#mencallmethings: “Old bag” »« Greta Speaking in San Francisco, Saturday 8/25!

#mencallmethings: “whore”

Comment from wondering, in the discussion on the post #mencallmethings: “FUCKIN HOE,” “FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT”

Lol at Greta thinking anyone takes her seriously after her nude pic:

http://embruns.net/images/nude-calendar-greta-2012.jpg

Expecting us to take a whore seriously is when you know Feminist Thought Blogs has gone too far.

BTW, I don’t like Rebecca Watson either (she’s another person who only wants to talk about feminism, not atheism) but I still respect her as a person.

And before anyone accuses me of being a prude, I’ve masturbated to that nude pic of Greta lots of times before.

I’m not even joking, I like mature women and I’m a huge fan of MILF porn. :)

But I separate whores from women I take seriously and I separate feminism from atheism advocacy.

Leave the atheism up to the real atheists (like Dawkins) and stop with the feminism bullshit, alright? :)

#mencallmethings

A few notes:

1: I think whores are fine. I’ve never worked as a prostitute, but I have worked as a stripper, and I have many friends and colleagues who have worked or continue to work as prostitutes. I respect them, and I respect their work. But the use of the word “whore” as an insult to any woman who steps out of line with sexual norms is disgusting. It’s insulting to all women — and it’s insulting to prostitutes, of all genders.

2: The #mencallmethings hashtag does not say #allmencallmethings, or #mostmencallmethings. If you want to learn more about the history of this hashtag and why people started using it, please read But How Do You Know It’s Sexist? The #MenCallMeThings Round-Up and Why Are You In Such A Bad Mood? #MenCallMeThings Responds! on Tiger Beatdown, where the hashtag originated. And please do not start a “but not all men are like that, so the #mencallmethings hashtag is reverse sexism!” argument. That has been addressed, at length, in the comments in the #mencallmethings: “FUCKIN HOE,” “FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT” post, as well as elsewhere. Please read Why “Yes, But” Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny if you’re wondering why I will not take kindly that that particular line of conversation.

3: For people who aren’t familiar with it: The nude photo in question was done for the Nude Photo Revolutionary calendar, created in homage and solidarity with Egyptian atheist, student and blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy who posted a nude photo of herself, announcing the post on Twitter under the hashtag, #NudePhotoRevolutionary, as an act of defiance against Islamist theocracy. But even if it hadn’t? Even if it had been the most purely pornographic porn in the world? Why would that render me unfit to be taken seriously?

4: As I said in the #mencallmethings: “FUCKIN HOE,” “FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT” post: If anyone is still wondering why some atheists might want to carve out a subset of atheism that’s specifically focused on social justice issues — such as misogyny, rape culture, and the reality of what life is like for women on the Internet — and that’s specifically focused on making atheism more welcoming to women, people of color, and other marginalized groups — I hope this puts your questions to rest. This is Exhibit A.

Except it’s not Exhibit A. It’s more like Exhibit W. It’s more like Exhibit W (2) f (vi). I get this all the time. I get this so often, I’ve lost track. As has every other woman I know who speaks publicly about feminism.

And 5: I hope I don’t have to point out the grotesque irony of this comment appearing in a post about a misogynist rape threat. The idea that someone would read a post about a comment saying ““GRETA CHRISTINA YOU FUCKIN HOE… I HOPE YOU GET RAPED YOU FUCKIN FEMINAZI SLUT… GO CHOKE ON A DICK AND DIE,” and respond by calling me a whore who doesn’t have to be taken seriously, is… I don’t even have words for what that is.

Maybe some of you can help me out.

Comments

  1. says

    Wow. The self-obliviousness is strong in this one. I think this is my favorite part:

    And before anyone accuses me of being a prude, I’ve masturbated to that nude pic of Greta lots of times before.

    I’m not even joking, I like mature women and I’m a huge fan of MILF porn.

    But I separate whores from women I take seriously and I separate feminism from atheism advocacy.

    So, now that you’ve masturbated to a nude pic of Greta, she is a whore, she is no longer allowed to have an opinion, and you get to spray your turds in her comment section. Oh, but at least you’re not a prude, right?

    If that’s how he defines prudes, then, to be honest, I’d rather deal with prudes. They seem to have some integrity.

  2. ChasCPeterson says

    I think the, uh, thought process is straightforward: if he has masturbated to your photo then you can’t be no madonna, leaving only the alternative.

  3. says

    Why give this any attention? It just feeds it and grows it. Why not focus on the positive stuff we can do to create change? Who cares what they think? Let’s make things better.

