Hustler Magazine Rails Against Conservative Atheist S.E. Cupp… with a Photoshopped Phallus

It looks like the whole point of the “article” is a an excuse to publish fake sexual images of good looking women. Any philosophical or political issues, and indeed who the woman is, seems to be a secondary concern.

Way to keep it classy, Hustler.

It’s HUSTLER! Heeeelloo? You’re bitching about a crude satire that objectifies a women…from a crude magazine that objectifies women. Are you going to start bitching that water is wet too? Gimme a break. Shut up.

I didn’t see this kind of reaction from the left when Hustler published an ad parody of Jerry Falwell “confessing” to incest with his mother in an outhouse. Being outrageous is what Hustler does. I don’t know what this has to do with an atheism blog.

OK, I hate to admit I know this, but I’ve seen issues of Hustler where they portray male politicians they dislike as literal assholes – you know, they photoshop the face of said person on top of a hairy butt being spread wide apart. I have to agree with one of the previous posters – this is Hustler we’re talking about. I just find it difficult to muster outrage on this one, sorry.

What do you have against feminist?

They showed Obama with a penis in his mouth. I can’t help but think this article should be reconsidered and a couple arguments amended or removed.

As an outspoken masculist, it’s good to see women finally being put in their place. And it’s hilarious.

Grow up writer.

A few things….first, when did this become a feminist blog? Come on Hemant, I enjoy many of the guest posters, but this is ridiculous. If I wanted this I would go to PZ’s blog on “How to Hate Your Penis and Be Ashamed of Your Melonin”

As for Larry Flynt, this gy has done more to defend and protect our First Amendment rughts than any five fundred feminists combined. He may be a sleaze peddler, but he has vigourously defended a right that you should be damn happy about.

And as has been stated by another poster, it is HUSTLER Magazine. You want us to get outraged at something overtly sexual and chauvanistic when the source material is HUSTLER Magazine?!

That is more fucked up than the ad itself.

 How about you see this for what it is, a fellow woman being dehumanized and sexualized because of her voice in the political process. You should care about this, it should bother you. i’m sad for women everywhere if you dont see the harm in this

Didn’t realize feminism was “clutter”.

That being said, as a feminist, I’m not offended by pic. It’s Hustler. Kind of par for the course, no?

1.) This is hustler magazine we are talking about. As previous commenter Mike said, you have to take into consideration what was done to others they don’t like with graphic sexually explicit images regardless of sex.  This is no different.

2.) There is little chance S.E. Cupp can do anything about this. Hustler has been down this road before and won, its constitutional and protected speech. Of course some of the feminists in the movement dont want you to hear that.

3.) Mostly for Hemant –  I did not sign up to read a feminist blog – if I wanted that I would be reading Jezebel or something. This has nothing to do with atheism, and shouldn’t be here.

i think its hilarious. she’s an idiot

How does Hustler even manage to rise beyond it’s “beneath-notice-or-contempt” status? Who the hell is reading it for its incisive political commentary? What’s next? An expose of kindergarten potty humor?

Because why on earth would atheists want half of the population to be treated with basic decency, or to be taken seriously, or to feel safe? So cluttering.

It seems the people most outraged over feminist leaning articles are misogynists. And at least one misogynist racist.

Santorum made it his calling to associate himself with homosexual acts. So he got himself associated with a product of a sex act (though not necessarily homosexual).

I’m torn on this one.

As a feminist, I agree that the photoshop is sexist and objectifying. (I’m kind of disgusted by some of the comments here about one having nothing to do with the other — all over the atheist blogosphere is an enormous discussion about sexism within our ranks, and we would do VERY well to remember that the subjects intersect directly, so suggesting that you don’t come here for “feminist issues” is beyond shortsighted.)On the other hand…this IS Hustler we’re talking about. They rag on both sexes pretty routinely as a matter of course (and religious affiliation has little to do with it). I’m not particularly bothered by this…and her status as an atheist isn’t necessarily relevant to me. I mean, honestly, would anyone be batting an eye if the image were of Ann Coulter?

Nope. Go away.

Fill me with your wisdom on how you arrived at that little gem there Ace.

I have a sneaking suspicion– and don’t quote me on this because it’s just my opinion– that the poster is using one inflammatory image to highlight the other, more pervasive and insidious issue.  From claims of sexual harassment to the Worley church member, comments have surfaced that detail the extent to which anti-women statements and attitudes are tolerated within the atheist community. I think the intention is to use one grotesque picture to try and shock some sense into people who aren’t getting it.

Unfortunately, it seems they still aren’t getting it.

Well said and agreed.

1. I’m a grown damn woman, not a toddler.   My mother doesn’t even call me sweetheart.

2. The feminist agenda is to be safe, treated decently, and be taken seriously.  You think it’s something else, which is obvious, but it isn’t.

3. I don’t see you complaining about this blog being overtaken by the gay agenda. Is there a reason you think that female people are worthy of less rights or less respect than gay people?

4. It’s Hemant’s blog. He can post what he likes, can he not?

No one ever complains when Hemant or another author blogs about something not specific to atheism (about every day). For instance, the Yeti DNA sequencing had not one complaint lodged against it for not being related to atheism. This complain ONLY happens when a feminist article appears. Then suddenly, people (really, just misogynistic jerks) complain. Your excuse is a poor one. Just admit to yourself that you hate women.

And I expect to see you post complaining about off-the-topic-of-atheism articles every time there is one. Or is every conceivable topic related to atheism except feminism?

Your misogynistic rants were big hint, skippy.

Firstly, where on earth did you draw the conclusion that I hate women? I am a woman, and very proud of it.

Secondly, I don’t know if I’m receiving a different newstream to you, but I don’t remember seeing posts this irrelevant yet. I didn’t see the yeti DNA post, but judging by the title, I think it would be of interest to people here- applying naturalistic principles to something assumed to be supernatural and mythical seems very relevant to the heart of this blog.

Perhaps you’re right and I’ve just not seen the other irrelevant posts yet. Maybe I just don’t click on the titles I find relevant usually, but I clicked on this one because the title made it sound like her atheism mattered but actually, it had nothing to do with the article at all. And I’m sure the author knows this.

I can’t say a whole lot about other people’s “knee jerk reactions”, but I know if I read an equally politically irrelevant piece- such as one on animal rights, which is a great passion of mine- I’d find it equally off topic and annoying in the context of this blog. As an atheist I am free from prescribed political leanings, and I’d like it to stay that way, thankyou very much.

Lauren: Thank you for posting this article.  It’s important that we raise the level of discourse and not let this kind of hate speech slide by just because the victim is someone who wrote a book that (in part) attacks atheists.  It’s topically very relevant and important to this site.

Hate doesn’t cease to be hate because someone slapped “satire” on to it.  (Although some people need to lookup the meaning of satire in a good literary handbook). Every loud blowhard and schoolyard bully thinks everything they say is hilarious, but the humor defense is fallacious with them, as it is here.

Commentators who are complaining they didn’t sign up for a “feminist blog”: shame on you. Like it or not feminism and atheism are in conversation with each other, and an atheist blog is going to broach the topic once in a while. 

I don’t see you complaining when Hemant or other contributors to this blog post supporting gay rights or other tangentially-related political movements.  Feminism is part of the battle against the same extreme religious beliefs that are intolerant of nonbelievers.  Your antipathy toward feminism isn’t going to change that, it’s just putting you on the wrong side of social justice.

Gay rights are relevant to this blog because churches are trying to do a lot to prevent gay couples from being treated as equal human beings, purely on the basis of their “holy” books. This article had absolutely nothing to do with atheism or religion.

Incidentally, it doesn’t have much to do with feminism, either. Hustler readers have since commented on this post saying that this treatment happens to men in their magazine, too. So it’s not an attack on women specifically, and whoever posted this in the first place clearly gave us a very biased view.

And I must reiterate, atheism does not go hand in hand with any belief, besides the one it is defined by. Preaching to others where their political interests should lie and saying “shame on you” for not agreeing with them is no better than what the church does, in my opinion.

Woah, there.  Churches ARE trying to do a lot to prevent women from being treated as human beings.  Have you missed the entire raging debate on abortion and contraception?  The churches don’t want women to have any agency. 

I am gay and a woman.  Even though I don’t sleep with men, I am still affected by decisions made by religious institutions as a woman.  Contraception isn’t just to prevent pregnancy, and if I ever get pregnant from being raped, you better believe I’m getting an abortion.

Furthermore, so what that Hustler shows men as assholes?  Why don’t they show women as assholes?  Why did they have to shove a dick in her mouth?  The treatment of the sexes is different–asshole is not nearly as offensive as shoving a dick in a woman’s mouth as a show of male domination.   

Additionally, I get the impression that the author herself suspected the article to be largely irrelevant to the purpose of the blog considering she felt the need to put “conservative atheist” in the title… despite it being completely unrelated its content. 

Being a woman doesn’t mean that you can’t be a misogynist.

And the reasons they do it is because Hustler is homophobic and misogynist.  That doesn’t make it right.

 You don’t seem to get the feminism and atheism are necessarily interconnected due to the fact that most of the misogyny promoted in society stems from the patriarchal privilege given to men through religion.

The only reason I can see a man wanting to complain about having to read about how not to be a sexist is that he wants to continue to do so without feeling discomfort.

It is ridiculous you are whining about Hemant posting a blog that decries the objectification of women.  If he had posted about how an arab woman was raped and abused for simply showing her face or leg, would that be a feminist blog?

Thankfully that must mean you post a LOT less often too.

Who said anything about a movement? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god, and nobody describing themselves as an atheist necessarily has a duty to become an active part of a group with anyone. They can do precisely as they wish, as far as I’m concerned. If that involves political activism, great. If not, I hardly think it’s my business. How dare you tell myself and others in my position that we are not welcome to “your movement”. 
Lazy, you say? Actually, I happen to be very politically active in my private life. But I don’t necessarily think this has anything to do with my lack of faith, which I consider a freedom from obligation. I try to live my life without harming others, but see this as a personal choice rather than a necessary requirement of being an atheist. And can we stop with the calling anyone who thinks this article was irrelevant a misogynist? I don’t hate women. For the last time, I am a woman and am very proud of it. So I’m afraid throwing a “misogynist” label at me to try and invalidate my arguments is completely absurd.

Nor does it mean you cant be a self righteous asshole….Kelly…meet yourself.

Yes, by all means let us begin to formulate a set of spically accepted words. Anyone who diverges off this prescribed and arbitrary set of words shall be silenced…yes, that is wnderfully progressive.

People like you scare me as much as the far right.

Sweetheart.

What? A porn magazine is objectifying women?! Well polish my monocle and press my trousers! Whatever will they think of next?

Wow. Talk about a false dichotomy. Sweetheart, you truly need to get up above the biew from your limited 100 feet and try it around 10000 feet.

“Bitching” is an unfortunate verb to use when describing a woman writing about a woman being crudely portrayed.

HUSTLER has had the image of Larry Flynt with a dick in his mouth as well. And he has been elected Asshole of the Month in the magazine numerous times throughout its history.

This x1000.

Well said

Hah! That was funny!

Well said, rights for all except women!

 No, the purpose was social satire and commentary.  If you don’t get that, maybe you shouldn’t read Hustler.  Or read blog posts that have NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM on an atheist-centric blog.  It’s nice to jump on the “don’t objectify women” bandwagon, isn’t it?  This is Hustler.  It’s what Hustler has done for years.  Come on, people.  With all the important topics relating to atheism, are we REALLY pissing time away on this?

Except that all sorts of people get singled out as targets in hustler all the time: men, women, conservatives, liberals, hell even flynt himself.  The fact that it happened to be a woman this time is otherwise irrelevant.

 It IS clutter.  It has nothing to do with friendly atheism, except that the subject of this particular Hustler bit is an atheist.  But you are so right — this is indeed par for the course for Hustler.  But it isn’t enough for reasonable atheists just not reading it if it doesn’t appeal to them — instead, they’re POSTING ABOUT IT in an atheist forum where it has no bearing.  This truly staggers me.  Hemant, seriously… where the hell is the editorial leash these days?  Maybe you should start a “Friendly Feminist” blog and move this stuff over here.

