What My Blog On Eliminating Men From The Human Genome Is All About. »« There Is No Such Thing As “New Atheism” Either.

Should Males Be Eliminated from the Human Genome?

Female humans are superior to male humans. Get used to it. They live longer, endure most unpleasant things better, and, with notable exceptions, do not start wars. They do better than males in law and medical schools. If women ran things, things would run better. So, to create a better world and a brighter future, human males should be eliminated from the human genome.

The trick is to master and practice parthenogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis) . This generates pregnancy without the necessity for male participation.

In the human species, the un-fertilized embryo is a clone of its mother and always produces females. Interesting take on the Baby Jesus story.

So, once this sexless skill of females only producing female children is mastered and practiced universally by women, the matter of the future of humankind will be settled. The only living humans will be female, and things will run as they should.

Males now living can be cut and tied. They should have this done immediately. The government must pay for the procedures.

It matters little if the person being neutered identifies as a male or as something else. If the human has testicles, that human must be cut and tied. Better safe than sorry.

While waiting for living males, who should be treated humanely, to grow old and die out, women can use them for heavier work and for any pleasure purposes they see fit.

In one generation, the human race can be rid of them.

Then there will be no further worry about male humans deflowering female humans, and the great goal of religion, reproduction without sex, can be achieved.

Edwin.
(c) 1212 by Edwin Kagin.

Comments

  1. julian says

    Nvm.

    Kagin’s turned this into a space to attack A+ and certain atheists he disapproves of.

    Well, I fall into that category so I’m out.

    • Z says

      Fallacy of inference. Conclusion without evidence. Take your pick. Nothing in the essay supports your claim.

      Next time leave your wildassed assertions at home.

      • julian says

        Sorry. This is my fault for forgetting I’d subscribed to comments. Fixing that over sight.

        Go fuck yourself, twit. I’m not bending over backwards for yet another board arguing Watson, McCreight, Benson and Christina are anti-men nazis out to destroy atheism. You, Secular Justice and N_J can all take turns playing in traffic for all I care to read what you have to say.

        To re iterate, Fuck you.

        • Z says

          No, thank you, Julian.

          Edwin’s post has nothing to do with Watson et al. Not only are they not mentioned, but their concerns as well as the A+ movement are not mentioned.

          Project much?

  2. says

    Shouldn’t the male humans be given an offer to defect? At least some MAAB people would be keen to go on feminising hormones, and undergo the various surgeries (orchiectomy, vaginoplasty, etc.)

    I for one welcome our feminazgul overladies. </sarcasm>

    • Cylis B. says

      Though such people would definitely be appreciated (and most likely get the cushiest of positions during the “transition” period), it still would not ultimately rid of the world of the inherent dangers of the Y chromosome.
      On the bright side, the measures you describe above will hopefully enable those who partake in them to better understand the necessity of “Y-chromosomal-elimination”… so in the end, they won’t mind much.

  3. hjhornbeck says

    I’m guessing Kagin’s making fun of the ol’ “feminists hate men” trope. I hope he doesn’t buy into it, as it’s quite impossible to promote equality when you’re deliberately harming people solely for a bit of anatomy.

        • Z says

          Conclusion based on personal experience and familiarity with Edwin’s work and views. Edwin has been a personal friend for many years. Actual, not virtual.

          Perhaps someday you’d like to ask for evidence before jumping to conclusions and posting insulting remarks. Your actions reflect badly on your masters.

  4. garygabbard says

    So… my hope is that the last couple writers I respect on FTB leave, one way or another. Things are going my way, it seems. Love ya Ed. Love everyone. Even the confused haters.

  5. Rodney Nelson says

    Kagin’s beating the “radical man-hating feminists are taking over my atheism” drum again. He must be buying his straw in ton lots.

    • Z says

      No, he’s posting an intentionally provocative article knowing that the haters will come out and waste valuable time speculating on what Edwin means. Which, by the way, has been absolutely off the mark every time. Quite amusing, actually.

      As he says, a kind of Rorschach test.

    • Cylis B. says

      This is just a guess, but I would say a world without men would be remarkably similar… just with one less avenue for blame.

  6. callistacat says

    Funny, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between Pat Robertson’s delusional views of feminism and some atheists’. Not a good sign is it?

      • Nepenthe says

        True, this is not Pharyngula, but the term is a useful shorthand for “overblown, ridiculous reaction to some stimulus that no one but the writer can identify; generally leaves the audience blinking confusedly and saying ‘are you quite alright, maybe you should get a drink of water and lay down for a bit’ to the starfarter”.

  7. says

    This kind of reminds me of Conservatives. Basically, the whole reason they are so down on letting minorities have any power/influences is that they are afraid the moment the minorities actually get any power/influence, they will start treating the Conservatives with the same ‘respect’ Conservatives always showed them.

    Projection, 101.

    • says

      Indeed so lets do it again!

      Religion is bad and mostly spread from parents to kids.
      So bad that Dawkins calls it child abuse.
      Thus atheists advocate the forced sterilization of all believers and having their kids taken away to prevent further abuse!.