  4. Robert (SeraphymC) says

    I don’t know how someone can make statements like that and still think that they are the good ones (in the narrative in their head).

  5. Robert (SeraphymC) says

    Rogi,

    This kind of statement needs to be made public, so that we can denounce it and make it clear that this is not an acceptable way to be a decent human being.

    These people tend to shrivel away when exposed to the light, so lets not let them fester in the darkness.

  6. says

    I’d really like to be surprised again when I see this kind of stuff but at this point I’m really not. I’m sorry that you et al have to put up with this crap.

  7. RowanVT says

    Why give this any attention? It just feeds it and grows it. Why not focus on the positive stuff we can do to create change? Who cares what they think? Let’s make things better.

    Because ignoring it gives it tacit approval. Calling out negative behaviour, if *everyone* does it who actually disapproves of it, is a powerful way to change behaviour. Social shaming is something very few people desire to endure.

    But because we are told to just ‘leave it alone’, with no social stigma attached, the people who say such horrible things feel justified in saying them.

    Welcome to “You are now part of the problem”.

  8. says

    There is one and only one criterion by which to judge whether to take someone’s arguments seriously, and that is the quality of that person’s arguments.

  9. Pteryxx says

    Also note that wondering used the usual tactic of starting out polite:

    wondering says:
    August 24, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    It seems clear from the context that the guy is exaggerating to make a point. He is not actually calling you those things, but he is merely posting it to get a reaction from you.

    Your Exhibit A fails.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/24/mencallmethings-fuckin-hoe-fuckin-feminazi-slut/#comment-90812

    and *before* wondering posted the ‘whore’ comment to Ophelia, several of us attempted to point out why wondering’s claim didn’t hold up. This was part of my response:

    However, someone who DOES argue that Tim deserves the benefit of the doubt, as wondering does at #87 above, isn’t showing themselves to be very trustworthy either.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/24/mencallmethings-fuckin-hoe-fuckin-feminazi-slut/#comment-90942

    There’s a very good reason why reasonable-sounding commenters who nevertheless minimize and dismiss evident misogyny often don’t get treated with good faith. Apologists for misogyny often indulge in it themselves. Several of us, including me, did respond in good faith – to the actual claim – instead of presuming the commenter was untrustworthy; and once again, that good faith was wasted.

  10. says

    And people wonder why their archaic notions of acceptability drive people away from the atheist community. No, it’s not that women are more religious or that people of color are more religious or any of those pathetic excuses – it’s because a decent chunk of majority members (read:not saying all) still hold onto archaic, oppressive ideals while trying to claim “minority”, “discriminated”, and “progressive”.

    Whore is never an acceptable insult, and even if it were true, it doesn’t lower the validity of a person. Prostitutes are still people; they are not lesser, they are not insults – they are people. A woman claiming autonomy over her body (no matter how she does it, be it nude photos, sex jobs, covering up, etc – anything that is her way of having control over herself) does NOT lower her value or her worth.

    Why give this any attention? It just feeds it and grows it. Why not focus on the positive stuff we can do to create change? Who cares what they think? Let’s make things better.

    Ignoring issues doesn’t solve them, it just ignores them and gives them a place to foster for growth. If I ignore a forest fire, what’s the likelihood that fire will just stop what it’s doing realizing that it shouldn’t burn up all those trees? What’s the likelihood that it will spread into something uncontrollable?

    The “who cares what they think” only extends so far. Misogyny, along with other systems of oppression, aren’t just a matter of what “they think” – it’s a matter of keeping people in a “lesser” realm so ruling populations can still exert power over them. Social justice issues are far deeper that merely “what they think”.

  11. Rebecca Hensler says

    “But I separate whores from women I take seriously”

    The idea that there are two kinds of women, one sexual and one intellectual, is one of the core concepts of a sexist ideology that may be compatible with the definition of atheism but is not compatible with any movement of which I want to be a part.

    It is an idea that permeates our culture, spanning the decades. In our lifetimes, it inculcated my generation’s young girls through the “there’s a pretty one and there’s a smart one” trope of 70’s television from Scooby Doo to Three’s Company (and it isn’t a coincidence that this media trope reached dominance in reaction to Second Wave Feminism). It was illustrated thirty years later by Snoop Dogg’s reaction to accusations of sexism in rap: “[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about ho’s that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing sh–, that’s trying to get a n—a for his money. These are two separate things. ”

    The delineation of “whores” versus “women I take seriously” is our secular culture’s version of the Madonna/Magdalen dichotomy, no more intelligent, accurate or productive than the Evangelical Christian classification of “Godly” versus “sinful” women. And just as it is used within Evangelical Christianity to silence rebellious women and prevent change, it is being used by those who wish to maintain male dominance in the atheist movement to attempt to silence our feminist activists and prevent progress.