There’s a difference between the posts us readers make in the comments section and the material that gets published on the blog.

 Yeti DNA sequencing seemed to me to be about whether this was a sane use of science and logic and reason, which atheism generally says are good things.  This post was about the poster stomping her foot and whining about objectification and how mean ol’ Larry Flynt is.  Two totally different things.  Is the atheism connection solely because she’s an atheist and we want to stomp our feet because Larry insulted us?  Or is it because she’s a conservative atheist and we don’t like her much, so we feel like we look like heroes if we get up and scorn Larry Flynt for doing this?  Are we going to act like that, now?  Get out our egos and show the world how we care even for the atheists we’d rather not have representing us?  Because that sounds a lot like Christian churches wanting them put behind electrified fences… but claiming they love them!

Call this what it is: a feminist poster using this atheist forum as a place to shout feminist rants from the rooftops.  How is it anti-feminist?  It’s satire, it’s parody, it’s insulting, but she didn’t ACTUALLY POSE with a d*ck in her mouth.  Like virtually all porn out there when women do such things, if she did, it would have been HER CHOICE.  But it’s irrelevant, because it’s a PhotoShopped satire, clearly disclaimed, clearly the same thing Hustler has done for decades.

There’s a lot of discussion about the validity of this post on this blog b/c of its feminist content.  That’s all just a distraction.

The real disqualifier is its faux outrage.  Repeat after me: “you have NO right to NOT be offended.”

 I hear that using demeaning gender-based pseudo-endearments to try to dismiss the other person is hip and charming, and not at all shitty and misogynistic.

 Jess — well said.  I couldn’t agree.  As I said earlier, it’s annoying to object to this and be accused of being a misogynist, which I absolutely and most certainly am not.  This just isn’t the place for it.  Sure, Hemant can do what he wants, but then he should man up and change his blog to Friendly Hemant, then.

It’s not sexism when they’re treating everyone, male & female, with equally offensive language and depictions. Anyone is not a regular reader of Hustler or isn’t familiar with their reputation wouldn’t necessarily know that this is par for the course. They publish crude irreverent stuff; that’s what they’re known for.

And yes, it’s a cheap shot to talk about SC Cupp’s looks but it was also a cheap shot every time John Stewart did the same to Limbaugh, Gingrich, and Boenher.

The publishers of Hustler have the right to be assholes. And what they’re publishing isn’t being broadcast like Fox news where kids can see it. Only adults have access to it (unless people blog about it.)

They didn’t do this because she’s female; they did it because of her politics.

If Hustler does this to men and women in this feature, then the article buttresses homophobia, but not misogyny. That doesn’t improve the situation.

Objectively, I’m not clear on why having a penis in one’s mouth would be considered an insult. Are men supposed to think that their own genitals are so disgusting that contact with them is demeaning? That’s an insult to the man who says, “Suck my dick”, not his target.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that all feminists are for equal rights and treatment under the law. I’m sure some are, but many are decidedly not. Many are more than happy to claim their “equal rights” whilst exploiting their grandfathered special privileges granted to them under  the “patriarchy”.    

 I thought it was a humanist atheist blog.

 Thank you!!!!!

For the record, as I have posted here, Hustler has long made such mockeries of both men and women.  This isn’t a “pick on the women” day.  And also for the record, Larry Flynt has been a staunch supporter of feminist rights.  You can be a staunch supporter of feminist rights and still PhotoShop a d*ck in the mouth of a woman you don’t like.  Like any group that takes itself WAY too seriously, feminists seem to be unable to separate two things… “It’s my way or the highway, men!”  Really, there’s room for gray.  It’s not all black and white.  (Careful!  That last line was NOT a racist, white race/black race claim!  Don’t anyone run away with that and turn it into a non-talking point to distract everyone again!  Ahhhhh!!  Indy is an evil, racist, misogynist bastard!  And I Bet the dirty f*cker is an ATHEIST, too!  Sheesh.  (That last joke was because the mental capacity of many in here makes me feel like the angry feminists must be religious, too.  I am not a misogynist.  I am not a racist.  I am proudly atheist — like I used to think this blog was.)

 Again, there are other definitions of terms.  Why go straight to “bitching means women are bitches”???!!  If I say “Man, this discussion is f*cked up,” does my use of the F word automatically mean I’m talking about using women for their bodies?  Sheesh!

 Hustler gets recognition because Larry Flynt has actually fought and suffered quite a lot to defend Freedom of Speech in America, and Hustler was his vehicle for doing so. That he’s a smut purveyor who makes a living by degrading young women with issues is really not so important beside that.

Of course, that has nothing to do with whether Hustler has said anything worth saying. That’s just why it and Flynt deserve to be known of.

 This post does seem to be off topic. Just because she’s an atheist doesn’t mean it’s relevant here. Her atheism wasn’t even addressed by Hustler.

 I don’t what’s funnier… that you posted that, or that the women who responded got all offended and took it seriously.  Which totally makes my point… groups with causes taking themselves way too seriously and leaving no room for gray area in their black-and-white worlds.

Then again, if you were actually serious…

 Nothing that Jess has said suggests that she’s misogynistic. It’s not fair to pull that word out so carelessly just because someone disagrees with you.

You thought that it was funny, and that rape victims shouldn’t take the endemic cultural problems that led to their attacks seriously?

Congratulations on actually being the kind of little shit that Aaron is invoking.

 Hate-filled troll.

I’m sorry, but isn’t having to take a particular position on something on the basis of my gender meant to be what your cause opposes?

I know, I keep thinking of Captain Renard in Casablanca yelling “shocked. i am shocked to see gambling in here”

Thank you, Ericka!

 I bet you’d look good with a d*ck in your mouth, Coyotenose.

 Thanks for making my point!  You REALLY jumped to THAT?  Instead of the obvious thing I thought was funny, and which I explained, was that he posted that just to troll, and everyone immediately BELIEVED HIM, took him SERIOUSLY, and lost their minds?  Grow up, kid.

 It drives me crazy when people do that. It’s a potent word and it needs to be used accurately.

Atheism by definition is *lack of* belief in a god.  Belief in a god is THE primary justification for cultural misogyny, as well as a significant means of its transmission.  Therefore, atheism considered rationally *should* be relevant to knocking down religiously constructed oppression of half the human population.

Libby Anne writes a great deal about the influence of Christian patriarchal religion on the oppression of women, and conversely, how objecting to religious misogyny brings many women to reject religion and become atheists.  In fact she just wrote about it two days ago:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/05/christian-patriarchy-fear-fear-fear.html 

Exactly. Not only does using it so liberally have a boy-who-cried-wolf effect when it is applied to someone who actually treats women as inferior beings, but sticking the label on people who don’t deserve it can be hurtful.

 That’s a fair point I suppose but after thinking about it I’ve come up with a few things.

Principally, the initial stages of this satire were almost certainly directed at people who themselves would think it was the most horrible of insults to suggest that they would be sucking a penis.  In the interim I think that the reason such a thing hasn’t surface since is due to two things, first is laziness (it has worked as a joke in past so why bother changing it) the second could be an issue of convenience.  For the purposes of photoshopping a sexual organ onto a picture of someone’s face, a penis simply works better.  Why? Because pictures of people into which you can insert the image of a penis are far more common and easier to do.

For example, the shot you’d need of the person being mocked would have to be such a configuration that you could insert the image of the woman into it without obscuring their face (an image like this would need to include the legs and pelvis at least). I suppose an image of someone bowing could be used in this fashion, or a picture of the person in profile but that would reduce the identifiability of said person.  Additionally, the picture would ideally contain the subject with their tongue at least partially protruding from their mouths, though I suppose that could be photoshopped on as well. 

On the other hand photshoping a penis into someone’s mouth, you can have a mostly front on shot (which makes them more identifiable) and all you need is an image that has them with their mouth open, and for that purpose you can simply use a single frame of footage when the person is speaking.  For the penis you don’t need to include testicles or an part of the rest of the man, so you odon’t need to worry about obscuring the face of the subject.

Finally, I think that putting the penis into the mouth makes another point.  The penis in the mouth effectively renders the person unable to speak, essentially putting a cork in it.

However, I think it would be perfectly in line with the spirit of this satire to have a woman who’s virulently anti-homosexual and photoshop a picture to make it look like she’s perfoming oral on another woman.

Hell, I havent read a Hustler in years, but after this pile of steaming nonsense, I think I may go down to the 7-11 and grab several copies, just because I can.

Oh Lord Awmighty…I am fixin’ to get the vapors and jes fall all over myself cuz dey is usin’ the word “bitching” and oh my good heavens….wells I is jes gunna roll over cuz they is usin’ it all wrong….

WTF.

And I was explaining why atheism and feminism are related, not making any claim about Larry Flynt or this particular instance.

Coyote,

I love you. I cannot hide it anymore, and I feel uou must feel the same way. We must marry. Whether you are a man or woman, it doesnt matter because our love and bond is that strong. I suggest a June wedding but I am open to suggestions. We just cant hide this anymore, nor deny it.

While there have been others, there have not been others like you, nor will there be. In short, we must make this work.

Until I hear otherwise, I will begin prepartions for our betrothal for next month. Until then I remain

humbly yours in life,

Fsq

 I have never, once, considered S.E. Cupp as “one of our own”  I think she is wholly a phony waiting for the right moment to “find jesus” and make her pappy happy.  I don’t care that Hustler did this.

I care that people (read men) are here whining that this has turned into a “feminist” blog, Oh Horror! and that they will have to read about women’s issues from time to time.

Nobody is asking you or anyone else to “protect women” from “mean old objectifying men”

We don’t want your protection. We want respect and equality.  How do you turn giving that to women into being “whiny-do gooders?”

Wow. Did you just step in it.

You just gave one of the most condscending nd bullshit arguments that feminists themselves scream and shout against.

You clIm that the young women that Hustler features “have issues”. Wait, what?!

I ws told by feminists that women who choose porn are empowered and strong….but you say they have issues?

You simply cannot have it both ways, well unless you like that, which is cool, but you have just shown you hypocrisy in spades!!!!!

 None, that’s my point. If you’re a humanist, you’re also a feminist.

 “You can be a staunch supporter of feminist rights and still PhotoShop a d*ck in the mouth of a woman you don’t like.”

No, you really can’t.

 Pot, meet kettle.

 Translation: We SAID it was a JOKE, so people aren’t ALLOWED to get UPSET. It was JUST a JOKE.

“People like you scare me as much as the far right.”

Onamission5 must be a woman then.

He’ll probably start being invited to speak at atheist conferences now.

Because we all know that any time a woman doesn’t like something which is said about her, it must be because she’s hysterical, aka craaazy from the uterus, and not because what was said was grossly offensive.

I’d say the tone was very similar ~ a weariness and frustration at having to read yet-another-story on the subject……..as well as a couple of “ive stopped reading this blog as frequently because of this” tossed in.

Not only that, but asking you not to call me by demeaning titles is the same thing as trying to relegate an entire marginalized segment of the population to second class citizenship?

This is exactly the issue. Any other article as pointless as this would have been routinely ignored but because the issue is feminism, its become an excuse for sad whingers like FSQ to complain about women in the clubhouse.

S.E. Cupp wrote the book “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity”, but also describes herself as an atheist.  Yeash.

“Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of abuse? I think not.”  As far as Hustler goes this has got to be one of the most uninformed statements I have ever seen.  It really makes you wonder how thoroughly researched other posts are on here.  As numerous other comments have stated this has been done for years and years by Hustler to males (and females) of all political and ideological stripes.  Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks (and advantages) of the internet is that it gives everyone a voice.  I hope Ms. Lane is more careful in the future.  This must be very embarrassing for her.

No. Just you.

That doesn’t even make sense.

You get just as snarky and snippy. Dont play mightier than thou.

Okay, so I agree with everyone else here that this article is a swing and a miss; Hustler using a picture like this is pretty much par for the course, and even if it weren’t, this topic is rather a stretch for this blog.

That, however, has been thoroughly discussed already. What I’d like to address is the idea that somehow feminism ideas should inherently not even be posted in this blog. It’s giving me a bit of an r/atheism vibe, which isn’t a very good thing IMO.

