News from down under: the TRUE skeptical women side with the guys!

Something funny happened in my and Stephanie’s trackbacks today. On Adelaide Atheists’ Meetup group, one of their male members wrote up a post asking women to endorse the Skeptic Women petition. The thread was titled, “I wish to promote the statement below issued by a group of women atheists/(true) skeptics and ask women to consider supporting their position.”

Let’s ignore the “no true skeptic” for a brief moment here, and the fact that the two women replying both strongly disagreed — and that the poster and two other guys argued with them, explaining to them why they’re wrong.

Stop laughing.

There’s a lot of mythologizing going on in this thread, and there’s no way it’s going to be possible to catalogue all of them and debunk them all. So I’m going to post some highlights.

The atheism plus argument can be framed this way.I don’t feel safe in the atheist movement.Whether or not my concern is correct doesn’t matter.The mere fact that I feel unwelcome and unsafe needs to be addressed.Why do I feel this way?What is going on to bring forth such feelings?If there truly isn’t anything there,what am I misinterpreting?My concerns cannot be dismissed simply because some other men don’t share my concerns.
To recapitulate,it doesn’t matter if my feelings have any basis in fact.The fact that matters, is the expression of my feelings.
Anyone can play the ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ game -which is why it’s such a dangerous game to play.

This isn’t the “atheism plus argument”. The “atheism plus argument” is that a certain group of people were tired of having this fight over and over and calved off into their own private space where they could be free from the harassment, and more importantly free from the apologetics for the harassment, so prevalent in movement atheism.

And the argument is not about whether or not a concern of safety is the problem. It’s that there are baseline levels of sexual harassment and sexism and mistreatment of women in society, and that the so-called “rational” communities are no better than that baseline background. And that they SHOULD BE. Especially if we intend on improving the general inclusiveness of said community. Just like bars need bouncers to throw out the harassers, lest women stop going and thus men stop going and thus the bar goes out of business, our community spaces need to be cognizant of and intolerant of harassment, throwing harassers out on their ears by banning them from our internet communities, and by our conferences providing harassment policies just like every other public event in the world to give these people experiencing harassment a framework by which they can have their grievances taken seriously.

The fact that there’s so much pushback against harassment policies, and so much pushback against the idea of being intolerant of harmful actions by community members, suggests that the community has no interest in being safer than the background levels of sexual harassment and sexism. And the fact that much of this pushback comes from the very top — from the leaders of the organizations themselves. THAT’S the problem. Not that it’s particularly unsafe, but that it has no interest in being safer.

One of the women said of the signatories:

I am also familiar with many of the names who have signed it and they are some of the most unpleasant commenter’s on atheist blogs. Many of them have been banned by blog writers because of their ranting, insult filled comments. They insist that they have been ‘silenced’ (as I notice they refer to in the statement) but some of them have their own blogs and are still very active online. I just don’t believe they are credible.

The reply:

I ALSO know many of the signatories at the bottom of this statement, many strong intelligent women who I am familiar with and who I respect, women such as : Karla Porter, Scented Nectar, Sara E. Mayhew, bluharmony, Renee Hendricks, Alissa Puurunen.
For you to casually describe some of the women who have endorsed this statement as “unpleasant” without being specific and naming those women that you find unpleasant, you are indirectly casting aspersions on all of the women listed. And I wonder, do you find these women to be “unpleasant” simply because they hold a different political position to you and/or are critical of some of your core beliefs?

No, I think she found them unpleasant for being insulting and for, after being banned (at unspecified blogs) for being insulting, ranting about being silenced.

I know them too — some of them, anyway. The names I recognize are real pieces of work, and have been instrumental in giving the pro-harassment crowd some genuine XX chromosomes to give their anti-feminist ravings legitimacy.

Yes it is true that some of them are bloggers and do in fact have ‘a voice’, but the point that they are trying to make is as follows:
some very powerful and influential women and men (people who hold office or authority in powerful and influential organizations and groups within the atheist/skeptic community), are acting and using rhetoric which indicates to all that they actually believe that they are speaking for ALL women.
Personalities such as Amanda Marcotte, Melody Hensley, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, Adam Lee, all have a big following and can shout over all other voices through their powerful organizations, forums and blog space networks. These personalities definitely do not speak for all women and ,luckily, their popularity, ‘clout’ and influence is exponentially declining.

Proof? Citations? Bah! We’re skeptics! And TRUE skeptical women agree with us!

