Guth Documentary on How Women Are Fighting Online Harassment

Photo of Amy Guth from her Kickstarter bio, with her name and location, Chicago, Illinois.Amy Guth is a filmmaker and an experienced industry insider on women’s issues, who wants to develop a documentary series on the online harassment problem and the people who have been fighting it, who will no doubt include every fascinating case from the woman who found and called a harasser’s mother to the woman who hunted down one of her harassers and asked them why they did it (there have actually been more than one of those; links courtesy of Miri Mogilevsky). And so many more.

She needs funding.

So I am hereby asking any of my fans who share my interest in this to throw some dosh into her kickstarter for this project. Because I want to see this movie! There are also different perks for your support level. Spread this around as well! The more who contribute any amount they can, the more likely she can make her budget and proceed with this much-needed journalism project. She needs a little more than three hundred people to give a hundred dollars each. Or six hundred people, fifty dollars. Or bigger backers even. But if you tell everyone you can about this, surely she can pull a few hundred of us smaller supporters in.

You can read her whole pitch on her kickstarter page. But one paragraph that especially caught my eye:

While focusing on women’s stories in the modern, digital world and online spaces, I’m also including glimpses into historic examples of backlash against women’s voices (Think anti-Suffragist pamphlets and tactics, trolling letters to female literary greats and scientists, even corporate propaganda to get women out of post-war factories and back into the home). How did these previous attempts at silencing affect the way women conveyed information and organized for social change? By connecting past and present, I aim to find out how the conflict around who gets to have a public voice has (or, perhaps has not) changed over time, regardless of medium.

The historian in me is giddy at the prospect. Others have made this comparison before. There actually are a lot of similarities between the harassment of feminists a century ago and feminists online today. It’s not new. I’d love to see this elegantly laid out. But I have also heard so many fascinating stories of women combating harassers (such as the ones I linked above), and it’s clear Guth intends to collect and investigate those as well, and her followup on that is something I also want to see.

Opening credits to the pitch video for the project at Kickstarter, which has the production company's name, Strangewaze Films.In fact, on these questions she intends to ask in particular, I want to see what she finds:

Who harasses people online and why? Who thinks it’s perfectly ok and defends the practice? Who is doing work to change it? And, what’s actually working?

Yes. That!

I’ve pledged $50. But I’m poor. And she is still far from her target. So do what you can. Let’s see her make her budget!

Catching Up 2: Ophelia Benson & Advocating Trans Person Rights

I’ve been too busy to blog about all the things I wanted to this month. From the Black Lives Matter protest to the Ophelia Benson departure to a weird John Loftus flameout currently going on. So here I’m quickly trying to catch up. Second on deck: the Benson departure…

[Read more…]

What Dawkins Is Proposing Is the Suppression of Free Speech and the Acceptance of Sexism in Science

Hyperbolic whining when criticized is the male analog to the trope of women crying when criticized. So it’s ironic to see Richard Dawkings “crying” (over and over again) about a male peer being criticized for saying maybe women should be segregated from men in labs because they cry too much when criticized. Sure, Dawkins thinks Sir Tim Hunt saying that was deplorable. But he thinks nothing should come of it. We should just laugh off a Muslim scientist saying it would be better if labs were gender segregated (and not meaning it sarcastically). Because of sexist false generalizations about women, and how “women” can’t handle criticism and relationships.

[Read more…]

How To Do Wrong Right

Picture of a traffic sign in green with white lettering and border against a cloudy sky, which has arrows pointing both right and left, one labeled Right Way, the other labeled Wrong Way.After my post last month asking for a date the following week, many very positive and some slightly negative things transpired in result. The date went well. I chose a very lovely person who replied to my advertisement awesomely. We hit it off very well and are now in a relationship (mutually open). Others asked me out on future dates that have happened or will. Still others were inspired by my post to strike up an exploratory correspondence from afar, and some of those encounters might become future relationships. The hostility that was generated came mostly from sexists or anti-feminists with weird hangups. Some feminists had problems with it but weren’t hostile. I also received a lot of wonderful support.

