theists. They’re those who aren’t sure of their religion, but decides to believe anyway. Most people who self-proclaim to be agnostic are most likely agnostic atheists, strictly speaking. They usually don’t believe in diety/ies either, but wish to emphasize the “unknowability” of the phenomenon. Just my 2 cents.

          • Arvy

            I suppose, then, that I should clarify my own assertion of agnosticism. It is simply that the answers to questions about the existence of a diety or dieties are unknown AND UNKNOWABLE as those questions are usually predicated on characteristics that are entirely beyond ordinary human knowledge.

            Generally speaking, religious beliefs must ultimately rely on faith and I’m strongly inclined against believing anything based on faith alone. To me, it’s little more than wishful thinking and quite unreliable as a basis for any rational decision making or guidance. That is NOT to say, however, that all associated moral values should be dismissed. Some of them, in fact, are just enlightened common sense and fully supportable with logical arguments.

          • MrStodern

            @praxis: I don’t like breaking it down that far myself. It’s like metal music, I don’t need fifteen hundred different varieties of metal. It’s either metal or it isn’t. I don’t bother with anything else.

            @Arvy: I observe the world around me and conclude that the deities that have been worshiped for millenia do not exist. However, that conclusion is subject to change. I don’t pretend to understand the universe.

  • Kukla

    I’m an atheist too, but I don’t go to any “free thinker” type spaces because it’s usually full of arrogant pricks who will treat you like their worst enemy if you don’t agree with them on something. Now there is many exceptions but the rule still remains.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Dude. Do you still have the video? We should all upload copies of it. I certainly would. Go ahead, DMCA me, I don’t have anything on my channel. LOL.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MassEFR34k J3DIforce1

    Ya know I gotta tell ya, I believe very much in god! Its just when it comes right down to it, I simply don’t give a fuck. But when I read shit like this I have to admit in some ways…with the rise of retards in the athiest community, they all seem just as oppressive as they claim organized religious freaks are. To be honest! I can’t really tell the difference between the two anymore.

    • keyster

      Atheists can be just as pious about their DISBELIEF as any believer. That’s the irony. They worship the non-existence of a higher power.

      Atheism is considered a religious institution by our tax code and therefore as exempt as any church.

      They proselytize the Un-God with as much passion as any Baptist minister.

      • MrStodern

        “Atheism is considered a religious institution by our tax code and therefore as exempt as any church.”

        I see this as an attempt to undermine the atheist message myself. The detractors like to act as if people like me have faith just like they do, when we don’t. Atheism isn’t the belief in no god, it’s the absence of belief in a god. I don’t worship any deity, because I don’t believe they exist. I worship nothing, because I see nothing worth worshiping.

        • Frimmel

          Spot on.

          Calling atheism a ‘faith’ always seems an attempt at discrediting answering the question, “Does God or gods exist” with “No” while bolstering the idea of faith as a virtue. I always find it an odd viewpoint: Faith is or is not a virtue?

  • kiwihelen

    Someone has clearly not introduced Surly Amy to the “16% rule” for craft copyright.

    If you are making an item for sale that is similar to someone else’s work, you need to be able to evidence that your item is different by 16% from the original. For example, that might be through different design, colour or materials. I suspect “You should be ashamed” amounts to 16%!

    Me smells a rat who wants to corner the market in ceramic jewellery.

    As for the harrasment issue. If you are going to play with the big kids, then learn to play by their rules. If you can’t do it, don’t play. Join a nice wee hand-holding group.

    • Poester99

      I suspect the DMCA take down is “lawfare” by someone who is almost certain the victim will not jump through the hoops to hold them responsible for it.

  • Poester99

    lol… It’s no surprise that they would appeal to authority to provide the muscle to silence their critics.

    After all it is a central “if only implied” plank in their system. Chaos and other situations where big daddy/state power is weak or missing entirely makes them powerless to force their views on anyone but their immediate relatives (who can *choose* to tune them out!)

  • keyster

    Fear exists within a community that is supposed to be open to criticism rather than using shaming tactics to quell dissent as many religions do.

    Feminism IS a religion my friend.
    The deity is her inner Goddess.
    The orthodoxy is “Woman Victim/Man Victimizer”.
    Feminism is no longer just a social movement for women’s rights. It’s as institutionalized as Christianity.
    Now you know.

    They might be atheist only to the extent that most organized religions are patriarchal in nature. Convince them that a Pagan Goddess exists and they’ll follow her. Atheism isn’t about God’s existence to them; it’s that God is a He, first and foremost.