Feminism, like LGBT rights, as another example, is at this point somewhat inherently tied with atheism. Not for any sort of philosophical reasons, mind; clearly not believing in deities in general and how one treats the opposite gender are utterly unrelated topics. However, like in the LGBT community, we tend to see a lot of the bigger problems in this area come from religion.

Second, this isn’t nor has it ever been exclusively an atheist blog, though that’s always been its primary role. It’s had a humanist side for a long time — since I can remember in any case — and things like feminism and LGBT rights are definitely tied into humanism even from a purely philosophical perspective. Science is another topic that comes up, for instance, which is also only tangentially related to atheism.

The fervour some people seem to show in favour of *only* posting anything clearly related to atheism itself is, in my opinion, misled. We have friends and allies in these other minority communities, which often share a mutual enemy with us. And even when they don’t, there are often ways we can help each other and both be better for it, even if the problem at hand has nothing to do with atheism.

So while I agree that this particular post was not good material, the suggestion that any feminism content not obviously related to atheism should not be posted to this blog I think is simply erring in the exact opposite direction. I feel that we should also maintain humanism here, and sometimes that means addressing something that doesn’t necessarily help us or even have to do with us directly.

Don’t forget to be awesome, all.

Wow. Pithy.

Totally, because atheists can’t possibly be affected or influenced by any religious notions hanging around in the culture!

I’m a woman and I’m complaining that this “article” is poorly researched, sensationalist garbage. It’s PC overload BS and I agree with those who feel it doesn’t make sense to post tabloid quality BS filler here. I believe in equality, but that doesn’t mean I have to support stupidity, laziness, or poor quality just because it’s got the word “feminism” in the story. Sorry if that just pissed all over your man-hater parade.

‘feminists seem to be unable to separate two things’ – ALL Feminists?  Just the ones you disagree with?  Feminism is not a monolith – so this statement is pretty pointless.

Larry Flynt is a staunch supporter of feminist rights. So the word feminist now means that women are a collection of holes for penises? 

You see, now that was funny!!!

Thats what you come up with? Thats the best you can do?

Za zing, you got me….

 The most telling thing here is that THAT is how you choose to interpret this.  Or maybe you just can’t help it; I don’t know.  A cursory reading of the comments here do not in any way, to a rational mind — at least it seems to me — indicate that “feminists are ruining everything” hysteria is happening.  Not even close.  But like a Christian interpreting everything entirely to fit his belief system, Patterrssonn, you’re doing a great job skewing the debate so as to seem like we’re all evil misogynists out to destroy women.  Keep up the good work!  (Since people have a problem with the “obvious sarcasm” issue… you’re not doing a great jog, and not doing good work.)

 Good point.  To me, it seems that screaming “Misogynist!” and attacking others for innocent things like only weakens an cheapens the cause of feminism.  Personally, I think ANY group that takes itself so radically seriously tends to do its cause more harm than good.

Take PETA.  I agree with much of what they say and do, but they so frequently go way over the top so as to caricaturize themselves that it’s hard to take them seriously.

I’m an atheist and a liberal, but I own a handgun and have a permit to carry concealed.  But the NRA too often looks like a crowd of rampaging clowns –despite the good that it does.

And radical feminists seem the same way.  I agree with much of what they espouse, but when angry feminists jump in at the drop of a hat and claim everyone’s misogynists — when intelligent, thinking people can CLEARLY see that that isn’t the case if they breathe for a minute — it makes them look silly and cheapens the cause.

It’s NO DIFFERENT than a Christian coming into an atheist forum and saying, “I disagree with you atheists, and believe in such and such,” and some atheists going bonkers and immediately attacking the Xianit — it accomplishes nothing except making atheists in general seem like radical clowns, cartoon versions of what the group in general is trying to accomplish.

Just like this discussion.  Basically, it’s “I don’t like you having an opinion that goes against mine, so YOU MUST BE A WOMAN HATER!”  And on comes the group vitriol.  Fine.  I can do this all year.

 Yeah, you really can.  You REALLY can.  Just because YOU feel that PhotoShopping a d*ck in a woman’s mouth means someone is a misogynist doesn’t make it so.  It’s just how you decide to view it.  If we set down your rule as THE rule, suddenly nobody can do ANYTHING that might hurt someone’s feelings, and there goes every off-color joke, MAD magazine satire, newspaper comic strip, and certainly every Hustler magazine.  I think I’ll side with freedom of expression here, and my earlier claim that people who are so easily offended need to stop and consider whether something that offends them was INTENDED to offend or not.  I’m certain the Hustler thing was not intended to offend feminists.  It was intended to insult a woman Larry Flynt doesn’t hold in high esteem.  Oh, well.  Get over it.  Move on.  There’s more to life than wallowing in that.

Now, send me a picture of you, and I’ll PhotoShop something in your mouth, and all the while I’ll promise you I support your right to voice your opinions even though I don’t agree with them.  And on that you can be certain.

If I read that right… how the hell did you go from Observation A to Conclusion Z like that?  That makes no sense at all.  So are you claiming that, because Hustler depicts women sexually, Hustler must therefore be misogynistic?  Huh?

 Find a mirror.  What, do I have to put stupid smiley faces after every sarcastic comment in case people are actually THAT detached that they can’t see it?  Is Poe’s Law truly in effect?

Come on… the whole thing began with a PhotoShopped image of a woman with a d*ck in her mouth.
🙂

I thought the comment was snarky and amusing, given the relation to the original subject matter.
🙂

I love smiley faces because they somehow let me get away with anything.
🙂

My sarcastic comments matter when I use smiley faces so nobody gets offended.
🙂

Seriously, Onamission5… the name-calling began when angry people started accusing me and others of being misogynists — unjustly, because they didn’t like our reasonable comments that this post had little or nothing to do with the point of this blog.  If you’re going to accuse people of name-calling and all that, perhaps you should read the discussion here today and see who began slinging mud and calling names first — without sarcasm, with clear intentions to accuse others of being something they were not.

Don’t be offended by that, Onamission5… it’s all right!  I have one of these:
🙂

 You see, *I* can tell you’re using sarcasm… but you didn’t use smileys, so I don’t know if it counts.

It isn’t my fault is someone is offended by something that wasn’t intended to offend her.  I think the only one today who has a right to be offended is Ms. Cupp, who ended up with a PhotoShopped d*ck in her mouth.  Everyone else is just whining.  Don’t like it?  Don’t buy it!  Don’t read it!  Don’t tack it up on your wall!  Write Larry Flynt a letter and tell him how offended you are!

Or… or, you could do this: Accuse everyone in this discussion with whom you disagree of being a woman hater.  Yeah, that will work!  It will distract everyone from the actual discussion, make you feel better, and so on and so forth.  It’s especially effective if any reasonable person can tell that the accused woman hater really aren’t woman haters at all, because you can use the skills you learned either debating with Xian apologists or being a Xian apologist to deflect everything from the actual topic.

Hey… smiley faces!  Don’t be offended!  Unless you’re one of those people who is accusing people of being woman haters when you know damn well they aren’t and that isn’t what this is all about.  If you ARE one of those, then I am very much trying to offend you.
🙂 🙂 🙂  Wow, look at all those smileys!

 EllenBeth, it does seem I should have been using those smileys in my earlier posts, since my sarcasm is always unnoticed.  I don’t consider her “one of our own” but it seems that the only possible justification to this post being here at all is because Cupp is an atheist.  But I don’t believe that is the case.  I think the poster was merely using this as a launching point for radical feminism.  I don’t have ANY PROBLEM with feminism.  I have a problem with this being a blog about atheism, and that I think the connection of Cupp being an atheist is tenuous at best.  The poster did not focus on Cupp’s atheism, but instead how Hustler was mean and such for objectifying her and all that.  That just doesn’t seem the point of this forum.

If you had read this, you’d have seen not just men, but women as well complaining.  Do you immediately jump to “all men are misogynist” like others seem to?  If so, that is unfortunate, because all men are not, and I am CERTAINLY not.

This isn’t about whether we should read about women’s issues from time to time.  It’s that this isn’t the Friendly Feminist blog.  There is no real atheism connection here, and as I said the poster made it clear her purpose with this post was about feminism, NOT about atheism.  If atheists started posting atheist-centric posts with nothing to do with feminism in feminist blogs, and some feminists complained, how do you think the atheists would be treated if they told all the feminists they were atheist-haters and should shut up and get a dose of atheism every now and again (horrors!)?

Lastly, how did you turn your response into accusations that we are trying to protect you, and you don’t need protection, and you want respect and equality?  Again… this is about atheism.  You counter the argument… by preaching women’s rights?  I’m all for them, but… doesn’t it seem like you’re making the point by getting in the feminist pulpit?  I ask you again… if an atheist posted atheist stuff in a feminist blog, and an another atheist defended the first atheist by telling you that all they want is respect and equality… don’t you think that would be out of place in the feminist blog?

Now, if the post was about atheist feminists, well, I’d get it.  And if the poster here postulated whether atheists should be angry with Hustler about what it did to Cupp, that might make sense.  But on an atheist blog, she clearly skipped over any interest in atheism and went straight to the feminist stance.  She said”

“Do candid conservative male pundits have to put up with this kind of
abuse? I think not. Women who raise their voices in the public sphere
should not have to be afraid of being objectified as a punishment. If
you have an issue with what they say, talk about their arguments, not
their looks.”

Yes, candid conservative male pundits have regularly put up with this kind of treatment in Hustler.  And where was Lauren Lane for decades while women of all types — and men — were being treated to the same sort of thing in Hustler?  Because Cupp is an atheist, this was justification or Lane to turn this into a feminist rant?  That doesn’t make much sense to me.

Now, if she focused solely on Cupp being slammed because she was an atheist, I would have simply commented that Hustler has done this to lots of folks over the years and moved on.  But I and others have argued against this post being here at all and were accused of being misogynistic.  I guess those are fighting words.  I’ve spent my life being accused of some pretty horrible things by intolerant religious people who can’t handle my atheism — and I will not sit by while people who don’t know me deliberately twist my words to accuse me of hating women, which is ridiculous and inane.

However, I do recognize that some of these people may not be twisting my words; they may be so mentally incapable that that’s all they can see, or all they WANT to see.  I suspect most are the latter: They WANT to see that.  It’s too bad, because those of us being attacked for saying this post shouldn’t have been here in the first place have made some basic, solid, easy-to-understand arguments, and we’re being persecuted for it.  Claims of misogyny?  Whatever.  Christian argumentative tactics, really: Take what was said, claim it means something that fits your view, and throw it out for all to see.  Nice.  (That last word was sarcasm.  It’s not nice at all.)

Ed, not sure who you’re claiming was faux outraged.  But your first paragraph seems to indicate that those complaining about the post being here in the first place were just complaining to distract.

If this is your point, my claims that this post is invalid is NOT a distraction.  It’s a valid observation that the post has no place here.  I was never outraged by the post — I was surprised that a clearly radical-feminist topic — as Lane clearly made it out to be with her last two paragraphs of her post! — was not something that belonged.  I certainly responded to those who were outraged and called me a misogynist.  And will continued to respond to them.  Because that’s patently ridiculous and nothing more than a smokescreen.

So how is it sexist just because it’s a woman this time?

 Now THAT might be the best-written post here today.  You are 100 percent on target.  As I said, if she’d been reading Hustler for years, she’s be posting things like this every month — at every man or woman, conservative or liberal, gay or straight, atheist or religious, who Hustler has ridiculed.

 And you miss the point again, Kid.  This is Hemant’s blog.  But he opens it to discussion.  If he doesn’t want opposing opinions, he can turn that off (presumably — or find a blog host that will allow turning it off).  His invitation for us to post here is implied.  If Hemant actually said “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out,” I certainly wouldn’t come back, but I suspect Hemant wouldn’t do that because that’s why he allows posting.

And if YOU believe that those who disagree should leave… that’s very sad.

Nope. Wrong.

 EMJ — no smileys, so I assume you’re not being sarcastic but serious.
🙂

I think being an animal-right activist, a gun activist, a women’s-rights activist are all great things.  But when the groups go bananas, it makes everyone involved look bananas.