This post won’t be about that.

Today I’m going to bring up one particular issue that has come up many times before in my discussions with movement insiders across the spectrum. The meta-question is, how do we draw the line, or even tell the difference, between honest, open, consensual, sex-positive behavior, and behavior that should be criticized and disapproved. But within that umbrella is one particular aspect: everyone screws up from time to time; and we can’t pillory the whole world. So what is a positive and constructive way to deal with correctable error, and what distinguishes that from behavior beyond the pale?

Of course, the Slymepit won’t care about that distinction. Even though they insist they do, they just horribly attack and harass anyone and everyone who ever defends any standard or policy whatever. And regardless of what those of the Slymepit profess, in actual practice they are the scary, amoral nihilists of this movement. They are also beyond facts, reality, or reason. So this post is not intended to educate them. They are uneducable.

Who I’m writing for now, is everyone else. [Read more…]

Help Miri Mogilevsky Keep Writing for a Living

Snapshot from a corner of Miri Mogilevsy's Patreon page, showing you can give a dollar amount per blog post to become a patron of her writing, and that she has at writing eleven patrons contributing a total of sixty-seven dollars a month so far.I have long been a fan of Miri Mogilevsky’s excellent writing on society, science, and sexuality, among many other topics, including feminism and other aspects of social justice. As well as her speaking and teaching. I’ve also been considering launching my own Patreon account later this year. But I’d like to see a colleague get it functional in action in the way I see Mogilevsky doing it now. And really, I’d just love to see her supported as a writer.

Her Patreon launch is really great. It’s inspiring me to develop my own someday and she’s given me great ideas for it. Check it out. You can become a patron of her work for just a dollar a month even. Or more. There are also some special goals she’ll meet for greater investments.

It’s worth it. I’ve cited and used her work many times (e.g. [1] and [2]). And I would value getting to do that more often. She nails certain subjects I want to find good articles on far better than I ever could. Including topics in Polyamory (e.g. [1] and [2]). She writes well, clearly, completely, and thoughtfully. I have enjoyed countless of her articles here at FtB as well as for Daily Dot, xoJane, Everyday Feminism, Friendly Atheist, Salon, and other venues. To get a feel for her contributions, just skim her blog archive for the month of this April alone.


I’ve posted about this not only because I’m a big fan of Miri’s and support her work and think some readers of mine might share both sentiments, but also because I’m becoming more interested in the anarchic Patreon model of employment for authors and artists. I think more authors I like might do this in future. As perhaps will I. So stay tuned!

A Primer on Fourth Wave Feminism

Photo from, showing a young attractive Asian girl standing before her wall of feminine art and holding up a handwritten sign that says I need feminism because society teaches us don't get raped rather than don't rape.Peter Boghossian often claims feminists today don’t care about the third world. That’s bullshit. In fact, almost everything he ever says about feminism today is bullshit. This article is a corrective. It’s time to clean the Augean stables.

Feminism is often badly understood by people who don’t study it well or don’t read widely among contemporary feminist authors. This is because the feminism culturally communicated to people is largely a mythical creation of feminism’s enemies, rather than what is really going on among feminists themselves. Much as the atheism communicated culturally to a large percentage of people (in the US, maybe as much as half the population) is largely a mythical creation of Christians, rather than what is really going on among atheists themselves. Jews and people of color face similar obstacles to understanding, as what “other people” know about them is often the promulgated stereotypes of racists and anti-semites, rather than reality. And when people just repeat what they’ve absorbed from their culture, they often have no idea how inaccurate that cultural knowledge is.

That’s why it’s important to check.