    It may work among Evangelicals. It does not work here.

    A man telling a woman that she is only of value as masturbatory material is a sign of desperation, of weakness. As repulsive as it is, it is a sign we are winning.

  12. LeftSidePositive says

    Rogi, we’ve called out your absurd ignorance on the “just ignore it!!” gambit multiple, multiple times. Why not actually listen to what we’ve said? Why not actually address our arguments as to how your pert little dictums are trite, marginalizing, utterly shortsighted, and contradicted by abundant evidence regarding how social change actually happens? Either way, please stop repeating the same tired nonsense and wasting everyone’s time.

  13. Joey says

    To the inept sexist quoted in the blog: let’s just get two things out of the way. One, the reason you spend so much time jacking off to porn is because you’re too repugnant to fuck, asshole, even for money. Two, you’re the same kind of tool who will subsequently call women prudes if we point out that you’re lame for bragging about jerking off to a calendar photo and then using the photo to deny women credibility. Given your blatant exhibitionism, you are similarly discredited by your own twisted logic, except you’re not a whore, you’re a flasher. That makes you worse than a working woman, that makes you a predatory freak.

    To the rest of the debacle: the fact that people felt the need to develop a specific kind of atheism to address the rampant sexism that Christianity has instilled in this culture should be a slap in the face to all those who claim to disavow the Bible for its lack of reason and harm. Hypocrites. That is the shit you harbor, that you tacitly condone, when you whinge about people getting fed up with the Christian-fed sexism in this culture and the astoundingly bizarre atheist perpetuation of it. I guess soon, we won’t be suffering witches to live much longer either.

  14. says

    If that’s how he defines prudes, then, to be honest, I’d rather deal with prudes. They seem to have some integrity.

    Let us not allow this person to sully the name of ‘pervert’. Just as there are insensitive atheists, there are insensitive perverts, but that does not mean all pervs are that way. This simply isn’t an issue of prudery versus perversion, which I think was one of the points in the above post.

    I think the, uh, thought process is straightforward: if he has masturbated to your photo then you can’t be no madonna, leaving only the alternative.

    I’m not so sure, I think it’s more likely that he believes anyone who posts nude photos like that is a whore. I believe his point about not being a prude is that he’s admitting that he doesn’t mind women who are whores (translation: “I’m not going to feel guilty for objectifying women”), he just believes there’s a certain place for them, and that place doesn’t involve being taken seriously (translation: “but I’m still going to treat them like shit because they deserve it”). Which is bullshit. It doesn’t matter whether someone is a whore or a madonna, they are still a person, and the whore has just as much right to be taken seriously as any madonna (whether you’ve ever masturbated to pictures of her or not).

  15. see_the_galaxy says

    I think these people have just got to be trolls. Shut them out, freeze them out, call them out, but anybody so obviously dumber than a rutabaga doesn’t deserve to even be considered real.

  16. Anonymous Atheist says

    When I saw Justin Griffith’s new post calling out an alleged stalker/rapist, and some of the responses saying he should’ve kept this quiet, I thought of two things with some parallels: the Mabus/Markuze situation, and the #mencallmethings initiative. I thought you might be able to offer a counterargument supporting his decision to stop keeping quiet about it.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/08/26/im-sure-this-will-make-a-nice-blog-fuck-off-and-die/
    (I have a general supportive comment waiting for moderation there because I included a couple links.)

  17. see_the_galaxy says

    Since the government is apparently paying trolls to disrupt terrorists, who is to say that other people haven’t caught on to this too? http://www.3dsbuzz.com/3ds-forum/threads/the-us-government-unleashes-the-wrath-of-internet-trolls-on-al-qaeda.9665/
    Even a few paid trolls to help stir up and amplify the latent stupidity present in any movement including ours would be a very good investment if you could keep it quiet. It would be interesting to see if there are any data to support this suspicion. And that’s all it is–we don’t need paranoia either.

  18. Greta Christina says

    Joey @#15: One point of disagreement: Lots of wonderful, feminist people spend lots of time masturbating to pot to porn. I’m one of them. Appreciate the support in general, though. Thanks!

  19. F says

    -I can’t take you seriously because I thought about you with the brain in my penis.-

    Is that about right? Because I think I can find a diagnostic error there.

  20. Joey says

    Greta @#20: LOL, my apologies. I love porn, too. And sex workers. I just figure if one uses it as a weapon to silence, he (or she) is doing it wrong!