And if you object in any way — look out!  You’re likely to be labeled and animal hater, an anti-gun peacenik, a misogynist.

What happened to discussing different opinions without hating the other side and calling them names and misdirecting the debate to such negative things?  It’s disappointing.

Well, it’s a crude way to say “shut the fuck up,” isn’t it, it’s also a little rape-y, but nobody actually stuck a dick in her mouth. If you’re a public figure, you have to assume you will be the subject of criticism, and not just nice, polite criticism, and not just fair, logical criticism, or criticism that gives you a chance to respond or approve of images posted of you in a public medium.

I don’t think it’s misogynistic just because Hustler does porn, or that S.E. Cupp is a woman. I think it’s actually anti-feminist to protect poor little wimmenfolk like S.E. Cupp against criticism. I am not saying go ahead, shove a dick in her mouth to shut her up, figuratively or literally. But she says things and not everyone agrees with her. Hustler makes fun of people and gets straight to the point. Is the issue here that she’s a woman and therefore unable to defend herself? I guess this is not how they would represent silencing for a man (I don’t know, I don’t read Hustler, do I?), as simulated gay fellatio is probably not what their audience would like to see, even in a commentary.

I am a feminist, my take on it is this is a little misogynistic, I had forgotten all about S.E. Cupp until a few days ago, and mostly this post is about how a porno magazine posted a photoshop of a public figure with a dick that was never actually in her mouth, and, oh, the public figure just happens to be an atheist, which does make this post off-topic for me here. Should we be upset about what Hustler did? Is this newsworthy? Maybe, and maybe. If Hustler does this all the time, are we going to get more of these kinds of posts, or just that S.E. Cupp is an atheist that’s what is important about this one especially? I don’t give a shit! I agree with a bunch of people, this is an article that pretends we all care about the same shit and should all be outraged at a porn magazine. This post and the other ones about female atheists getting groped at atheist conventions are unrelated by atheism, the latter being an appropriate newsworthy topic of discussion here, and this post topic being appropriate somewhere else but not here.

Is that clear enough for all you calling everyone a misogynist just to rant?

Honestly, at this point, I’m waiting for S.E. Cupp to pull off her mask and reveal………

that she’s actually Andy Kaufman!

Well played….

On recent threads on this topic, you’ve shown a callousness toward your fellow human beings (the female ones) and their rights to be treated as people, which pretty much means you fail at being a humanist.

Humanism is about treating all people with integrity, compassion, rationality and pro-social ethics. Feminism is about identifying the multitude of ways particular humans (women) are not in fact treated with integrity or compassion, are the victims of irrational prejudice and fear, and are the victims of exploitive policies and anti-social acts.  If you do not care about humanist values and ethics as they apply to half the population, you are by definition not humanist.

You might want to check your privilege, and have some empathy for people who are subjected to these kind of attitudes on a regular basis–both in the atheist community and out of it.

 You continue to miss the point. This isn’t about the discussion as to whether sex denigrates women.  It’s about this post having no point on an atheist blog.  That’s the discussion.  Pay attention.  There’ll be a quiz on this later.

And, like many here, you are twisting my words to fit your desires.  I never said it was classy.  I said Hustler never CLAIMED to be classy.  How do you turn that into me saying it’s classy?  Do you TRY?  Or does it just come naturally?  And if we’re talking about how Hustler uses sex to denigrate women, exactly what are you referring to?  Are you referring to the women who take money of their own free will, and pose of their own free will, perhaps with multiple phalluses in multiple orifices?  Or of the women who take money and pose with semen on their faces?  Or the women who are 69ing with each other?  Are you saying all that denigrates women?  I’d say the women in question don’t seem too denigrated, since they volunteered, did it of their own accord, weren’t forced, and took money for it.

Yet… you claim that *I* think it’s classy and thus I denigrate women and need my morals examined?  That’s pretty ballsy from someone who A) Didn’t read my post in the first place and B) Twisted it into whatever you wanted.

I’d say if naked women involved in sex acts in magazines is denigrating to women, I suggest you start talking to those women and letting them know how they’re hurting their gender, and not putting the blame on someone you don’t know simply because I argued that this post was out of place on a blog about atheism.

You… you DO know that this is what this whole debate is about, right?  Or did you just scroll down, randomly find a post you didn’t like, and decided to fire off accusations without any basis?  No, noooo, you certainly would NEVER have done that.

Read the sarcasm there.  Come back when you’ve read these posts and actually know what you’re talking about.

I don’t think you understand what satire means.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/05/15/but-its-satire/

For starters, good satire involves punching UP, not reinforcing harmful attitudes against a traditionally marginalized group.

Secondly, the fact that you can get away with saying appalling things in satire is the result of the author showing he means the OPPOSITE of what he wrote.  The reason Jonathan Swift has a SATIRE of eating babies is to show that the callousness toward the poor is WRONG.  Saying something horrible and then just going “ha-ha!!” when your audience agrees with the underlying horribleness IS NOT SATIRE.  It’s just being a fucking douche.

 “Okay” is up to the individual, you know, not what you decree it to be.  I think Hustler exercising free expression through satire is just fine. If it offends some, tough; if it offends me, tough.  You can’t put rules on it.

I think women engaging in sexual acts in Hustler or in films is entirely fine, so long as those women aren’t coerced in any way.  If they make the choice, and get paid for it, how am I the bad guy for enjoying it?  I didn’t make her do it.  Radical feminists seem to want to make it all the fault of so-called misogynistic men for what women choose to do, yet claim women don’t need to be protected.  From what?  From themselves?  They can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves?

On the one hand, if women choose to engage in sexual activities for Hustler for pay, it’s baaaaaaaad.  They can’t be trusted to make decisions about their sexuality, their bodies, etc.  How can anyone hold that believe and keep a straight face when they argue that women should have the right to control their bodies when it comes to abortions?

Just because YOU find something immoral or bad doesn’t mean it is.  And you can’t legislate morality.  Good thing, or we’d all be forced to accept Jesus as our lord and honor the Sabbath and follow some god and other silliness.

And, by the way, did I mention… this isn’t even ABOUT feminist arguments.  That’s the whole debate.  The debate is that, if you’d read the original post and the original opposition here, you’d see it has nothing to do with hating women, nothing to do with immorality, nothing to do with any of that.  It’s about whether this post has any business on an atheist blog, since the topic has nothing at all to do with atheism except the tenuous connections that Cupp is a supposed atheist. Laura Lane, the posted, didn’t posit anything about that, though.  She clearly posted a piece about the evils of Hustler.  Fine.  Some may think Hustler is.  But that isn’t what this blog is supposed to be about.

Really, try actually reading everything here and not picking and choosing things to lash out at people over.  As I said, quiz later.  Pay attention.

So just the feminists you disagree with then.

Must be tough losing a favorite blog to a bunch of uppity women. I can understand why your so upset.

 Or, perhaps, the definition that says satire is “a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.”  Seems to fit the bill to me!  Or do we need your seal of approval first?

Second, careful using the word “douche.”  I’ve been informed on here today that using words that might possibly be offensive to women!

Third, brace yourself… this might hurt… but Hustler CAN BE a fucking douche.  Like satire, that’s ALSO protected.

 I disagree with you, because you don’t seem capable of rational thought or reading the entire discussion.  But you’re cute when you try!

 But it’s not just men who don’t like it. I’m certainly glad that some women are saying it too. Women should want better quality! I haven’t been hanging around here too regularly, but I did notice that Hemant posted about Penn Jillette a day or so ago, and all the people who responded were pretty angry about that, and not just women. That didn’t turn into a shitstorm. I didn’t see any fits of whining in threads about the gropers at the atheist conferences, maybe I didn’t stick to reading the comments long enough, but from what I saw, everyone was concerned about it and wanted to do the right thing. I don’t like it that every brush with feminism has to turn into a shitstorm, and so far, I haven’t noticed it. It’s just that this post is so pointless, everyone should complain about it. I haven’t seen all the guys saying horrible things about women or feminists in the responses, just getting to the point about how pointless this particular post happens to be.

As they say, “shut it down!”

 No, it isn’t hysteria.  It was a few people saying it was silly that this post even happened here… followed by people losing their minds and accusing those people of being woman haters.  I mean, come on… how is that anything close to sane?  What, we’re supposed to just run away with our tails between our legs so the angry stompers can congratulate each other on chasing off those mean misogynists… when nobody ONCE said anything remotely misogynist?  (Well, there was that one guy who snarkily joked about putting women in their place just to be a troll, and people lost their minds… but I am fairly sure he was just trolling.  I could be wrong, I admit, but I don’t think so.)

There was never anything here other than people pointing out that the post didn’t belong.  The fault of ignorance is on those who are ignoring the honest truth that our comments had nothing to do with hating women.  If the post had been about Hustler making fun of dogs, it wouldn’t have had a place, even though I love dogs.  Would I be labeled a dog-hater?  Oh, probably, by some. But the point remains: There was NEVER any malice intended by anyone who thought this was the wrong place for such a post.  Never any.  At least not that — I think — any rational person could see.

But irrational people will focus on what they want to believe and make the “facts” fit their views.  Sort of like arguing with fundamentalist Christians, I suppose.

Not as sad as your obsession wih this post.

 You nailed it.  There’s definitely a feeling of “With us or against us” from those accusing us of being woman haters.  There isn’t even any basic rationalization for that deduction, not even one bit.

“It’s raining out.  I hope I put the car windows up, as I don’t want my upholstery wet.”

“YOU HATE RAIN, YOU BASTARD!”

Huh?!

And if you’re ridiculing someone for being sexual, that makes you a total fucking asshole. If you think sexual acts are a source of scorn, derision, and ridicule, that makes you a total fucking asshole.  Just because you express yourself with something that apes (but does not actually live up to) the style of those who exposed major social and political ideas, does not make YOUR particular ideas any less repulsive.

By the way, it might interest you to know there is a feminist interpretation of the word “douche”: a douche is a totally unnecessary product that it irritating to women’s genitalia and carries serious health consequences including increased risks of yeast infections and vaginosis. It is marketed to women based on cultural pressures for them to think of themselves as unclean or undesirable.  As such, “douche” is perfectly contextually supported as a toxic, corrosive, unpleasant, and misogynistic entity, and as such it seems like a very good description of you.

Don’t use language like “brace yourself… this might hurt…” That is a rape reference.

The fact that Hustler engages in douchebag behavior IS A PROBLEM.  It is a matter of your privilege and self-entitlement that you can just laugh it off and not realize the harm that these attitudes do to women.

Again, what the FUCK are you going on about with “protected”? I have NEVER argued for any type of legal sanction against Hustler, or against misogynistic douchebags in general.  The solution to awful speech is MORE SPEECH pointing out why these entities are unworthy of social capital or of customers for their business.  It is not to restrict their speech by legal means, but to make it the opinions of a scorned fringe minority.

Here’s a simple analogy: it’s like religion.  Yes, it’s constitutionally protected, but that doesn’t mean we don’t criticize the hell out of it and show people why it’s wrong.

I have no problem with feminist posts on an athiest blog.  The two things are interconnected.  But it really does show a warped perspective to worry about a childish badtaste wank-mag joke when there are girls having their genitals hacked at with bits of broken glass by religious dickheads.

Have you read what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says about Germain Greer? You probably should.  I can’t help seeing your post as a textbook example of how Western Feminism has lost its way and thereby fails men and women alike. 

 HAH!  Okay, that had me laughing out loud.  Good one.

and surely this parody is better than a simple picture of a pretty woman sucking a cock of the sort you would get iin most porn.  By making a political point LF is actually vueing cupps at more than just a sex object (she is a political opponent too).

Yes it is crude and offensive but its political nature credits its victim and its male audiance with more intelligence than most porn

I don’t think you need my help looking like a misogynist Indy.

Yes, it is Hemant’s blog. He can post what he pleases. He can even allow guests to post what they please. No one should leave. It just seems that some people are very upset about this post, and some others. They’re complaining that it is supposed to be an atheist blog. I’m just suggesting that if it bothers them that much, if it causes them that much distress, maybe they shouldn’t read it.