Sadly, none of the names mentioned are any bigger than the big-name leaders who are actively campaigning against feminism. If their “clout” is declining, it’s because they’re tired of waging these endless battles with entrenched dogma that has poisoned the very top of our movements. But I’d still like to see some numbers.

We have seen these ‘personalities’, and others of their ilk, attack their adversaries and critics through the power and positions they hold in nasty ways such as silencing tactics, doxing, lying, defaming, banning, smearing, boycotting etc. and by removing or trying to remove their critics from office. They are currently campaigning to have Ronald A Lindsay removed from his position as CEO of the Centre For Inquiry (CFI) because of a talk he gave at the Women In Secularism II conference which, in part, they did not agree with.

I have a whole rant stored up about the diminutive term “doxing”. Spellcheck doesn’t like that word. There’s a good goddamn reason. But I digress.

Nobody to my knowledge is seriously campaigning to have Ron Lindsay removed from his position at CFI. The speakers’ petition, the open letters, the various calls for action, are all generally demanding an apology and assurances that WiS3 will happen despite the antifeminist sentiments evinced by Lindsay. Yes, individuals may have called for his resignation, but it’s certainly nothing like organized, nor anything like the majority. More like a tiny minority.

Not that I particularly disagree with the idea that a CEO of an organization attempting to sabotage a fundraising event for his organization — to air some of his personal petty grievances in public, undercutting the speakers there and the morale of everyone who was there and might have been willing to open their pocketbooks — is grossly unprofessional and hurt the organization’s bottom line. In just about any other organization that would result in a very rapid shuffling of that CEO out the door, perhaps with a courtesy golden parachute.

But I personally just asked for an apology. So did many of the aforementioned names. So unless you want to pony up with evidence, this is a mythology, just like every other mythology built up about asking that people not be represented by the worst, most unskeptical and most generally odious members of our community.

The women who are signing this statement are simply saying ” you do not speak for us…we speak for ourselves”

“And therefore you will too, if you’re any kinda skeptic. Skeptics NEVER agree with other people! Don’t you agree with me?”

Feminism is not about equality. It is about empowering women, just because they are women, and they build the biggest, most vile straw-man in the patriarchy. The theocratic rulers of the dark ages were sexist, and were about masculine power. Contemporary society is about equal oppurtunity. Regardless of race, class or gender. Claiming that thousands of years of oppression even happened, if it did, is just a pathetic excuse to push your own agenda.

“Therefore, go sign this petition, you silly women. Unless you’re not skeptical enough!”

Liam, my father indoctrinated me with the mirror image of the myth you referred to, so I think we can both agree

I would prefer to decide for myself whether or not I agree with what you say. But that’s what most wives would probably now expect their husbands to do…

Oh snap! Put that uppity bitch back in her place! I know you’re all but telling her to agree with you about matters that affect her more than they affect you, but there’s no hypocrisy in telling her “I THINK FOR MYSELF WOMAN”.

Perhaps “Philosophy” is just a cute name for “Patriarchy Studies” since it seems dominated by men.

When there is any funding at all put into debunking the grossly built straw-man that is the patriarchy, I will be sure to send you a facebook update with the link. Until then, more money will be poured into “Women’s Studies” by pussy-whipped men, who are only out to please their wives.

Yeah. Fucking beta manginas, wanting their partners to be happy. They should be dominant alphas and take charge of their womenfolk. (Also, patriarchy doesn’t exist, and I’m sure science will science up some proof one day.)

Thankfully, the creator of the meetup group recognized that people are talking a lot of crap here, and are apparently talking a lot of crap because they don’t have the definitions of the words in question, so he linked to Patriarchy for Dummies and Strawprivilege, suggesting that people actually try learning the real arguments instead of fighting with poorly-built straw dummies all day.

I pity the poor women in this group who have to deal with shit like that with barely a reprieve. They must feel totally unsafe exactly as unsafe as in every other group.

Oh, and as a coda — Mark Senior, the guy who posted this thread asking the REAL skeptical women to please validate the petition against all those uppity feminists ruining our community by writing petitions, also himself signed the petition to have Stephanie Zvan removed from Atheist Voices of Minnesota.

The book.

He signed a petition to remove Stephanie from her leadership role in a BOOK.

Clearly this guy knows his petitions! And clearly he’s not engaging in trying to remove people from roles!