Cultural knowledge is often wrong. Religion itself, for example, is the most prominent example of cultural knowledge. That’s why Christian apologists struggle so hard to fabricate and disseminate false claims about history (from faked quotes of the Founding Fathers to a fictional history of science). For an analogy, comedian David Cross once joked about his experience with “cultural knowledge” of Jews in the South as a young man… [Read more…]

Peter Boghossian on Gay Pride and Hobnobbing with an Online Misogynist

Yesterday I posted an enhanced edition of my Ohio speech on feminism. Today I am posting key material from my Portland speech that extends the same argument to a broader application, focusing on some of the recent public statements of Peter Boghossian… [Read more…]

Why Atheism Needs Feminism

Info graphic showing Pat Robertson's face and displaying his ridiculous quote about feminism, which is included in my Ohio speech (so you can read it there).Over the last few months I’ve given a few public speeches on how things said by some of the top front men in our movement are divorced from reality. Including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Peter Boghossian. One of those speeches I delivered last year as the keynote speech for the Humanist Community of Central Ohio’s Solstice Banquet. A resounding standing ovation at that was reassuring. They have since put a transcript of that speech online.

The points I made were well received. Not surprising, as self-identifying humanists tend to get it, in a way nihilistic atheists don’t. In Portland last month I extended the argument even beyond, pointing out that in fact feminism doesn’t just follow as a core value of humanism, but is essential to any kind of movement atheism that expects to grow and earn the world’s respect. As well as make the world a better place, of course. But I understand some atheists don’t give a shit about that. Yet even the heartless “I’ve got mine, fuck everyone else” Machiavellian will have to admit, if movement atheism never grows very much larger than it is, and simply reinforces all the stereotypes of atheists as amoral threats to human welfare, who treat women and minorities and gays and the trans community so poorly it just stays predominately a white man’s club, then it will have strangled itself with its own umbilical cord.

At Ohio I already explained how critical thinking plus compassion entails feminism. And fully justifies a lot of the criticism feminists have leveled at movement atheists lately. I don’t pretend all of it is justified (I haven’t even seen all of it), but enough of it is to warrant our attention. That speech was titled Oh No! Humanism Means Stuff! Why Compassion + Critical Thought = Feminism. I’m reproducing the whole transcript here with minor edits and more formatting and hyperlinks. Tomorrow I’ll post some additional material from my Portland speech, in which I examine Peter Boghossian’s remarks about gay pride and his hobnobbing with infamous misogynist Stefan Molyneux. But first, here is the Ohio speech… [Read more…]

Shermertron the Bigot: Polyamory as the New Reefer Madness

Famous scene screencap from the 1936 film Reefer Madness in which a snearing dope dealer takes a puff in a lounge chair.Lock up your wives and daughters. Polyamorous men are going to seduce them! That’s the new panic emanating from atheist anti-feminists. Along with horror at Bacchic orgies at atheist conferences, and a denigration of sexual liberation as the scourge of society and a sure sign of the decline of public morality. Christian reactionaries? Nope. This is coming from atheists. Seriously.

Anti-feminist atheists are rarely logical and always fact challenged. They live in a bubble of impenetrable mythologies like moon landing deniers and people who vote for Ted Cruz. So none of their reaction to my coming out as polyamorous ought to be surprising. But since one of them is making a lame attempt at harassing my employers, it’s time to document and make fun of it.

The featured villain of the day is some guy (?) who goes by the charming moniker Shermertron. It would be truly awesome if that was actually Michael Shermer but reality is never that sweet. I’m assuming it’s an obsessive Shermer fan. He writes a vile blog called Orwellian Garbage, which is basically just a bunch of illogical rants about me and PZ Myers that rarely contacts reality. His silly & sad sidekick goes by the moniker Yeti’s Roar who does basically the same thing on his own blog (I suppose they could be the same person).

Shermertron and his associates suffer from the following delusions:

  • They can’t tell the difference between sexual harassment and consensual flirting.
  • They can’t tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate ways of pursuing intimacy with someone.
  • They can’t tell the difference between being pleasantly drunk but still in possession of your faculties (and thus fully able to consent when asked) and being so drunk as to not even comprehend what is happening or where exactly you are.
  • They can’t tell the difference between advocating for ethical sexuality and being against all sex.

They are also liars.

If you want the full skinny, then sit down, secure your safety belt and hang on for the ride… [Read more…]