Women wear Birkenstocks, therefore you are a misogynist. Are uou proud of that? You rapist, misogynist, woman hater?

Ranty rant rant, you really shouldn’t let those feminist upset you so much.

Nothing gets a point across like getting a point across….

Sugeaplum, you are in this post as much as the rest of us, but you seem to think laying in wait and tryng to land the big one with single sentence posts exempts you from the, what was it, oh yes “obsession with this post.”

If you take the time to read, troll and post like the rest of us women-haters-in-the-sandbox then the label of obssessed is easily applied to you as well.

Also, you act like this obsession is a bad thing. Hell, i’m curled up on the sofa, nice cold one on the table, dog next to me, and a freshly charged battery in the iPad….little buddy, I’m on the Varsity Squad for this one.

All feminists are not humanists. It stands not all humanists are feminists.

You dinks simply cannot master reading comprehension or skills. You start pulling out the misogynist scalpels left and right, but all indiginant when someone dare to say sometng other than that agenda. If uou go and read, you see I have not said I am anti-woman or even anti-feminist.

What I have said was that the feminist movement active,y tries to co-opt the secular and atheist movement as there own. It is not.

Go back and learn how to read for fuck’s sake.

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! How DARE you use a term that is used for cleanly women parts cleaning. In a derogatory and sexist fashion….ahhh…ah….ah..ah….ahhhhhhhhhh the sky is falling the sky is falling…..sexist…..misogynist….sexist…..mahater….no wait…..woman hater…..ahhhhhh ah ah ah ah. The sky is falling…..the world is ending…..

Douche is not nice. Womehave to use those to clean the ol’ coochie coos and to cheapen the douche is to cheapen coochie coos, and to cheapne coochie coos means you hate women, which means you are a misogynist.

Why do you hate women? You used the word douche in a bad way. Ad now you use fuck in a potty mouth way. You must hate women. Misogynist.

And probably any woman who talks back to you.

It is irrelevant whether or not you have SAID you are anti-woman or anti-feminist, you have SHOWN that you are anti-woman and anti-feminist by how you have treated women on this thread, and how you have denigrated women’s concerns and our relevance.

Any feminist who fails at being a humanist also fails at being a feminist…they exist, like the transphobic radfems, but they really are terrible people and they are not upholding the ideals they think they are.  I respond to such people with the utmost scorn, and state that they are claiming the feminist label presumptively.

No, all humanists MUST be feminists, otherwise they fail at being humanists, because feminist values are ESSENTIAL for humanist values–respect, equality, freedom from church interference in our private lives, autonomy, dignity, etc. Anyone who does not value those things for everyone–including women, is claiming the humanist label presumptively.

And anyone who doesn’t think feminist values are vital to the success of atheism and secularism is a narrow-minded, self-entitled, privileged fool.

It is exactly how I feel about liberals and liberalism. I aa card carrying bleeding heart, but if there is anything I cant stand, it is being in a room fill of self righteous liberals….and you are the prime example. For people like you, it is always “your are with me 100 percent, or you are against us”. How dull and boring…again, like you!!!

Well said. Very well said indeed.

Bullshit if the real issue was he posts lack of relevance likely no one would have bothered to post, certainly there wouldn’t have been all his ranting and raving about feminism. The “lack of relevance” is just the excuse for your anti feminist tirade.

You get all that from a phtoshopped dick in the mouth?

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ, I REALLY want to be around you to get your take on Lucy, the football, and Charlie Brown. That sounds like it would become one hell of a treatise on how Lucy represents estrogen in flow, the ball is a mock up of the collective penii of the world, and Charlie Brown is your father….

Thats the spirit sugar!!!!

🙂

Well played honey!!!!

🙂

That wsa really good. For a girl.

🙂

Nice one cutey pie.

🙂

Awesome Tootsie (apolohies to D. Hoffman)

🙂

Careful typing out these zingers, you dont want to break a nail!!!

🙂

Because of course women don’t experience misogynist violence in the west.

 Oh, shut the fuck up, already.

I am now going to call you fish-pants…because it is funny

Wow you’re really not a misogynist are you,I had you pegged all wrong.

That is only funny if you are deeply invested in misogyny.

You know what, when I’m having an argument with a person of color, I don’t whip out racial slurs and then say it’s funny.  When I’m having an argument with a gay person, I don’t start calling them “faggot” and then say I’m just joking.

You know why? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE SHIT THAT ETHICAL PEOPLE DO. The very fact that it would even CROSS YOUR MIND to use gender-based insults against me shows how deeply misogynistic you are.

So what exactly are you gaining from being such an overtly misogynistic douchebag?

What the fuck is possessing you to type such hateful comments?

Why the hell are you so completely unable to address women’s actual points that you have to dive into this vile, gender-based ad hominem?

Why the fuck do you think its acceptable to use language that has marginalized women for centuries to continue marginalizing a woman with whom you disagree?

Are you proud of yourself? Do you think you’re any different from any other internet troll with a massive problem with women?

Yes, I believe Cupp has written that she wants it to be true. I keep waiting to hear about her big conversion.

It’s assholes like you who make speaking out against sexism necessary.

Why do I have this vision of you as an angry 19 year old college kid, furiously tyoing away, with flecks of spittle flying out of the corner of the mouth.

You act like you have no real world experience and have the fire and anger reserved for the young and stupid. But by all means, if I am wrong in that, please correct me.

*curtsying*

hell, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised by it ~ have you listened to this woman?  she’s like a female Tony Clifton!

No, what it does tell me is that I own your ass. You are so easily manipulated into frothing anger and so easily misdirected it is hysterical.

In almost every post you respond to, you go ballistic. You have two settings, Low and Super-Fucking-Crazy-High. You have no jn between. And people like you caeasily be misdirected.

You have passion, I’ll give you that, but you are so misguided and over the map it scares me a little.

And you are also so clearly ine sided with no capacity to think outside your very VERY small world view that you lose out on the reality of the world.

I suspect you are very young; around 19-23, on campus, and full of youthful energy and zeal. But that is a dangerous tool when yielded by someone so easily controlled.

Jesus Vagina-Sniffing Christ!!!

No one is trying to make up rules?

Go back and read almost everyone of your posts. Every sentence is a dictate and rule you try and command over us lowly stinking-masses.

You are out there girlfriend….I mean Pluto out there…

Why do you think I am being “manipulated” into being angry? Did it ever fucking occur to you that I find it necessary to stand up for your bullshit and to show the other commenters here that this kind of misogyny won’t be tolerated?

Stop being such a fucking tone troll.  I will yell and scream at your bullshit as much as I fucking please.

It’s not “misdirected” to call you on your hateful language and your misogynistic tripe.  Rational, ethical people do not say shit like that.  Only latent misogyny rears its vile head like that.  If it even OCCURS to you to try to shut down women using that kind of hate and marginalization, then you really are as hateful as you have said, even if you try to distance yourself from it.  Oh and this “I was just kidding all along?” It’s fucking been done, asshole.

And what the fuck is “misguided” about telling a hateful misogynistic asshat like you exactly where he can stuff it?

What “reality” of the world are you referring to?  Because I’ll tell you what–the reality that I actually have to deal with every day, as a woman, DOES include women getting marginalized like this, DOES include women having their opinions discounted based on their gender, DOES include men trying to make women feel unsafe for speaking their minds, and DOES include social shaming of sexuality being used to silence women.  What “reality” am I missing out on by being aware of that?  Oh, you mean the reality of being a privileged male? Well, sorry, that’s not actually “reality” for me–that’s not even accessible to me.

And, no, I have two postgraduate degrees, motherfucker, and I deal with life and death on a daily basis, so you can go fuck yourself with your assumptions that because I’m an outspoken feminist I *must* be sheltered. Fuck that. And if you getting your ass handed to you is you “controlling” me, I think you’re the one who needs to rethink what “reality” means.

Are you actually so stupid that you don’t understand the difference between “rules,” meaning “standards of socially-appropriate behavior as determined by culture, consensus, and mutual respect” and “rules,” meaning “things the FCC will shut you down for if you don’t abide by them”??

They’re different, you fucking idiot.

Oh, and it’s also not socially acceptable to demean women’s opinions by calling them “girlfriend.”  Of course, there is no hierarchically enforced “rule” (oooh, look, words can have multiple meanings that depend on an intelligent interpretation of context!!!) that says you can’t do this, just the basic expectation of decency toward your fellow human beings, which you are free to ignore, and we are free to point out what an asshole you are when you do.

Ugh. Hemant, would you please do something about Fsq and the other misogynist trolls?

Also, why do you keep changing your name? Are you trying to further muddle your part in the dicussion by distancing yourself from it, so you can go into denial mode later, or is there some other reason?

 That’s my point.  So why is ANYONE surprised?

It’s a bandwagon when people are jumping on it just for the sake of being holier than thou and accusing people of being misogynists.  Really, I can repeat this all day.  Just because someone questions the validity of posting something about one topic in a blog allegedly focused on another topic doesn’t make one a hater of the posted topic.  It’s ridiculous to insinuate that.  But those who have come in here accusing and pointing fingers are insinuating just that.  The amusing part is when the religious people do it — Xianity being one of the biggest all-time supporters of stomping on the rights of women.

 I’m sorry, did you just say something?  Your well-thought-out responses tend to get lost when you lace them with insults and name calling.  But it’s clear you must know everything and everyone should do it however you tell them to do it.  Only your opinion counts.  Big smiley face here.

I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.  You should learn tolerance of the other gender, you know.

You know what, I am going to stop goading you because you strike me as someone who is mentally unhinged. Sincerely. You have some serious shit going on, and frankly, I do not want to be the one who pushes you over the edge.

So, I say, since you have no snark-filter, I am done pushing you for health reasons.

More vicious name calling.  I think you’re  a man-hating misandrist.  Please play nice.  Godless loves you.  And so do I.

Can you explain to me just how you rationalize out the use of “motherfucker” as it is as sexist and extremely misogynistic?

Yet one more prime example of your hypocrisy, and your inability to see it.

 Wow.  Nicely said.

If you were even remotely literate, you would understand that I both deconstruct the sexist stereotypes AND show them the contempt they deserve.

Notice, in the post to which you replied, I highlighted the salient difference between actually expressing a viewpoint and positing a viewpoint to show by example how an analogous viewpoint is wrong.  This is not hard to understand, if your feeble brain weren’t so distracted by the word “fuck.”

But tone trolling is just soooo original!

You dump a metric shitton of sexist bullshit and then you have the audacity to say I am unhinged?

Who the fuck are you to appoint yourself the arbiter of how people can call you out on your bullshit?You claim “snarkiness” should somehow excuse you for all the vile crap you’ve spewed, even though I’ve already called you out on that cheap schoolyard-bully dodge?Oh, and minimizing the concerns of women by claiming they have mental health problems simply for being outspoken or politically active has TOTALLY not been done before. Right.

You are a fucking loon. Seriously. You really come across as someone with mental illness. No emoticons. I think you are seriously unhinged and you need some help.

Whoever hurt you, or whatever happened you need to get that addressed, because frank,y, your behavior suggest we will read about you in some mass shooting.

And yes, you indeed hate men. In almost every thread I have seen of yours, you just go ballistic toward men n general.

Get help.

Seriously.

No, I’m telling you to shut the fuck up and to fuck off BECAUSE you are an insufferable condescending ass, not because you’re a man.  The two have nothing to do with each other: there are many men who do not behave like total douchebags to women, and that number of decent, thoughtful, egalitarian people has actually been increasing greatly in recent years as feminism is getting more outspoken (although I know that makes you feel lonely). Your BEHAVIOR is harmful and demeaning, and that’s why you’re getting called out on it.  Don’t try to pretend your behavior is your identity and act like that erases all the harm you’re causing.

You really sound as stupid as those Catholic priests who wine “you have anti-Catholic bigotry!” when, no, we’re actually legitimately angry about the kids they raped. No one’s giving you shit simply because you’re a man. We’re giving you shit because you are behaving appallingly to women, and this is not an inherent condition of manhood.