{advertisement}
News from down under: the TRUE skeptical women side with the guys!
{advertisement}

126 thoughts on “News from down under: the TRUE skeptical women side with the guys!

  1. 52

    Bruce: You just earned a hell of a lot of my respect. Thank you for understanding that this is not about silencing mere disagreement as the more vocal trolls, Mark Senior included, seem to think.

  2. 53

    Jason at 40- I think it’s a matter of projection for many of them at least. I’ve never seen anyone such as Benson, Marcotte, Myers, Watson or Zvan or you or any others involved suggest they are speaking for anyone other than themselves. I have, however, seen their words get twisted to make it seem as such, usually by people that freely make assertions about what skepticism and atheism and whatever has to be all about for anyone that dares refer to themselves as such regardless of what my or anyone else’s opinion on the matter might be (and if you don’t agree with them, just look at all these photo-shopped pictures they made of some person that is totally bullying them).

  3. 54

    Until then, more money will be poured into “Women’s Studies” by pussy-whipped men, who are only out to please their wives.

    Apparently it never occurred to hir that a school, college, or university might be run by women (so that it would be women, not “pussy-whipped men” ‘pouring’ – obviously no awareness of how well such programs tend to be funded – the university money into running the programs), nor that anyone would combat privilege one is accorded for reasons other than sexual favors.

    By the way, I’ve ‘poured’ plenty of my own money into a Women’s Studies program (though I look at it more as contracting learned people to teach me things, paying money in exchange for their time and expertise, than “pouring”), and I’m not even married! I actually object to marriage as a social/legal construct that privileges socially-exclusive couples over single people and household/family arrangements that include more than two adults. I’ve also never had sex with anyone in my classes – being interested in the material, I go to classes to learn stuff, not to try to get laid, thus I’ve never been motivated to flirt with or hit on women in class. Even if that were the single biggest motivating factor in my behavior overall, there are easier, cheaper, less time-consuming, and more effective approaches to looking for sexual partners, so the charge doesn’t even make sense, except as projection – it’s literally the only reason the speaker could imagine that a man might be interested in something like feminism or Women’s Studies.

    Once again, I’m left to wonder how much of this stuff is windmill-chasing based on an honest (but delusional) appraisal of reality and how much is intentional fabrication.

  4. 55

    Jeez seems I understated when I described Mark as a turd. Real shame that people like Petria are not going to those meetings as I’m sure xie would contribute a lot more to them than him. Who knows how many people not speaking up that Mark and pals have put off the group permanently with his macho posturing about “debate”.

  5. 56

    I believe that the TREASURER of the Humanist Society of South Australia has overstepped the mark by making the comments he has made above under the ‘banner’ of the HSSA. This is granstanding at its finest.

  6. 57

    S. Zvan, my understanding is that it is IRRELEVANT to the Humanist Society of South Australia whether you are a feminist, non feminist or anti feminist!. Humanism is concerned about treating and viewing all peoples as equal. Bringing gender politics into the Humanist ‘frame’ does nothing to assist in the ‘goals’ Humanism sets itself.

  7. 59

    Humanism is concerned about treating and viewing all peoples as equal. Bringing gender politics into the Humanist ‘frame’ does nothing to assist in the ‘goals’ Humanism sets itself.

    Humanism is concerned with treating all people as equals, yes.

    Gender equality has not yet been achieved. It is an empirical fact that gender discrimination exists, and many people are prevented from reaching their full potential because of an accident of birth – being born female – or for failing to perform gender in ways that satisfy their society’s expectations about gender roles – feminine men, masculine women, intersex and transgender people, non-binary people, etc.

    Therefore it is objectively false to state that “bringing gender politics into the Humanist frame does nothing to assist the goals of humanism itself. Also, I don’t get the scare quotes around “frame” and “goals”.

    The American Humanist Association has a feminist caucus, so clearly they don’t agree that bringing bringing feminism into their organizational goals is an impediment for them.

    Perhaps they do it differently in Oz.

    Anyway, if I lived in Adelaide, I’d definitely swear off meatspace meetings with fellow freethinkers until I was assured that Mark Senior would be either absent or sincerely promising not to pester me or anyone else with demands for a “discussion” about feminism. His participation is an obvious problem if bringing more women to the group is a goal.

  8. 60

    Mark Senior aka mofa,

    I believe that the TREASURER of the Humanist Society of South Australia has overstepped the mark by making the comments he has made above under the ‘banner’ of the HSSA. This is granstanding at its finest.