    • Arvy

      Not only is God portrayed as male (or man as being in His image as may be preferred) He seems to be quite a “misogynistic” male at that, actually holding a woman’s evil wiles accountable for mankind’s original fall from grace and condemning womankind thenceforth to painful consequences. By the judgemental standards of today’s “equal justice” that’s extremely harsh. An almost total reversal in fact.

      Indeed, much of The Bible, especially the early part with a few notable exceptions such as Ruth, doesn’t portray women in a very kindly or complimentary light at all, except in fulfilling their assigned “handmaiden to man” role. Assuming one regards it as divinely inspired, it certainly wouldn’t serve well as an inspirational guide for feminism.

      Perhaps those ancient desert nomads who wrote most of that first book knew something about “the war between the sexes” and its related propaganda that we’ve since overlooked. :)

      • keyster

        Understanding woman’s nature is nothing new at all. The only change has been censoring open discussion of it for the last 50 years. The ancients understood her sexual power over the male, and that some control was necessary.

    • JinnBottle

      Agree. Think you had it rightest the first time when you described “The Goddess” for Feminists being an “inner” goddess: In other words, the “natural” religion of feminists (and of most women, tho unconsciously) is the fundamentalism of fundamentalism: With predictable self-centered pragmatism, they believe that, insofar as a Goddess exists, She’s embodied in actual women. I think it’s Dianne Patai who sums up feminist thinking on all this with: “The Goddess – c’est moi!”

      I’d like to see what Nathanson & Young have to say about this in their (unexpected) new book “Sanctifying Misandry”.

      • keyster

        She births our young.
        The golden uterus is divinity.
        Birth is a religious experience.
        Mother is deity.
        Man is secondary; a mere worker-drone to serve the Queen and propogation of the species.
        Be nice to her or else the progeny will end with you.

        It’s all about power – – the perception of who has it and who wants it.

  • Zerbu

    A free thinking community is for free thinkers… unless they disagree with the authority there.

    • keyster

      You can openly argue Gods existence with an atheist, but you better not dare question Feminist Dogma.

      That is shear heresy in atheist communities, and for that you will be excommunicated from the organization.

      Bow down and submit yourself to the Goddess, for you are not worthy.

      • Frimmel

        Being atheist is not the determining factor in whether one has or has not taken the red pill. Choosing an answer to belief in God or gods does not determine the nature of the egalitarianism one subscribes to. I don’t have the philosophical skills to distinguish between questions of faith and questions of ideology but I’m reasonably sure they are not the same.

  • The Real Peterman

    Feminists are strong and powerful and tough and capable, and if anyone says mean things about them we need to banish him forever so he doesn’t hurt a poor little feminist’s feelings.

  • JinnBottle

    My father was an Atheist with a capital A, and he was as dogmatic about no-God as any Catholic father in the neighborhood was about “God”. Atheism with a cap-A is not a theological or cosmological viewpoint, it is a political dogma and a neurotic (specifically negative-oedipal) mindset.

    My father used to read voraciously anti-Christian, specifically, anti-Catholic stuff from third-rate writers like Joseph McCabe. The inevitable Feminist influx, with its equally inevitable and progressive (!) restrictionism, is simply the 21st c equivalent of the Communist Party’s influx & influence in the utterly misnamed “free-thought” community.

    • JinnBottle

      A downvote? Ok, educate me. Why?

      • Frimmel

        You are mis-characterizing atheism. It is not a “political dogma.” Lack of belief in God and gods is not a political point of view (although a strict interpretation of the 1st amendment is not unusual for atheists but neither is it exclusive to atheists) and it is certainly not a neuroses.

        Not my downvote by the way.

  • Phil in Utah

    Being a Christian myself, I could care less about the inner workings of the online atheist community. I will say this, though: the best way to divide ANY community is to introduce feminism into it. We see evidence of that here, and I’ve seen it happen in countless churches. Perhaps that’s why the MRA community is so tight-knit.

    • The Real Peterman

      No doubt about it. Think of it this way: there have been atheists for thousands of years, yet only in the last few decades has there been so much of this discord in the atheist community.

    • Arvy

      Amen. That and the simple fact that men can be close friends and mutually supportive without necessarily agreeing to any particular religious commitment.

      The whole feminist “sisterhood” thing, on the other hand is a quasi-religious commitment in itself with little else holding it together. It’s ultimate destiny is fore-ordained for that reason alone. And good riddance.