 I think YOU’RE quite the bully in here.  By the way, I notice you keep resorting to name calling and swearing.  Do you have anything else?  I think you might be a man-hating misandrist.

 Don’t you be cheating on me, damn it.

Did you notice that I very carefully identified the behavior I was appropriately labeling?  It may interest you to know that it’s not “being a man.” It’s “thinking it’s okay to ridicule women for being sexual.” This is a culturally-conditioned attitude and a reflection of privilege, but not in any way a natural result of being male. This would not be hard to understand for anyone with half a fucking brain.

And don’t you fucking DARE use a shitload of gender-based insults, demean female posters, play the victim by whining “misandrist” when you’re accurately called out on your spiteful behavior, and then have the FUCKING GALL to tell me to “play nice.”  You don’t get to shit all over the rug and then whine when someone tells you to cut it the fuck out.

 I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.  You should seek help for that.

 Well, it IS a typically Christian rant, since we’re all supposed to not covet and all that.  Fantasies are not allowed!

 Right, because everyone knows you buy Hustler to READ it for the articles.  Do you need emoticons to feel the snark?

You’re a bleeding-heart lemon-lime liberal.

Great–you’re trying to silence women AGAIN with accusations of mental illness. This totally enhances your credibility as a totally-not-sexist-asshat.

Saying “treat people with respect and go fuck yourself if you don’t” is evidence of homicidal mania? Really? I didn’t know homicidal maniacs had such deep-seated respected for humanity and pro-social values.

No. Not “men in general.” Toward “men who devalue, mock, try to control, shame, and otherwise marginalize women.” These are NOT the same thing. I have been VERY specific in the behavior I’ve been calling out.

 …says the man-hating misandrist who keep obsessing over this post.

Aww, isn’t that cute. Frick and frack – tag team mysogynists. 

Yes! Really well-put.

Two things about misogyny:
1) It’s insidious and often invisible.
2) It’s internalized in such a way that people who are guilty of it are frequently utterly unaware of it (hence their defensiveness).

One cannot totally be held accountable for holding internalized misogynistic ideas (since they are so wide-spread and culturally encoded), but everyone MUST be held accountable for their behavior when they’re called out for misogyny–in other words, one must think carefully about their behavior when someone else says, “Hey, that was screwed up.”

The discussion doesn’t have to end with an accusation of misogyny–so long as the person who has been accused of misogyny recognizes the need to think about why their words were interpreted that way.

This is the case with all forms of privilege, whether that privilege is rooted in gender, race, class, religion, etc.  Privilege is a thing that exists.  Misogyny is one manifestation of privilege. 

And I think you’re a pathetic fucking tone troll who is cowardly trying to evade criticism by wrapping up his poor behavior in his identity. Fuck that shit, asshole.

Misandry simply IS NOT a cultural phenomenon in the same way misogyny is.  Seriously, check your privilege.  

No, it’s not “just because” people question the validity of the posting–it’s when women say why they think it’s relevant, they are belittled, mocked, told to pose nude, accused of being mentally ill, ignored with “did you say something?”, shut down with gendered insults, and then accused of misandry when they stand up to the horrible behavior you’re dishing out at them. Moreover, it fits into a much larger pattern of women’s issues being sidelined, and we feel this is unacceptable.

It’s ESPECIALLY fucking annoying when you pull out the “Xtianity…stomping on the rights of women” card as a classic Tu Toque fallacy, when the women you’ve been ignoring have been pointing out that THE REASON it is necessary to care about feminism on an atheist blog (apart from combating sexist asshats like you) is that sexist attitudes represent a major harm perpetuated by religion in our culture, and are therefore of critical interest to those committed to eradicating the harms of religion.

 I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.

This thread has turned into a great big sandbox of shenanigans and school yard stupidity, might as well just call it what it is, sit back, and play in the sand.

Thing is, the threads were I dont ironically use snarky names like sugarplum, i get called a misogynist….the threads I do use the snarky names ironically, I get called a misogynist…. So I figured, as long as I am going to be accused of something, there is no reason to not….they have already arrived at a predetermined place, and nothing – no facts – will ever change them(gee, who does that sound like?) so might as well make a night of it.

And thereality is, no one knows anything about what I do civically, or in life. And I stopped giving a poopie what people think of me about three years ago. I do my thing, donate time and moeny to those that I feel represent my values, and basically tell the rest of the world to kiss my tuckus

 I think you’re a man-hating misandrist.

 You sure seem like a man-hating misandrist.  I’m sorry you feel that way.  I’m willing to help you however I can.

Well, to be fare, it is hard to read when the pages are stuck together…

EMOTICON.

“fuck that shit, asshole” is incredibly insensitive to the gay community. So lets make a list, you are:

A manhater
Homophobic
Possible mentally unstable

Nice way to live.

 It has nothing to do with ignoring a woman.  It has to do with ignoring someone who has nothing to say except for rude insults and vicious attacks.  But I still love you, and am willing to help you recover from being a misanthrope. You know, it’s women like you who turn everything someone says into SOMEHOW being misogynistic who damage to the feminist movement.  But I still love you.

No, you miserable fucking idiot, the asshole above was criticized for minimizing women’s concerns and acting like an INCREDIBLY obvious message in the Hustler article was sooo obscure that we little wimminz must be reading too much into it.  This is a sexist way to ignore women’s concerns, and it’s also gaslighting: trying to convince the person you’re trying to silence that reality is different than it is, and that they can’t possibly be right in their very well-supported interpretation.

YET AGAIN, it is plainly obvious to anyone who is not a willfully imbecilic lout that I’m criticizing HARMFUL SEXIST BEHAVIOR, not the simple state of being male.

Also, have you noticed that all these blanket accusations of misandry haven’t exactly stopped me in my tracks?  Have you noticed that they have actually been LUDICROUSLY easy to answer?  So why do you keep doing it? Do you somehow think, well, maybe the 25th time I erroneously call her a misandrist she’ll be totally stumped!

 You are a stunning intellect indeed.  Even though you may be a man-hating misandrist or even a misanthrope.  I still love you and offer my help.

 Wow… did you really just take his obvious smart-ass post and launch into a ranting lecture about the dangers of douching?  I think you are a douche-hating misdouchist.  But I still love you and offer my help.

 I do NOT believe you are a misogynist, Fsq.  But you clearly hate fish.  You appear to be a misicthyist.  I still love you and offer you my help.

 I think you see EVERYTHING as a sexist term.  You seem preoccupied with sexism.  I think you might be a man-hating misandrist.  Maybe a misanthrope.  But I still love you.

No, I think YOU are the one perpetuating those perspectives.  I think you are perpetuating exactly what you want to believe that fits your preconceived view.  I find it difficult to imagine anything I could ever say that you won’t find some way to twist into misogyny.  I think YOU might be the misogynist.  I think you spend so much time fiercely attacking everyone… perhaps to hide your own inner hatred for women.  I worry that you’re a misanthrope and really hate both genders.  But I still love you and still offer my help.  We can be friends in email and learn from each other.

 So… you using the same “you’re a misogynist” attack every time is okay, but me worrying that you’re a misandrist is against your rules?

I don’t believe in angels.  But thanks for playing.

I think you are NOT a hater of the word “FUCK” or “DOUCHE” or several other words.  I think you love using them against men.  I worry you may be a man-hating misandrist.  But I love you and still offer my friendship.

Yeah, god forbid I stand up for myself when I’m mistreated!!

You’re still not convincing anyone by just flinging around “misandrist” with even less accuracy than a chimp flings its feces.

And why the fuck are you trolling me with this “I love you” bullshit?!  Can you make it any MORE clear that you enjoy mocking and demeaning women, and that you enjoy trivializing our concerns?

Fsq, that was a very polite response to a person whose only ammunition is to call you “slime.”  I think you might like people who call you slime.  I don’t think you’re slime.

Why do you think you’re going to get anywhere repeating “man-hating misandrist” over and over again?  Why do you think adding “misanthrope” is apparently extra scathing?

Why do you keep adding “I still love you”? Is it not BLATANTLY clear that you’re trolling?  Doesn’t the fact that you’re trolling a woman who is speaking out against sexism pretty much demonstrate that you’re a sexist fucking asshat?

By the way, it’s not fucking hard to see why “man up” is a sexist term, unless you’re a willfully ignorant fool.  It is based on the cultural assumption that men are stronger, wiser, more noble, and braver than women.  Does anyone ever say “woman up”? No? Why is that? Because our culture assumes men are superior to women, and this is ABUNDANTLY demonstrated in how men shame each other by accusing them of being like girls.

Can we bring this closer to context with an analogy of how condescending you and your pal are being? “You just hate god right now, but he is in your life and waiting for you to turn to him and love him back. I love you and I will pray for you.”

I really don’t think anyone’s being productive at this point, but you and fsq are trolls who don’t get it. The more it gets explained to you, the more fire you fuel with saying idiotic things that prove you don’t take women seriously. I don’t like this post, but I hate when things get out of hand, as if women need you fellas’ help seeing things your way. Nobody wants to be like you, and you’re only “funny” because there are two of you. If one of you piss-poor losers wasn’t here, the other one would be laughing at his own jokes like the loser he is, getting the smackdown he deserves. And I say that to you as a person to a person, no physical violence implied. When women have a reason to be upset about something, some men and some women like to come out and ridicule them for caring about something important. I have read many of the comments, and yes, sexism is an important issue. I’m still not sure how this post really establishes anything nobody was aware of, but since it has come up and people felt an opening to say what they wanted to say, you should be ashamed of your hostility toward them for it. I’m really disappointed in your asshole behavior. Are you proud of yourselves? Two trolls, carrying on for hundreds of posts, proving yourselves to be cement-headed and glued to your fucking internet. Bravo, what have you gained out of this conversation?

It’s all performing for the masses.  You are a worthless fucking troll and you’d rather repeat “misandrist” than actually consider what I’m saying, so I’m here to show that your misogyny and your obsessive silencing of women’s concerns WILL NOT SHUT US UP.

(And it’s pathetic of you to ignore an argument because there’s swearing in it–on the Internet, no less! What a ridiculous and transparent way to show you have no cogent rebuttal!)

Actually, Hustler does.  Many women have been featured as the Asshole of the Month.  And many men have been portrayed with PhotoShopped dicks in their mouths.  This has been repeated many times on this page today.

 Yeah, the first half of the day I spent explaining that I’m not a misogynist and responding to the angry trolls, but this evening I just figured I might as well enjoy it.  There’s no reasoning with these folks, especially people who post just to inflame, or SWEAR IN ALL CAPS and call people MEAN NAMES and all the kind of stuff that, if we said to them, becomes misogyny.  This is why I have been suggesting to them that they seem like man-hating misandrists.  They don’t seem to like that, though, although I’m being serious, not snarky.  I also offer my love and friendship and help, but nobody takes me seriously and just keeps swearing at me.  So… defend myself?  Get slapped down and accused of misogyny.  Argue?  Get slapped down and accused of misogyny.  Offer love and friendship?  Get slapped down and acc… well, you get the picture.

So my point: There’s no pleasing some people. Those “some people” will find misogyny in ANYTHING we say.  Might as well just enjoy it.

We’re not surprised, we’re pointing out that this type of sexualized marginalization has very harmful repercussions on society at large.  A harmful cultural trope doesn’t have to be “new” or “surprising” to be in need of criticism and cultural examination.

Indy really fucking loves this flinging “man-hating misandrist” around, doesn’t he?

I think he’s a redundancy-loving redundophile, myself…Funny, it seems to be a de novo mutation in his code, though. It just cropped up and now he’s repeating it everywhere.  (Incidentally, this repetition and amplification of a brief section of code is how Huntington’s Disease worsens over generations…coincidence? We’ll never know!)

 I just don’t think either of you, whether you know each other or not, should be proud to spend a whole day like this, keeping people riled up, for what doesn’t look like in the spirit of defending yourselves, but for the fun of it. I didn’t think the post was topical either, but I did come in kind of late. Nobody bothered to call me names about my posts because I clearly laid out that this is important, but maybe not to everyone; it does make me uncomfortable, as a woman, but as an atheist, well, heck, I didn’t even have time today to scan the other articles today or catch up on the past few days. Obviously, this sensational headline caught a lot of interest that all of you could have ignored if you didn’t like it. I didn’t like it, but it’s really the only post I’m following right now. So, obviously it’s discussable – what does over 400 posts in one day say that this post is not on-topic when it’s obviously very popular to discuss!