  21. says

    Well, we can either be good for being looked at, or for being listened to. Only if we’re not pretty or slutty or sexy enough to be looked at, what we say isn’t worth listening to anyway, and if we are well, what we say can’t be taken serious.

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

  22. SamLL says

    “I don’t even have words for what that is.

    Maybe some of you can help me out.”

    “Dumbfuckery”? “Asshattery”?

  23. Sonorus says

    After reading this letter, is any woman concerned whether or not this person takes you or anyone else seriously? He’s not a serious person himself. And yes, he’s Exhibit A for why feminism is an important issue in the atheist community and everywhere else. IMHO the appropriate response is “thank you for showing me you’re an idiot. You have saved me the time I might have wasted listening to or reading anything else you might have to say.”

  24. (e)m says

    @3 Rogi Riverstone

    Cause if we ignore it, it won’t just go away.

    @Greta Christina

    I don’t even have words for what that is.
    Maybe some of you can help me out.

    Evil is a good one. Disgusting. Repugnant. Shameful. Disappointing. Depressing.

  25. ambassadorfromverdammt says

    He is a rapist. His raping is verbal rather than physical but rape nonetheless.

    He does not need us to tell him his behaviour is abhorrent, he already knows. He chooses his behaviour either because it is repugnant, or in spite of its repugnance. Most likely the former.

    Ignoring this kind of behaviour does not make it go away, it emboldens them and makes it worse. Shining the brightest of lights on it and telling it like it is is the only hope of minimizing it.

    Thank you, Greta, you make my life better through your posts, even when, as today, you share a bit of the dregs of humanity who direct their effluence at you, and all women.

  26. Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

    He is a rapist. His raping is verbal rather than physical but rape nonetheless.

    Please don’t do this.
    ‘wondering’ said some extremely hateful, vile things, but don’t equate his words to anything like rape.
    There is no such thing as verbal rape.

    Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person’s consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

    Saying things we don’t like is not verbal rape. Vicious, inhumane words are not rape, no matter how much we dislike them. Rape is an action. It’s a violation of another human being on a fundamental level. It’s an action where the rapist imposes their will over another individual. It’s one of the most reprehensible acts one person can do to another.
    There is no equating rape with hurtful words.

  27. Joey Maloney says

    I wish that it were useful to treat comments like this idiot’s as if they were dog turds on the sidewalk. When you come upon a dog turd on the sidewalk you don’t get all of your friends and gather round to have an hours long conversation about how awful dog turds on the sidewalk are, how bad this one smells, what a terrible dog it was that put that turd there, and go looking all over the neighborhood for other turds by the same dog so you can point out all the same things about those turds as well. You don’t do that; you just step over the dog turd and walk on.

    I wish that were the best approach to take. Unfortunately it isn’t.

  28. callistacat says

    @Joey

    This isn’t an unusual attitude, this shit it everywhere. The madonna/whore complex is widespread in our society, and apparently even atheists can suffer from it. People use it to justify all kinds of abusive behavior towards women.

  29. says

    I had a friend actually ask me kindly if it was okay for him to think about me when he was “alone”.

    I said that was fine, and he didn’t need to ask me, but it was sort of sweet that he did.

    He absolutely respected me as a friend, and I suppose, to him thinking of me in a slightly different way (even in private) required permission.

    Most people can parse out thinking of someone as an “object” of desire and as a whole person. Others, it seems, can’t.

    I guess that’s what the out-dated question of, “Can men and women be friends?” comes from; or the horrible dichotomy of the women you just have sex with vs the women you bring back to the parents.

    I don’t understand what the relationships are like of people who think this way – must suck for them.

  30. says

    I don’t even have words for what that is.

    Maybe some of you can help me out.

    “Repellent” is the best word. People like that literally repel women from the atheist movement.

  31. says

    Anonymous Atheist says:

    When I saw Justin Griffith’s new post calling out an alleged stalker/rapist, and some of the responses saying he should’ve kept this quiet…

    There’s a big difference, in that people were telling Griffiths to keep things private for legal reasons. Publicly discussing something that may come up in a court case (such as him applying for a restraining order) is generally a very bad idea. If they had told Griffiths “well you shouldn’t have posted pictures of yourself”, or “stop whining, you woman-hating homosexual”, or “men in Saudi Arabia have it worse”, then there would be a problem.

  32. says

    sorry again for the OT comment, but:

    When I saw Justin Griffith’s new post calling out an alleged stalker/rapist, and some of the responses saying he should’ve kept this quiet,

    the reason people were saying that is because he’s spilling matters all over the internet that a good lawyer would have told him to keep confidential until a legal resolution was reached. They were not telling him to not tell anyone and keep his harassment (and possible rape) to himself; they were giving him good legal advice.