    Bruce Everett,

    I’m the treasurer of the Humanist Society of South Australia Inc, although I want to make it clear that I’m not speaking in any official capacity here, nor that I’ve sought the backing of the committee to make this comment. Opinions are my own, and facts may be disputed by other parties.

    I know who I would want to associate with if I were living in Adelaide (instead of Melbourne); and any group that tolerates douchebags like Senior is going to find it hard to be a welcoming and inclusive organisation. Just sayin’

  9. 61

    Mark, I think you’ll find that upon actually reading what I wrote, that I explicitly did not comment “under the ‘banner’ of the HSSA”. At any rate, if you want to make a complaint, I think passing a motion at this week’s meeting is the way to do it.

  10. 62

    Bruce @ 60: SILENCER! CENSOR! ANTI-MAN FEMINAZI!

    Just thought I’d give you a few warm-up throws…;)

    I really liked your statement earlier – if I lived closer than, well, almost exactly opposite you on the planet, I’d come to your meeting because of that.

  11. 63

    I believe that the TREASURER of the Humanist Society of South Australia has overstepped the mark by making the comments he has made above under the ‘banner’ of the HSSA. This is granstanding at its finest.

    Shorter mofa:
    Somebody disagrees with me.
    I ain’t going to engage their ideas because I have no arguments.
    Instead I demand that the person stfu.
    I won’t give any arguments because see above.
    Also, my entire premise is bullshit, but if I act important enough maybe nobody will notice.

  12. 64

    mofa

    S. Zvan, my understanding is that it is IRRELEVANT to the Humanist Society of South Australia whether you are a feminist, non feminist or anti feminist!. Humanism is concerned about treating and viewing all peoples as equal. Bringing gender politics into the Humanist ‘frame’ does nothing to assist in the ‘goals’ Humanism sets itself.

    As a fellow Adelaidean to another:
    Stone the crows, Mark, but you’re a stinker worse than fishguts left on the Brighton Jetty on a scorching January afternoon.

  13. 65

    “How dare you imply that I do not see all people as equal. You have presented no evidence for your opinion/claim, whatever you want to call it, and you will be searching a very long time if you expect to find any.”

    Sorry if I was a bit crass with the “kiss my ass” thing. It was NOT a real invitation.

    I just think it’s really pretty ripe to essentially accuse someone of very serious misbehavior with no evidence what-so-ever, especially on a public forum, especially while complaining about a blogger being “professional” and fair.

    And yes, addressing my comment with nothing but an insult related to my supposed lack of fuckablity and asserting your straightness, is further “evidence” that you have a problem.

    Yours truly,

    page 43

  14. 66

    Very pleasant post Lofty…I don’t understand why the quotation you have highlighted would attract such vitriol from you…or is it just in jest? Either way it is bad form.

  15. 67

    “And yes, addressing my comment with nothing but an insult related to my supposed lack of fuckablity and asserting your straightness, is further “evidence” that you have a problem.”

    You guys just like making stuff up don’t you.

  16. 68

    Xanthë, chronic tuck

    Just because the ‘Treasurer’ claims he is not speaking in an official capacity here does not let him off the hook. Why mention the HSSA in the first place? Why mention the fact that he was an elected official of that group? Why mention how good the beer was at the meeting place?! NO. Bruce could have posted as simply ‘Bruce’ but he didn’t, he had to drop the fact that he is one of the officials of a Humanist group that I belong to and then go on to say what might or might not happen at the next meeting. Bruce would like to be a warrior but he doesn’t really have time…he too busy auditing the books.

  17. 69

    Sally Strange:
    “The American Humanist Association has a feminist caucus, so clearly they don’t agree that bringing bringing feminism into their organizational goals is an impediment for them”.

    That’s right, in the American School of Humanism the feminists have their own classroom across the corridor. And that is the way it should be with the atheist movement too…in the ‘school’ of atheism the feminists of your ilk should have their own classroom across the corridor. Then we could have some peace and start to work together in the battle against the negativities of theism. You can have your own classroom and teach, discuss and think whatever you want in there, it is only when people like Richard Carrier and P Z Myers start making noises about taking over the school that ‘we’ have a problem and a back lash occurs.

  18. 70

    What a fucking putz you are, mofa. A complete fucking waste of good oxygen and sunlight.