    • MrStodern

      Personally I don’t think women need to be feminist in order to cause chaos when you inject enough of them into any given community. Granted, today’s anti-feminist women probably aren’t so problematic. But what I’m saying is that I’m starting to believe that it is simply woman’s nature to create division within a group. They have to be the center of attention, and in order to make sure of that, they have to use their feminine whiles to get white knights to do their dirty work, and the next thing you know, shit isn’t much fun anymore.

      I’m seeing it happening in the gaming community, and I’m pretty sure it’s going to get worse before it gets better with all the pussy-begging gamers out there kissing womens’ asses.

  • debaser71

    I think a far better representation of an atheist or skeptic community is RDNET.

    When you think of an atheist, don’t think of the “Baboons” of FtB. They are a very loud, annoying, stupid, minority. The only thing that grants them any sort of influence is that they cry feminism and people listen.

  • ActaNonVerba

    Another three-year old woman. I will never indulge them and no man ever should.

  • TheBiboSez

    I too straddle the divide between atheism and agnosticism – I find the religious language used to describe deities as incoherent, nonsensical, contradictory and generally devoid of meaning.

    That makes me something of both an atheist (deities are nonsense) and an agnostic (it still might be possible to define a deity rigorously using religious language; no one has done that yet). And, of course, neither.

    The closest statement to a rigorous divine rhetoric? I heard once in a Unitarian Universalist church in the 1980’s: “God is a metaphor for the highest and best aspirations of humankind”.

    Of course, the feminists overran them long ago, so, I left.

    • Carlos

      I’ve attended UU sermon’s several times, stopping in every once in a great while. I used to enjoy them but the last time, several years ago now, they started with some feminist type commentary, needing to call God the Great Spirit or something cause God and Lord are masculine terms. Totally ruined it for me. I mean, I do get it, it’s rather arbitrary to think of male or female being an attribute you’d use to describe God, but I had never thought of him in those terms anyway and can only take so much constant harping about how the entire universe is oppressive to women (but kind to men.) I just tuned out the rest of what the pastor (female) had to say. Here I was, in tremendous pain at the loss of my son, and even in church it was just more of the hyper-sensitivity to women’s fragile egos, and the callous indifference to the pain of men like myself.

  • Rper1959

    Surly Amy , should surly grow up if she wishes “free thinking” discourse – but no at the suggestion of a challenge to her dogma the immediate victim response is violence by proxy , administrative abuse via the DMCA , what a cop out. She should surly woman up and infuse some argumentative logic into the conversation, her failure to do so illuminates the superficiality of her stance.

    Perhaps Michael Fry said it best Surly “I’m offended by that ? Well. So fucking what!” https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=461422320545451&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&type=1&theater

  • TheUnknown

    Seems this whole Skepchick/Elevatorgate debacle has thrown a lot of people who were otherwise either apathetic or narrow in their experiences with gender politics toward the way of men’s rights. Maybe we should thank Rebecca and Amy for showing their crazy true colors so abruptly and so loudly.

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      Fuck ‘skepchick’ to hell, hell, hell.

      “You don’t ask a girl to your apartment in an elevator at four in the morning. That’s not O.K.”

      Yes you do, cunt. You’re not O.K.

      • TheUnknown

        Now now, people are free to explain to others what makes them uncomfortable, as long as they’re not speaking on behalf of other people who don’t all agree. The initial complaint wasn’t really spectacular. Maybe a bit presumptuous, but it didn’t even come across as that way to me.

        No, what was crazy was the subsequent barrage of radical feminist hate-spilling by her followers, followed by her indicting an entire community for anonymous internet comments and for being *only a little bit more attentive to women than the rest of the world,* then deriding and boycotting well-known and respected people and events for personally offending them, and dragging the whole thing out to… well, this.

  • lensman

    “This is what I think they fear the most: that one man free, expressing his own thoughts and point of view might

    somehow inspire others to think for themselves and listen to that voice of Reason inside them.”

    Bill Hicks in a letter concerning his infamous CBS censorship.

    Anytime a free voice is being silenced I can feel my veins pop up.

    I say fuck this. I say we crank this shit up to 11.

    I have made some AVfM posters specifically for Atheists. Feel free to use them on your poster runs, whenever an

    Atheist meeting/conference/whatever is nearby. Better yet, print them on a shirt and watch the Surly Amy’s of the

    world cry tears of entitlement.

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3819149/atheistposter1.pdf
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3819149/atheistposter2.pdf

    Use them at will!

  • Clem Burke

    Poor thing, I bet she tried to take her life due to a bad haircut.