  33. says

    Alyson, I don’t consider Wondering to be oblivious. He knows precisely what he is doing: using ugly language to assert his (alleged) superiority over someone from a class of people he believes beneath him.

    Rogi, for the thousandth time, “Don’t feed the trolls” doesn’t work, calling out this behavior does help make things better, and you yourself act more and more trollishly every time you insist that people do things your way in spite of having been provided with copious evidence to the contrary.

    See_the_galaxy, see the above paragraph.

    Zharth, personally I’d rather the term “pervert” become an archaicism, whether as an insult or a compliment, except perhaps in ironic self-deprecatory uses. It just carries too much baggage. “Kinkster” is fine for all forms of sex involving mutual, enthusiastic consent. For everything else, there’s “rapist” or “abuser.”

    I believe his point about not being a prude is that he’s admitting that he doesn’t mind women who are whores…, he just believes there’s a certain place for them, and that place doesn’t involve being taken seriously.

    Agreed.

    Tony:

    Please don’t do this.

    Seconded.

  34. wdimac says

    BTW, I don’t like Rebecca Watson either (she’s another person who only wants to talk about feminism, not atheism) but I still respect her as a person.

    No, somehow I don’t think you do. In fact, I don’t think you really even know what that means…

  35. Pteryxx says

    y’know, I figure a LOT of these women speakers might talk more about atheism if atheists quit crapping on them for being outspoken women! *headdesk*

  36. says

    And just another example of why Atheism + is a really fantastic and necessary step. I would say more, but the words I’d use to describe how I feel about the asshat who left that comment would violate your comment policy.

  37. see_the_galaxy says

    There’s nothing at all wrong with calling them out, not at all. I just argue for an even greater level of contemptuous dismissal. Some of this viciousness might well be coming from our enemies. Call it out, a thousand times, absolutely. The absolute last thing I want is silence in the face of it–I agree totally with what Greta, Jen, and the others have said on the topic.

    I just doubt it’s all ‘authentic’. Because any rational atheist, no matter how right wing, would still recognize that Greta Christina and the others are powerful advocates who are doing great work for atheism and secularism, even if they disagree on some political aspects. Empirically, threatening and degrading leading figures on our side only helps our enemies. Our enemies benefit from it. I assume some of it is done by them. What is more interesting is how to quantify this or find the signs of organized ‘troll warfare’.

  38. says

    Oh for fuck sake, why would you doubt that it’s authentic. Like Greta says, it’s not exhibit A, it’s exhibit w.2.39.q.xiv.(iii)

    Apart from the abuse hurled at FtBloggers, did you also miss the harassment of Rebecca Watson and Surly Amy and the reddit atheist teen girl and all the rest of this? Self-avowed outspoken (and how I wish they’d shut up) atheists have been doing this sort of thing openly for over a year.

  39. Martha says

    @Rebecca Hensler #13: Well said!

    @Pterryx #10: I disagree that the good faith was wasted. Private arguments with guys like wondering are clearly a waste of time, but public ones aren’t. At least not always. They certainly help me see why I have a knee-jerk reaction to the average guy arguing against feminism, as so many people arguing in poor faith make rational sounding arguments at first. I hope they also make people who say some of those arguments in good faith realize how they can nonetheless serve to propagate the problem.

  40. Ysanne says

    Wow, what a pathetic excuse for a human being…
    Thanks Greta for calling out this kind of shit and not letting it slide and further poison the community.
    One tiny disagreement:

    If anyone is still wondering why some atheists might want to carve out a subset of atheism that’s specifically focused on social justice issues — such as misogyny, rape culture, and the reality of what life is like for women on the Internet — and that’s specifically focused on making atheism more welcoming to women, people of color, and other marginalized groups — I hope this puts your questions to rest.

    Actually, I think this is rather the perfect example for why the misogynist assholes should be kicked out of the mainstream of the atheist movement, instead of making up a sub-movement of non-assholes.
    This is an example of the kind of repugnant person that NO community and movement can tolerate in their ranks if they don’t want to be dominated by (and publicly perceived as) abusive fuckwits.
    Plus, in the special case of the atheist movement, I think the 2nd paragraph of Joey’s #15 makes a very good point of why not tolerating hateful misogyny should be a core issue.

  41. RowanVT says

    Actually, I think this is rather the perfect example for why the misogynist assholes should be kicked out of the mainstream of the atheist movement, instead of making up a sub-movement of non-assholes.

    Except that when so much of mainstream atheism is made up of assholes, or those who think silence is the answer, if we got rid of them… we’d be down to next to no-one.