    Take over the school? Asshole, we’re already the fucking majority. Women + POC + queers + disabled + you’re fucking outnumbered already. Get used to it. We aren’t backing off, and we’re only getting more numerous. Fight your pathetic rearguard action in defence of your privilege, but know that in the end, we will win.

  19. 71

    Its a weird attitude this “taking over the school” stuff, I had someone say Rebecca Watson is “lecturing them from the podium” … People criticising are not saying you *have* to do X they are laying out why X is right for them. Why they think others should do X, if these “mofas” had the strength of their convictions I cannot see them being bothered by PZ, RW or RCs calls to action.

    I don’t feel at all personally addressed by Justin Vacula in his quest to annex the mens rights movement into his corner of atheism. I’m happy to ignore for the most part and criticise where appropriate. There is no “school” to take over or possible scenario where he *could* be “lecturing” me.

    Does all this come from an authoritarian view point where they see the RWs, PZs etc as “taking” the leadership of the movement from their idols? Seems to be one explanation and attacking this idol-atheism would be a good thing. We don’t need idols or faux “leaders”.

  20. 72

    CaitieCat, you really do think that your lot are in the majority. You have spent too much time in your safe spaces and this echo chamber called Freethought Blogs to understand the reality. And you keep making it worse for yourselves. First it was Richard Dawkins, then Sam Harris, then Michael Shermer. Then there was Thunderf00t, DJ Grothe, rejection of your sides speakers at TAM, the failure of the Atheismplus movement and now a call to not support the CFI. You are wrong to begin to think that all women, POC, queers and disabled atheists support you and your ideas. The arrogance, the gall you have, to make such a claim. Your world is ever shrinking and if you are not aware of this then it is your own fault when the shock hits.

  21. 73

    Oolon, it was only a couple of years ago…go revisit Richard Carriers rants and PZ Myers ‘call to arms’ at the time that Atheismplus was first floated. Both PZ and Carrier drew a line in the sand…remember? And declared the new atheism of the 21st Century – the 3rd wave of Atheism to replace the 2nd wave which was led by those crusty old white guys like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Were you around then? surely you can’t forget PZ Myers calling anyone who did not join his side (Atheismplus) the Atheist Assholes…he even designed a logo for us (similar to Atheism+) which was : Atheism* (the * is meant to be a sphincter). When I said “taking over the school” I was being poetic, what I was really saying was that PZ and Richard Carrier wanted to take over the (“new”) atheist movement…they didn’t succeed.

  22. 74

    @Mofa, jebus reading is hard for you? Can be the only explanation, Carrier said…

    There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all (I mean people like these and these).

    Those links were to ..
    1. _skepchick.org/2011/12/reddit-makes-me-hate-atheists/
    2. _skepchick.org/2011/09/mom-dont-read-this/

    PZ said…

    If you agree with that, you’re an atheist+. Or a secular humanist. Whatever. You’re someone who cares about the world outside the comforting glow of your computer screen. It really isn’t a movement about exclusion, but about recognizing the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs.
    And if you don’t agree with any of that — and this is the only ‘divisive’ part — then you’re an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, “Asshole Atheists” and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it.

    The “that” was pretty much secular humanism plus a few other things… So if as PZ says you don’t agree with any of that then yes Mark you are A*

    Richard Carriers divisiveness was to separate A+ from assholes like those that treat a 15yr old atheist like shit because she is a woman, she spoke about that experience and it wasn’t a good one from her “community”. So yes if you are on their side then you are A*

    I really hope you are wrong about A* being the majority but sometimes looking at Reddit and Youtube comments you do wonder. Is that the club you want to be a part of? You’re welcome to it.

  23. 75

    What does that even mean, “taking over the school”? I get the impression that mofa thinks that having a feminist caucus in your organization basically means a “separate but equal” sort of arrangement, whereby feminists have their own room across the hall, and that’s fine, but they never poke their heads into the regular meetings, and nobody who isn’t actively feminist bothers checking into the feminist classroom. Bullshit, man, you have no idea what you’re even talking about.

  24. 76

    Oh dear. Bruce here again, HSSA treasurer – but speaking in a non-official capacity of course. A few factual statements, which may be disputed… opinions are my own… You know the drill.

    Just because the ‘Treasurer’ claims he is not speaking in an official capacity here does not let him off the hook.