So, contributing to the popularity of a topic you find out of place here, and I find interesting but out of place here, maybe there should be more of them. It’s a fucking train wreck is what it is, and you helped. I don’t believe accusations of trying to silence women – you love it and you want more. I would like either or both of you to come to some idea of what you’ve done here, which is failed to understand women’s issues. You were up to your neck all day in it, and if that were the sole factor, I would have to argue that women’s issues do concern you, but did you actually bother to learn anything? Or at least compromise on the premise that you might need to raise your consciousness a little, since some people take it very seriously and just trying to get it through your thick skull? Or, like, a long time ago, admit that you do care about women, and try to articulate how much you do, as long as you were investing your time and effort into it, instead of acting very much like you do not? Or just admit you hate women so much you’re not even going to dignify their complaints with an answer? It has to be one of those things.

We told you why we felt this topic was relevant, and you ignored our arguments and just continued to spout gender-based insults at us.  This pretty much invalidates your “I’m just concerned about relevance!” argument, right there. Your subsequent shockingly misogynistic behavior and your insistence on shutting down female posters shows beautifully that you are very hostile to women’s views,and provides good evidence that your “I just don’t think this is relevant!” is all just a sublimation of your misogyny and your reflexive hostility to women getting a platform on anything other than your terms.

 *sigh* Thanks for the support. I’m exhausted just reading all their bullshit, forget responding to it!

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” –Rebecca West

Then criticize her for being an idiot, not for mocking her with sexual imagery.

Holy shit, I fucking love this post.  Great stuff!

Why don’t you fucking look up what the word “misandrist” actually means, you worthless fucking repetitive troll?

Trust me, if you saw my curtsy, you wouldn’t be saying it reinforced ANY kind of ‘female stereotype’ 🙂

 Liar.

You are the liar and the hypocrite. It doesn’t mean I agree with everything that IndiFitz and Fsq says, but to try to ban everyone who doesn’t bow to your personal views makes you McCarthyist and the bigger problem, especially since you have done basically the same thing as them in the past.

 So you have resorted to the “I know you are but what am I” retort to all of the women.   LOL

Are there no moderators on this blog?

Resorting to the “I know you are but what am I?” defense?  LOL
Are you going to start typing , ” na na na na, na I can’t hear you, I’m not listening” next?

You are seriously complaining about  the use of the word “fuck”
Fuck off you fucking ridiculous fucking idiot.

I think it means he’s given up, maybe the weirdness of his rants is starting to bother him.

Manhaters.

Manhater.

I wish for you the oath to find love in your heart and to work through your illness. I am here for you if needed.

 Lol, you have no power.

Get help.

I have sometime today, I would be happy to research treatment centers and getback to you.

I was surprised at Hennants lack of presence too. Perhaps the blog should be renamed the ‘wimpy atheist’.

Manhater. Why are you ashamed of yiur penis?

I am here for you if you need help. Be well.

Worthless fucking troll.  You know, it should have dawned on you by now that you’re not REALLY the relevance police that you claim to be, because your REAL interest seems to be in flinging around a bunch of absurd, repetitive shit to try to shut up women who are outspoken.  Anyone who actually gave a shit about relevance wouldn’t go around and type “manhater” and “I love you” everywhere–so instead, it strongly indicates to me that all your previous griping about relevance was just hostility to women bringing up instances of sexism.

I have to take issue with the expressed idea that people who call out others for their bad behavior are responsible for that behavior. The behavior itself is the problem, not the people who point it out or ask it to stop, and ignoring it is handing it an unrestricted permission slip to continue that behavior any time, any place.

I am not responsible for the way others behave toward me if they choose to behave badly. I can choose my tone, my approach, when confronting a wrong, but I cannot choose how the other people respond. You might as well have just blamed the kid who wants to end obligatory prayer for the 2AM phone calls  which threaten his safety.

 Absolutely and considering that FSQ is simply continuing his bad behavior and sexist rants from this post,

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/05/23/its-almost-time-to-start-naming-names/#comment-536525843

he deserves to be called out for what he is.

“fetch me another drink, this time with some ice in it sweets”

– a female customer at a TGI Fridays to a male waiter….

So the fact that some women are imitating the trivializing attitudes that men have historically been socialized to adopt means–what, exactly?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

And great job willfully ignoring the role of systemic sexism and social privilege and how it affects our interpersonal interactions. Seriously–that’s soooo original!

And treating the waiter like that is assholish behavior, regardless of gender.

I know, my mutation is only that I dont get the spins when I stand up really fast. Its practical, but not really helpful when battling super villains.

That’s misterandrist to you.

She is full of a lot of do-dos….

Hah.

That means TWO things…

🙂

Emoticon^^^^^^ everything is alright now…..

Ahhhhh Kubrick’s best!!!!!

I am crisp and clean with no caffeine….and apparently deeply programmed by a whole generations worth of commercials….hahahaha (deep throaty laugh)

I love men.  What I hate are imbecilic misogynistic trolling assholes.

What, you wake up this mornng and magically gre a sense of humor overnight?

Good for you, ya sassy bastard.

I don’t know if I’d suggest banning anyone, of course some of the women here might think differently, but I think Fsq’s and IndyFitz’s use of the blog for venting their hate-on for feminism needs to be addressed.

The reason we do not follow your commands is because, honestly, I cant even read your posts. If you took the time to calm down, tone it down and write out your thoughts and arguments cohently and coherently and without your vitriol and side tracking diatribes, you just might get taken seriously.

As it is, you are just a fucking whackadoo. And it has nothing to do with you being a woman. It has everything to do with you being an ass.

If you cannot read my posts, you are a fucking idiot.  Why is it that everyone else can seem to read them and many have “liked” them?  Might it be a problem with your comprehension? Might you have female-induced-selective-alexia?

Telling me to tone it down is tone trolling, and you can cut that shit out right the fuck now.

“Cohently” isn’t even a word, dumbshit. Don’t preach about taking the time to write more thoughtfully when you can’t even be bothered to notice which keys you’re pressing!

Considering I have consistently pointed out the systemic misogyny in your comments, and you have just resorted to gender-based slurs and taunts about speculation into my mental health status, I seriously doubt I’m the one who needs to present my arguments more logically.  But great job embodying the patriarchal assumption that men are always more logical and coherent…

By the way, what you’re doing is gaslighting, and it’s not okay. You are trying to deny reality that I AM arguing consistently and accurately, and you’re just willfully denying this as a manipulative means to induce self-doubt.  Well, I’m not fucking falling for that shit, asshole.

You know what?  I’m used to sexist jerkwads like you not taking me seriously.  It’s not because I don’t have a lot of valuable insights to contribute to the discussion, it’s because they’re sexist jerkwads.

How many fucking times do I have to tell you that making disparaging comments about the mental health of women you disagree with is sexist?  FUCK OFF ALREADY. It wasn’t clever 100 comments ago and it sure as fuck isn’t clever now.

So, you spew out reams of gender-based slurs, malign my mental health, ignore my arguments, and repeat the same tired horseshit over and over again, and yet you insist I am an ass? How does that even fucking make sense in your head?

And great job trying to pull the “it has nothing to do with me being a woman.”  Really, the fact that you have called me fish-pants, the fact that you have accused me of being irrational due to PMS, the fact that you have told me to pose naked, the fact that you have told me I’m “cute” when I speak up for myself, the fact that you have told me my worth depends on performing domestic activities that please men, and the fact that you dismiss multiple women on this thread with demeaning terms like “hen,” “sweetheart,” and “girlfriend” has nothing to do with me being a woman? I find that fucking unlikely, dumbass.

Please feel free!  FSM knows the troll himself isn’t persuadable, I respond to him only to diminish his sense of entitlement, to set a social norm that his misogyny is unacceptable and will be confronted, and as a public education service as to what patterns misogyny employs and why it needs to be called out (and to model strategies for the calling-out!).

Basically, everything Greta Christina ever said about arguing in public applies here.

I hope my comments are helpful.

I would completely agree with you if they were behaving like this in real life.  And if they start calling your home phone every two minutes leaving these same type of messages I’ll totally be on your side. (Even if they haven’t been threatening your safety as in your example above. I quit reading their comments so hopefully they haven’t stooped to that level.)

I guess maybe where we differ is that I treat the internet as a different world than the real world of face to face interactions.  I sort of expect bad behavior, and if that childish behavior isn’t advocation violence, I have no problem just ignoring it.  Especially, when it seems fairly obvious to me that they are saying what they are just to get a rise out of people…and succeeding quite well.

They ARE behaving like this in real life. This IS real life. It just happens to be taking place via the Internet. This is not the movies or some book you are reading.

I understand what you’re saying, and I also would often rather not engage trolls. It makes me uncomfortable and opens me up to a lot of ugly attention. But when I see a pattern of bad behavior go unchallenged or be encouraged, by someone who would absolutely call another person out for being racist or for religious apologetics or for being anti-gay, I have to call them on it.  It bugs me that damn near none of the regular commenters in this forum would allow racism or anti-gay comments to stand without challenge, but when someone acts like a sexist ass, I’m expected to ignore that, and somehow I become the problem if I don’t. I frankly do not understand the double standard.

 Ha! You’re just butthurt because I’ve continually called you on your own misogynist (and overly-controlling, and flat-out WRONG) behavior.

Here’s a hint, cupcake: Calling your bullshit out for what it is is NOT “sexist”, you lying sack of shit.

 I have no problem with porn mags, such as Playboy or Hustler, when they publish photos of women who pose nude or in sexually suggestive positions–they got paid and they did it of their own volition. I have a problem when the photoshop a woman into these types of positions and scenarios for the mere act of speaking their mind (even if I disagree with the woman in question). Do you not see the difference here?

 She called fsq an asshole, that has nothing to do with whether or not xe is a man.

Feminism is the belief that women are people and should be treated as such. If women are humans and she be treated as humans, then clearly humanism is an umbrella term that would encompass feminism.

Because you want to find some other way to belittle her in your own mind to make yourself feel better about not responding to her well-written and well-though-out responses.

 No rules, criticisms. This is like when we criticize a religious person for saying something hateful and they try to claim “free speech” as a defense. Criticism does not equal rules or laws. They have the freedom to publish, and we have the freedom to criticize.

Tone trolling, don’t do it.

 “poster stomping her foot and whining”

Why is it that when a woman has something to say about how she perceives women to be mistreated, that she’s characterized as a toddler throwing a fit? Do you characterize Hemant as stomping his feet and whining when he posts about not liking something a Christian publishes about atheists?

 The “feminist agenda”:

1. convince society that women are people

2. convince society to treat women and men equally (cuz they’re all people)

3. ???

4. profit!

This looks curiously similar to the “gay agenda”…

 If you don’t like what Hemant posts, then stop reading his blog. It’s not up to you to decide what he posts on his blog. She wasn’t comparing gays to women, she was making the observation that when Hemant posts about gay rights, nobody ever gets upset that it’s not directly related to atheism. Yet, as soon as a post about women’s issues comes up, people crawl out of the wood-work to complain that it’s not directly related to atheism. Why don’t you guys also complain on the gay rights posts?

Oh I flagged him as well!  But in case my single flagging wasn’t enough, I figured his bullshit should be answered as a teaching example for the rest of the community…

There is clearly a movement in America that is based in what has been termed “New Atheism.” This New Atheism is about more than the mere lack of belief–it incorporates many values from humanism and intersects with the concerns of minorities and women, and also deals in strengthening the separation of church and state. Go read about the Reason Rally if you don’t believe me.

Can you explain what you think “feminist agenda” is? People keep throwing around that phrase, but they’re not defining it. Then when an actual feminist defines it, you say it’s irrelevant. It’s relevant because you referenced the “feminst agenda” and didn’t define it.

 Douches have been shown to be harmful to women. So calling a misogynist a douche is very apt.