  42. mildlymagnificent says

    if we got rid of them… we’d be down to next to no-one.

    I’m not so sure. Watching all those people eagerly de-lurking when Jen first put up her post should tell us a lot. There may be far more people who’ve held back because of the obvious, loud-mouthed nasties and their apparent prominence in the atheist/skeptic communities than the number of nasty and not-so-nice people themselves. Trading in one group for the other looks like a good deal on the face of it.

    Even if the numbers aren’t equivalent, a change in the balance might tip some of those not-so-nice folks away from supporting the really nasty types. So you get the numbers without losing the people – that’s also a good deal.

  43. Joey says

    There’s a difference between marginalizing and excluding. I think our culture has had enough exclusion. By excluding sexists, we remove the impetus to change. Not all of those who form the bulk of opposition are like whatshisname. Most institutional sexism is a matter of inertia. I certainly respect the desire to not have to deal with dross like wondering, but I worry about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Sexism should be marginalized by a united rejection of such behaviors. That solidarity is typically best accomplished by frank and directed discussion. “We have these problems…” and “we have these goals…” and “these principles…”

    The idea that atheists are inherently more rational when it comes to such embedded issues as sexism is naive. Sexism predates Christianity, going back to its Greek roots. Women as other was the first fixed category of objectification. Western Civ is founded on the principle. Christianity just popularized it. Atheism in and of itself offers no solutions.

    Personally, I’m tired of gritting my teeth every time some idiot says something stupid. It’s sucking the life out of me. I wake up to the Akins of the world, then I turn away from them to find this. I think regular confrontation would be helpful. To me. And as galling as it is at this late stage, if we do not have the men of our movement standing beside us, we will continue to be painted as militant feminists, instead of atheists united in principles of equality.

  44. says

    I wish that it were useful to treat comments like this idiot’s as if they were dog turds on the sidewalk.

    There is and that’s what some of the commenters on this posting are doing: you point and say, “don’t step in that, it’ll stink up your shoes.” Or, shorter, “mind the boola.”

    As a former friend of 2 wonderful dogs, though, I never saw anything as unpleasant as that come out of a dog’s ass. And my sweeties used to like to chug whole rabbits, horse poo, and the occasional long-dead woodchuck.

  45. Pteryxx says

    well, the dog poo just happens to be there, maybe because someone didn’t bother picking it up. This is more like somebody throwing dog poo at you when your back is turned… on a daily basis.

    This is an example of the kind of repugnant person that NO community and movement can tolerate in their ranks if they don’t want to be dominated by (and publicly perceived as) abusive fuckwits.

    Just recall that they don’t *show* themselves to be repugnant fuckwits until a woman actually comes forward and says ‘don’t do that’. As long as uppity women are silenced and driven away, and not taken seriously, these folks do just fine in a community; everyone says what great people the assholes are and worries about protecting their reputation. It happens with rapists, it happens with abusers, and it happens with misogynists on the internet. This chilly climate has been the status quo in atheism for *decades* and most of us either didn’t know (as for most guys) or didn’t say much (most women).

    Martha @47, thanks… but having these arguments over and over is teaching the lurkers, sure, but at the expense of the regulars and blog hosts who would really like to get on with it already. I’m happy to yield the floor and take my educating elsewhere; honest lurkers can always follow.

  46. thebookofdave says

    Greta. Wow. You really know how to bring the vermin out of the woodwork. Some horses simply refuse to stay dead, and must be continuously beaten. It’s a thankless job…I mean you’re getting thanks from us, but not from misogynistic zombie jackasses.

  47. says

    I just doubt it’s all ‘authentic’. Because any rational atheist, no matter how right wing, would still recognize that Greta Christina and the others are powerful advocates who are doing great work for atheism and secularism, even if they disagree on some political aspects. Empirically, threatening and degrading leading figures on our side only helps our enemies. Our enemies benefit from it. I assume some of it is done by them.

    Sounds an awful lot like “No true Scotsman” to me. Also, a bit of “head in the sand”, as well.

  48. says

    Just recall that they don’t *show* themselves to be repugnant fuckwits until a woman actually comes forward and says ‘don’t do that’.

    Pteryxx’s line above sparked this thought:

    There have been many many people that I thought were rational and not misogynistic. I’m a man. It wouldn’t be until either a woman spoke up or we discussed feminism that their true selves came out. Had I never brought the subject up (feminism) or not been present when a female expressed an opposing opinion *le gasp!*, I probably would never know about their misogyny.