    Actually, prior to, and during the meeting last week, I raised this issue (as a part of a response to more general gossip) with every member of the committee. Nobody complained. The president told me I was well within my rights and that I did the right thing. This is obvious, because identifying one’s self (disclosure) and then posting a disclaimer about personal opinion, is standard practice (despite Mark’s clumsy attempts to insinuate that this is somehow sinister and foreshadowing threats).

    In speaking to the membership in attendance, I opened the floor to any other issue they may have with my conduct. I invited them to either tell me directly if they have a problem, so I can do something about it, or to talk to another committee member if they found me unapproachable. I’m yet to receive news of any problem passed on to me, nor has anyone complained to me directly in an official capacity (I’ve seen plenty of rubbish online though).

    The general response at the meeting seemed to be that the idea that anyone in attendance would have a problem with me, was a joke.

    And of course, last week, as anyone following this thread knows, I invited Mark to raise his issue with me at the meeting, which he then didn’t attend. Yet here he is, in a public forum, after the meeting, giving people the idea that I’m possibly in trouble. I’m not. One wonders who Mark thinks wields this ‘hook’.

    Perhaps if Mark really believes that I’ve insinuated that there was some kind of threat waiting for him at the next meeting, he could write an formal letter to the president of the HSSA detailing the threat, asking for assurances of safety, and formally submitting complaints about me he didn’t get to make at the last meeting, as well as any other complaints he may wish to make.

    I think what Mark has to learn to appreciate, is that when you make serious accusations in public, but don’t take them seriously enough to subject them to due process, your accusations come off as being made in bad faith – often because that’s exactly what’s happening.

    And this bit…

    Bruce would like to be a warrior but he doesn’t really have time…he too busy auditing the books.

    While it’s true that I don’t have limitless time, this is just weird. ‘Warrior’ sounds far too much like ‘Brave Hero’, and I don’t aspire to be one of those.

  25. 77

    And of course, last week, as anyone following this thread knows, I invited Mark to raise his issue with me at the meeting, which he then didn’t attend.

    That should be ‘…I invited Mark to raise his issue with me at the meeting. A meeting which he then didn’t attend.’ I didn’t mean to suggest that everyone knew that Mark didn’t rock up to the meeting.

  26. 78

    You may have all followed this sprited spat in Adelaide until the president blocked the website from non-members. A lovely lad, and very politically correct, he must have been dying of embarrassment at the boorish white males in his midst.

    It was a shame, and I almost lost interest in the debate, except the numbers viewing it remained astonishingly high. Those numbers were generated solely from the local membership. With the debate continuing to spiral out of control the president took the additional measure of shutting down the message board entirely. That was about 5 hours ago.

    Apparently the issue of atheism versus atheism/feminism is still a topic of interest in Adelaide. But it must not be discussed, so shhhhhhhhh.

  27. 79

    Gareth, I love how some people can take a perfectly innocuous and innocent act of procedure, and turn it into some kind of sinister thread. Specifically, I love how some people can do this because when it happens it tells us a lot about the skew of their perspective, and possibly their motives.

    Incidentally, I’ve got my own confection that I’ve used to make your, and other comments on the ACSA discussion board more bearable – whenever someone makes attributions to “atheistplussers” or the like, as an outgroup, I substitute “atheistplussers” with “reptile people”. It makes the comment easier to read, and yet for some reason, doesn’t increase the level of hysteria inherent in the comment.

  28. 83

    You are probably right Bruce. My bad. I suspect the Adelaide Atheist Meet-Up message board will be up and running tomorrow, with all posts visible. At that happenstance I will be on here in a flash to retract my insinuation that the president is a censorial control freak.

  29. 84

    By the way, the Spider jokes are really funny too so I hope you keep them coming. And all that bad press about how you are all miserable and mean on here? Duh, where did that come from?

  30. 86

    “The American Humanist Association has a feminist caucus, so clearly they don’t agree that bringing bringing feminism into their organizational goals is an impediment for them”.

    The fact that there is a feminist caucus in The American Humanist Association is evidence in itself that Humanism doesn’t quite ‘mesh’ with feminism. If feminism and Humanism were ‘pointing in the same direction’ then a feminist caucus would be as valid as a ‘green eyed peoples’ caucus in the organisation.
    So they, The American Humanist Association gave the feminist’s their own ‘classroom’ and I am sure that every member is free to poke their heads through any door and come and go to any meetings they chose within that organisation (except those times that the feminist caucus want to meet in private behind closed doors).