Somebody never actually studied literary criticism.

ps. women don’t really use douches anymore. In fact, doctors tell women not to use them, because they are harmful. So, really, douche is a very apt description of a sexist person.

 When you describe her cogent and well-written responses to your outright insults as crazy, it makes me think you haven’t read anything she wrote.

 Every post I’ve seen where one of you* was called a misogynist was backed up by a multi-paragraph explanation of WHY they called you that. Almost every time, that explanation was ignored and instead you just repeated your assertion that this post is off-topic and then complained about being called a woman-hater. Go back and address the REASONS given for calling you that, then I’ll take this complaint seriously.

*You in this post should be read as Jess**, IndyFitz or Fsq

**although I don’t think Jess is as bad an offender as the others, xe has still not addressed the reasons why xe has been called a misogynist.

 I don’t use those terms and I call other people out for using those terms. But then again words gendered insults based on male anatomy, such as “dick head,” are generally not seen as bad as words based on female anatomy, such as “pussy.”

Maybe this will help:

“dick as an insult” is to “pussy as an in insult” as “cracker” is to “the ‘N’* word”

*yeah, I won’t even spell that one out.

 You can, but you’d be lying. Also, I would be just as pissed if they did it to a man. Mainly because when a man is called a “cocksucker” it’s implying he’s gay–which denigrates gay men everywhere.

 Actually, I’m a feminist and I’m sex positive. I have no problem with pornography in general. Granted, there is sexist pornography that exists. But there are also sexist movies and books, that doesn’t mean I’m against movies and books.

Yeah, nobody ever called for Hustler to be shut down by the government. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. I don’t understand why you guys keep bringing that up.

 yeah, I would call that homophobic and sex-negative. In fact, pretty much all of these “satires” seems either sexist, homophobic and sex-negative in general.

There’s nothing wrong with name-calling and swearing, when you give good reasons for the anme you are calling a person. 

Which is it? no argument or fallacious arguments? If it’s fallacious arguments, then you’ve yet to demonstrate how those arguments are fallacious.

Could you point me to any post you’ve made which could be called useful? Also, calling somebody “little kid” when you have no evidence of their age/stature is demeaning to the person (as you’re using it in a way to margenalize them) and demeaning to children. I’ve known many children who are more thoughtful than you are, so assuming that someone is acting like a child in order to demean them is ageist. 

So Paterrsonn posts a lengthy response explaining why what you said was inaccurate and you respond by calling xir a man-hater. Also, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen Paterrsonn state xir gender, so why are you assuming xe has a penis? And how is that body-part relevant to what xe said?

As a server I would be pissed at that whether or not I was a male simply because that’s a very rude way to talk to your server.

For the purpose of this comment I’ll grant that feminism isn’t related to atheism: why does it matter? Women’s issues are important and should be discussed. Why can’t somebody who blogs about atheism also blog about other issues that are important to them? JT Eberhard blogs about atheism, but he also blogs extensively about his mental illness. Nobody complains that it’s not relevant over there. Hemant also includes posts about gay rights, nobody complains those aren’t relevant. Why are women’s issues the only ones singled out as irrelevant and not worthy of discussion on this blog?

 Thanks. They are very helpful.  I am also well aware this isn’t being done to try to persuade the ass. He is beyond help.

When you use a particular word to describe someone and it is explained over and over again why that word is offensive and inappropriate to them, and you continue using it, it shows a profound lack of respect for boundaries. When the person you are describing is a woman and the word you use is a known gendered insult/pseudeo-endearment, it shows you have a profound lack of respect for women’s boundaries.

And we have a right to no longer speak to and shun those who can’t respect our boundaries by continuing to use gendered insults. We also have a right to tell others that you used those insults and when asked to stop you continued out of spite, and those people have a right to recognize your lack of respect for boundaries and likewise shun you. That’s how rights work right? You have a right to free speech, you don’t have a right to a microphone.

 “Gay rights are relevant to this blog because churches are trying to do a
lot to prevent gay couples from being treated as equal human beings,”–Jess

“Churches ARE trying to do a lot to prevent women from being treated as
human beings.  Have you missed the entire raging debate on abortion and
contraception?  “–Kelly

“Is this post about abortion and contraception? “–Jess

It’s like you’re intentionally not reading for comprehension.

 “But with LGBT rights being fought AGAINST by the religious folks, I’d
say they have a strong place here.  And if religious folks start
actively trying to shut down women’s rights, by all means that’s a
discussion with definite relevance. ”

Religions are doing that, but again, it’s not just a problem with religion. It’s an endemic cultural problem. Do you have any reason why they shouldn’t post about an endemic cultural problem?

I’ve seen plenty of feminist blogs that have had guests posts about atheism, nobody got pissed off and they ahd a good discussion about the intersectionality of atheism and feminism. I don’t see why people are getting so bent out of shape about this. If they want to say that the OP is wrong and Hustler isn’t sexist, then by all means, make your argument. But don’t come on to somebody else’s blog and tell them that what they post is irrelevant. It’s their blog, anything they post is relevant.

 For me, it’s the phrase, “I know just what you need…” *shudder*

You called women who get offended by your comments and explain why they are offended by your comments “mentally incapable” of seeing them any other way. Maybe that’s because you never give an actual defense of your comments. They don’t see it any other way because you give them every reason to believe that you are sexist. The moment a woman tells you why she thinks what you say is offensive or sexist you respond with the same accusation of their being a man-hating misandrist with no explanation as to why you think that.

I don’t see at all how a woman posing for a pornographic picture/video is disrespectful, unless she was coerced to do it.

Me too. Go start your own blog and spend your own time, money and energy to get it successful and with a large readership and then you can post about whatever you want.

The point of porn is mainly sexual gratification, so showing a picture of a woman sucking cock is acceptable. No complaining here. A woman who is making her voice heard on political issues is not putting herself out there for the sexual gratification of others–she’s doing it so other’s can hear what she has to say. So showing a picture of her sucking cock is inappropriate. I understand others have said they do the same type of stuff to men as well. I also think that is inappropriate. Since they seem to do this all the time, I would think one post high-lighting their inappropriate, sexist and homophobic “political commentary” should be nuff-said about Hustler. We wouldn’t need a post every time Hustler does something terrible, just one about your general disapproval.

 yay! xkcd reference.

Apparently Hemant’s been out of town. He responded above and said he would get to it when he’s back in. If there are any specific comments/posters you think should be moderated, I suggest clicking on the little flag underneath their comment.

Complaining about Internet swearing is a defense tactic used in all sorts of debates by people who can’t defend their own position. It’s a classic red herring, and a sign that even the poster thinks his opinions are hollow.

 You have this vision because you made it up to cover up for not having an argument and being a child.

 Thanks for admitting that you are in fact trolling.

 You could try actually reading what people write before calling them hypocrites. No one has suggested they be banned for having differing opinions. IT HAS BEEN OUTRIGHT STATED that people think they should be banned because THEY ARE TROLLING AND HAVE EVEN ADMITTED IT.

 Oh ffs. I could have flagged so many things. The flag is invisible to me unless I’m mousing over its specific location. >.<

 Ah, gotcha. I should known that, since that’s why the “suck my dick” types have apoplectic fits when I respond by going into graphic descriptions of pleasuring their genitals: Pure fear. Poor wittle babbies.

 I hear that if you make a massive logical fallacy based off of my post, that makes me a hypocrite rather than making you a moron.

That Flynt makes money off of women with issues does not mean that all women in porn have issues. Whether or not porn is degrading to a particular person involved in it depends on the situation.

The Marvel Comics character Emma Frost used to dress in lingerie as her supervillain costume. It was very similar to the way that all female employees at her base of operations, the Hellfire Club, were required to dress. Once, when an employee in a corset and stockings complained mistook Frost for another waitress and complained to her about all the degrading ogling, Frost went off on her about empowerment and owning oneself.

The gist of it was, “Yes, you wear that outfit and it degrades you. When I wear it, it degrades THEM.”

 Might be where you decided to massively demean the work of feminists there, Sport. You might as well have said, “Lyndon Johnson did more to advance Civil Rights than any five hundred blacks combined.”

 Someone going by the handle Fsq is a passive-aggressive crybaby who can’t handle an actual argument.

It’s easy for a bully or narcissist to pretend to be self-deprecating. That’s no test. The test is how one reacts when other people are making the attacks, and AFAIK, Flynt has aced that one.

Okay, that whole post was Win.

 A person may care about the post itself, but may get involved in the discussion.

yes they do.  Women the world over are victims of violence BUT this is a bad taste joke.  It is not violence.  I say it again.  IT IS A PHOTO.  It is not violent.  It isn’t even a photo of violence.  It isn’t even a photo of a genuine event. 

That was my original point – why do some Western Feminists get more annoyed about offensive crap than actual violence?  If you think that this kind of undergraduate complaining about a photoshopped photo makes you a feminist, can I suggest that you find out what your brave sisters in the developing world are fighting for.  I do wonder if they would actually regonise you as a feminist.

Look Tim I never claimed the article was violence, I’m pretty sure no one else dodo either. I just think the argument that women shouldn’t complain about insults because someone somewhere else has it worse is completely disingenuous. And I’m especially sick of the incessant high school level whining that accompany any attempt by women to address gender discrimination among atheists.

IDK even as a straight guy here, Id get quite the laugh out of seeing them photoshop a picture of a dick in place of one of Rush Limbaugh’s cigars…  I dont read Hustler, but my understanding is theyer not at all opposed to crudely telling men in the public sphere to Shut the fuck up.  This particular one is definitely rather rapey, so the point of male figures not having to put up with shut up messages laced with rape undertones is definitely valid.  But Id be willing to bet you can find plenty of ways that theyeve told men to shut up that if they were directed at a woman would be deemed as on a similar level of offensiveness as this.

And where is the evidence to support your attacks? The fact that I dare to disagree with you from time to time? Or are you just making an assumption about how all men think?

Here is the point that you are clueless about: if you continuously want to jump to the worst possible view of men without proof, then yes, you are sexist and need to be called out for it. Most men do support gender equality and if you continue to distrust people because of their gender then you will never be able to live in harmony in this world. Stop screaming insults, chill down, and think for a moment. No one deserves to be judged based on their gender and if you can’t apply that standard to everyone, then people are going to have to have a talk with you. 

You sound like someone saying “I’m not racist, I have plenty of black friends”

I never said that women or anyone else should be groped against their will. I actually think that anyone who does this should be punished. The problem is that you just ASSUMED that that was my belief without proof and started calling me nasty names, something you would never assume if a woman had disagreed with you on something. Don’t make assumptions about people’s beliefs based on their gender. Instead, listen to what they actually say.

Great comeback. All of the 12 year olds are really impressed.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go talk to people who are willing to have real discussions rather than just yell insults at each other. No offense, but intellectual conversation is just something I prefer over middle school bickering.

 The label of the article is “Celebrity Fantasy”.
And while it’s purpose does seem to be to humiliate someone publicly, the same is done in Hustler to men. So tell me why it’s sexism if it’s done to women but not if it’s done to men. I’m in favor of equal opportunity. It seems to me way too often that we’re expected to treat women with more respect and dignity than men.

 It’s invisible to everybody. I said something about flagging about 400 comments back, though I understand if it got lost in the comment box “skinny death.”

 I think that goes without saying…

 Where did EllenBeth call anyone any names in that post? She used the word “fuck,” but so what?

 I don’t think he thinks that deep. I think he’s just posting random quotes now.

So it’s okay to be sexist towards men because it doesn’t have a loaded history. Thanks for making that clear for me.

You’ve found a way to tell yourself that men can be insulted, degraded and humiliated relentlessly based on their gender without it being sexist. Good for you. One might think you’re actually being sexist against woman with such a remark though, as you’re assuming women are so inferior that only they can be affected by institutionalized cultural attitudes.

and when men are denigrated with respect to women, what do you call that? Do you do some mental gymnastics to find a way in which it’s actually denigrating women?

Defund Planned Parenthood ?  Yep… I’m for that.  Abortion’s for minor’s – check.  It’s documented.  Family Planning Services… yeah, sure.  If the Plan for your family is to use abortion as a birth control.

Reality is what it is.