    My point (if I can express it coherently!) is this:
    For any man that tries to claim that this kind of thing only happens on the Internet or it is not a real problem, you are not listening. Check your privilege!

    Also, it makes me sad that Greta (and Jen, Rebecca, Amy, and everyone) is subjected to these assholes. I really appreciate the work they do and am enriched by their efforts.

  49. jackrawlinson says

    Greta, I wasn’t going to post here any more but I have to say this: you are allowing yourself to be trolled. Any reasonably popular blogger, male or female, who is not afraid to express contentious opinions will receive this kind of irrelevant garbage from people who just enjoy trying to push whichever buttons they feel will be most effective at annoying their target. You’re showing them that it works. Just ignore them. They’re noise, not signal.

  50. Hunt says

    There have been many many people that I thought were rational and not misogynistic.

    That can be true of all the “isms,” racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc, and yes, the Jekyll to Hyde transformation can be quite terrifying to behold. I have personally seen people turn Hyde on me with the mention of Jews, uppity women, and immigrants.

    I do think there’s a certain amount of revisionism going on wrt. the motivation for A+, since I think the true recent history is that most people up to a year ago thought that A was A+ by naively assuming that their fellow atheist was enlightened — except of course, those who were not. So in a sense this is a horror story recounting “the enemy within,” and these people we always assumed were with us in belief and spirit are actually horrible doppelgangers. It would make a pretty good movie.

  51. virginia solita says

    Fuck those haters, Greta. They are just mad because they can’t trick any women into sleeping with them. Haters be hatin’! And this is why your Atheist plus idea has really taken off. Cause women are tired of getting affronted with this type of non sense everytime we open our mouths. No penis jokes, please.

  52. Hunt says

    jackrawlinson,
    It’s not irrelevant because they’re not just trolls, they’re misogynists. It’s really a shame that the whole ‘troll’ excuse ever entered this conversation. A troll is someone who enjoys being obnoxious or derailing a discussion. These people might fit that description, but they’re more than that. If you have a hard time applying this idea to misogyny (and you’d better ask yourself why) imagine if they were not addressing women, but blacks or Jews. Would you be so quick to dismiss them?

  53. Sara K. says

    I think I’ve found a Catch-22 between this an a previous edition of #mencallmethings …

    If a man doesn’t find Greta Christina sexually attractive, then nobody wants to listen to her.

    If a man does find Greta Christina sexually attractive, then nobody will take her seriously.

  54. mildlymagnificent says

    I have personally seen people turn Hyde on me with the mention of Jews, uppity women, and immigrants.

    Absolutely! I remember having a bit of a laugh with a few others about a bloke who’d turned up at our office complaining that we were discriminating against him because he was Jewish. (His name wasn’t John Smith but it was something very like it.) Out of the blue, someone who wasn’t laughing – note we were laughing about the idea that we had **any** information apart from name and address – made his angry contribution.

    To wit “Well, we ought to be discriminating against them.”

    Whaaaat?! Never got to the bottom of it because this was the conversation stopper of all time.

  55. ambassadorfromverdammt says

    If a 25yo fucks a 15yo it is defined as rape even though the act was loving and consensual.

    Obscene phone calls are illegal.

    The criminal justice system is a potential tool.

    Hand waving and moaning will do nothing.

  56. Sassafras says

    #65-

    Great, we went from one that can’t wait to tell us he jerked to the picture to one that just has to say it didn’t do it for him and call her an ‘old bag’. Both of you fail to grasp a basic point:

    No one cares what gives you boners.

  57. mnb0 says

    “I don’t even have words for what that is.”
    That’s the burp of someone whose IQ can be written with one digit.

  58. Otrame says

    @65,66,69

    Well, look. Another crop of… Whatever the hell they are.

    @65
    Nudity is not inherently about sex. Grow up.

    @66
    A fifteen year old is too young to give INFORMED consent. Without informed consent what we have here is rape. Is it as traumatic as forcible rape? No. That’s why you don’t go to jail for as long for statutory rape.

    I don’t even know what the rest of your comment meant, so I’ll stop there.

    @69
    Well, then, sweetie, from your great height of a double-digit IQ, why don’t you come up with some words for what that is, then. Come on. I know you can do it. You are so much smarter than Greta.

  59. mojave66 says

    This post and #65 have helped me to identify the species of the genus misogynist. The taxonomic name is “immature wanker.” Immature because their emotional, ethical and intellectual development ground to a halt at the moment they turned 15. Wanker, because apparently wanking is all they do, all day, every day. It certainly seems like it’s all they talk about.