  31. 87

    Oolon continues in the same vein as Myers and Carrier of 2 years ago, deciding who wears the white hats and who wears the black hats…and yes Oolon, your crowd is in the minority because we have a whole world out there, outside of FtB’s, of atheist/skeptical/rational/fair/just/socially progressive/ non sexist people who can spot you divisive bullshit a mile off.

  32. 88

    Oh dear, his holiness ‘Treasurer of the the HSSA’ has once more spoken (but not in an official capacity apparently). His sermon is a blessing to you all. Every word he speaks must be the truth because he is a ‘Treasurer’ and ‘Treasurers’ never lie.

  33. 90

    Hehe I see Mark cannot give it up… So you are explicitly saying we *should* not divide ourselves from the people making the rape “jokes” to the 15yr old atheist girl on Reddit? Or those that send rape threats and drawings of Rebecca Watson in sexual positions?

    Can you explain how not denouncing that behaviour and the people doing it is going to attract women into the movement? You are far more divisive than me if this really is your position as you are creating an atmosphere where only childish men are going to feel comfortable. Women will go elsewhere. Asking the men in the movement to be decent human beings is not divisive, only a few like yourself find this difficult.

  34. 92

    Well Bruce, we are still all waiting here in dear old Adelaide for the “innocuous an innocent act of procedure” to be completed.

    I don’t know – I have a gloomy feeling about all of this. That in fact, the act of procedure is is actually an act of censorship, and that you are distorting the truth (again!).

  35. 93

    Strangeness, I think that Mofa is more of an active atheist than an active anti-feminist – but resents being aligned to a socio-political theory he doesn’t altogether agree with. I don’t think he (or I) would be discussing this if it hadn’t been thrust upon us (a bit like religion really).

    Each day you Atheism Plussers progressively marginalise yourselves further by insisting that atheists swallow your political ideology whole.

  36. 94

    Each day you Atheism Plussers progressively marginalise yourselves further by insisting that atheists swallow your political ideology whole.

    If the “political ideology” you’re referring to is “treat women like human beings and not fucking female dogs”, then yeah, it needs to be pushed down your throat.

    Because… you know… women are human beings… and not female dogs.

  37. 96

    “…but resents being aligned to a socio-political theory he doesn’t altogether agree with.”

    Says the guy pigeon-holing people into being for-or-against atheism plus, among a group of largely unaligned people.

  38. 97

    Hello all,
    I didn’t think that I would need to post in here again but it seems that Gareth Bridges is using this (and only this) as a forum to voice complaints about the Meetup Group which is the subject of the original post and neglecting to tell the entire story.

    Over the past week and a bit, the old Adelaide Atheists Meetup group has been undergoing a name and organisational change as part of it being handed over to the newly formed Atheist Community of South Australia. As Gareth would be aware, and email was sent out detailing the changes that were occurring and why. One of those changes was turning off of the message boards to allow for their archival. This would enable a clear delineation between what occurred when it was Adelaide Atheists and what would occur later when it became the Atheist Community of South Australia. In that email (which Gareth would have received) it specified that the message boards would be reactivated once a clear moderation policy had been written by the committee of the ACSA.

    Gareth is the only person to have complained, though strangely not to anyone who could actually do something about his complaint or in a position to be able to assuage his concerns. Mark/Mofa the originator of the thread has not complained; indeed he is supportive of the action that the committee of ACSA took and their reasoning.

    The full thread without any editing or deletions will be reinstated once the committee has written a moderation policy for the discussion boards.

    Scott
    President of the Atheist Community of South Australia

  39. 98

    Scott,

    I know Adelaide has the reputation as the city of churches, but with all of those bridges over the River Torrens, surely you could find somewhere underneath one or two of them to domicile Mark and Gareth?

  40. 99

    I may have an alternate understanding of what’s meant by the suggestion that people shack up “under the bridge”, but if my understanding is the same as yours Xanthe, I’m not sure Scott would welcome the joke at the best of times (much less the present). Am I losing something in translation?

  41. 100

    Bruce, your distortions were well explicated in the now censored message board. For instance, you were asked to retract some misattributed quotes but you never did. Not that it matters, eh? Who gives a shit about accuracy and reason around here?! You’ve made a bit of a meal of sexual harrassment, but in fact you are the only person I know of to have ever levelled a sexual harrassment complaint in the Adelaide atheist community.

    Nate Hevens, thanks for your astounding contributions to this debate.

Comments are closed.