  60. says

    When streets are covered in dog poo, or litter, or general filth, historically (at least in the past few decades) society has acted to clean up the streets, not step over or around it. To chide people against leaving dog poo where people walk or even to fine them, and sometimes to run national public ad campaigns to shame the culture into changing.

    It’s sort of iconic now–and by iconic I mean parodied on The Simpsons–but remember that commercial with the Native American man paddling a canoe through garbage and then crying at the end? “People start pollution; people can stop it.” Same goes for all behaviors that hurt people and their environments, physical or otherwise.

  61. Joey says

    jackrawlinson, were this about some more abstracted political issue, the debt perhaps, absolutely, do not feed the trolls. However, 33% of women are not being assaulted because of debt hawks. They are being assaulted, battered, murdered, and raped because of that “noise”. Because some men feel they have the right to attack women for being women-objects, and because other men dismiss the seriousness of such unmitigated vitriol.

    When you add up just the stats on domestic violence, rape, and murder, you end up with the picture of an epidemic. I say that without irony or hyperbole. Violence against women is the largest epidemic our culture faces. Every time a man tells a woman who is speaking out against the perpetrators of said epidemic, that man inadvertently supports it by diminishing its significance.

    The behavior of whatshisname is a red flag. He took the time to brag about his contempt for someone he considered incapable of legitimate speech, to the person he considered so lacking in ability. You know, because he basically said she was incapable because she took her clothes off in front of a camera, which somehow made her a whore. As if being a whore makes one incapable of logic and undeserving of speech.

    Predators often taunt their victims. Or start with taunting some and move on to abusing others. It should be considered extremely aberrant behavior – because it is. It is bullying. You don’t ignore bullies, you stand up to them and show them up for the cowards they really are. Because he just bragged about picking on someone he considered to be lesser than himself. It is an extremely disturbing mindset. If you thought someone on the internet was essentially disabled, would you go call them a whore? Would you ever dismiss an argument with an ad slutinem? No. It’s not for you, but for us, that shit is toxic.

    It is the nadir of reason to suggest women (within the context of a 33% lifetime chance of sexual assault in the US) should ignore the obvious red flags. Women (and men!) need to be supported when they speak out about such behavior. They need to be encouraged to speak, to share information (oh, BTW, look out for *this guy*), to determine systems of safety that suit them. Greta’s article, her voice, is part of that system. Supporting a social narrative which refuses to address the ubiquitous threats to women’s safety is irrational.

    One the one hand, when we start getting into the grisly details, we’re told we’re being dramatic. But on the other, when we state matters simply, our concerns are dismissed. So what do we have to do to get you to speak with us, Jack? (I am in no way suggesting you support such behavior, merely asking you to see how important it is to identify and note the signal as signal, instead of dismissing it as noise.)

  62. John the Drunkard says

    Whoever these creeps are, they do not deserve to be dignified as part of any ‘movement.’ Collectively and individually, all they represent is a pathology.

    I have to accept that it is better that this rock has been turned over. I don’t like looking at a pit of hellish slime, but it is better that these pigs are not operating under the radar.

    I have dealt with web harassment, including sock-puppets and fake websites put up in my name. Nothing, though, that even approaches the sulfurous loathing from these…things.

    Event policies may not be effective against these creeps. Stalkers and abusers often work the system better than their victims. Sociopaths have no respect for any restraint placed on their behaviour.

    I still think that policy statements are a good thing, if only as an opportunity for each group to express the disgust and loathing that is the only reasonable response to these bugs.

    Not littering is an expression of community health. Anti-litter laws demonstrate the health(ier) community’s rejection of social pathology, even if they don’t immediately lead to cleaner streets.

  63. Leni says

    Goodness, what kind of morality lets you masturbate to someone’s photo, and then ignore their opinion because they made that photo, all the while continuing to take your own opinion seriously. Like what’s the thought process there?

  64. says

    @65

    Not the freaking point, you dipshit. If you had the capability of switching off your dick for two seconds while looking at a picture of a woman, you might notice that there’s a quote on there. You might even manage to realize that the quote is the point, not the nudity as such.

    Nobody gives a shit about what you find attractive. Your focus on the idea that a picture of a woman must turn you on to be relevant speaks volumes about your general perception of women. One might well be tempted to suspect that you view women solely as a means for you to enjoy yourself.

    Well, newsflash! Women are humans too. Just because a woman is nude doesn’t mean that your dick is the sole focus of the message. Snap out of it!

Trackbacks

  1. […] I get raped, who tell me to choke on a dick and die. I do not want to be in unity with atheists who say that I’m a whore and therefore nobody should take me seriously. I do not want to be in unity with atheists who say that I’m an ugly dyke and therefore […]

Leave a Reply