      I’m just following memes to their natural conclusion what are all you militant atheists so angry about?

      • says

        “I’m just following memes to their natural conclusion what are all you militant atheists so angry about?”

        Here’s the problem Michael. Rational people understand that conclusions follow the argument through.

        The argument you present isn’t one that Dawkins gives. That’s called a straw man.

        In order for you to offer a valid comparison, you’d have to provide an argument that’s actually given by Dawkins where one can conclude the extreme position.

        Ed’s diatribe actually does that if you listen rationally to the shit that’s shoveled by the extremists in the feminist movement.

        Rational freethinking feminists don’t advocate that bullshit.

        We objected to it in the 1970s and it looks like we have to get off our asses and object to it again since the whackjobs appear to have come out from under their rocks again.

        • says

          “The argument you present isn’t one that Dawkins gives. That’s called a straw man.”

          Exactly! Couldn’t agree more. That’s exactly what I think of the main article.

          Please link to 1 article by a feminist (not someone saying what a feminist is saying but the actual original source) where they advocate the forced sterilization of men. I don’t believe that it exists.

          • says

            Hey Z. I know that Edwin is a friend, but I’ve got to ask… this post looks more like a response to Taslima Nasreen’s screed than the article you’re posting. Did Ed read Taslima’s post?

          • Z says

            Edwin tells me he doesn’t read blogs, except occasionally his own. When the reference to Taslima’s blog arose, he had to go look it up — and was amused by the unintended synchronicity.

            I think its amazing how many people keep swinging at that Tar Baby. Maybe they should just throw Brer Edwin into yonder briar patch . . . . .

          • says

            Ah okay.

            I really thought it might have been a response to Taslima.

            After reading the article, I have to say… I can kinda understand where this post is coming from now. I dearly wish he had provided a bit more of a hint, but yeah… that article’s kinda… off…

            It definitely synchronizes with Taslima’s misandrist screed, though. I wonder if she had the same inspiration…

            Hm…

          • says

            I, too, assumed it was a response to Nasreen, which reminds me to be more careful with my assumptions. So anyway, make that two real-life examples of “straw feminists” instead of one. My admiration for Edwin went sky-high after seeing this post, although, I admit, it was pretty high already after seeing the one on A+. Great man, and it’s a shame that some people are so ungrateful as to not recognize what people like Edwin have done and are still doing for women’s rights and social justice.

    • N_J says

      You know, the “all men are rapists, misogynists and rape apologists if they don’t agree with FTB/Skepchick ideas of feminism” meme.

      • Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

        You know, the “all men are rapists, misogynists and rape apologists if they don’t agree with FTB/Skepchick ideas of feminism” meme.

        Oh, you’re referring to the completely non existent meme started by people who completely misinterpret what their opponents have said?
        Gotcha.

        Damn, can any of you anti feminists/anti FtB/anti Skepchick crowd argue honestly?

        Seriously, give me a link to someone at FtB who has said that “all men are rapists, misogynists and rape apologists”*. FFS, this is one of the reasons it is so difficult to engage with people like you. You can’t support your argument, yet you continually drag it out like it has some validity. You’ve completely invented this meme out of “guys don’t do that” or “SOME OF THE MEN IN THE ATHEIST MOVEMENT ARE MISOGYNISTS”.

        *I suppose I should add a caveat. The link must to be a genuine post by someone from FtB who said that. Linking to a known MRA, or someone from the Slymepit who created that insipid stupidity to frame FtB DOES NOT COUNT.

      • says

        Pretty much. There’s a whole family of these memes flogged by extremists and whackjobs in the feminist community. The main one centers around the “All men are potential rapists” and works it’s way out from there.

        • Brownian says

          “All men are potential rapists.”

          Do you folks purposely try not to understand what’s going on, or did your parents let you play with dry cleaning bags when you were kids?

          • says

            You could be a rapist or not. Therefore I must treat you as one for as long as you’re alive. (Unless our parents know each other from church, in which case you’re probably a safe bet, even though most rapes are committed by acquaintances, friends, and spouses). — Schrodinger’s Rapist, condensed version.

    • valeriekeefe says

      I dunno… the work of still revered cissupremacist feminists like Mary Daly, Janice Raymond, Adrienne Rich, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, Sheila Jeffreys, Gloria Steinem! Need I go on?

      As someone who’s living with the legacy of a community that faced being ‘morally mandated out of existence’ I find your denial of Second-wave genocidalism and its refusal to die, and the refusal of cis feminists to kill it, even in that portion of the third-wave that is more accurately Second-wave-plus, to be utterly galling.

      Stop pretending that feminists didn’t make straw men out of living women and try to kill them first, as a test case. Because they did, and they still have jobs, they’re still read by every budding cis feminist, and Ms. Magazine, for all its avowed trans-positivity would still print anything they cared to submit.

  8. birdterrifier says

    Oh I think Edwin is having a bit of fun and doing so without singling people out which is where the trouble starts. Besides, if “The End of Man” is right, Kagin may be on to something here. I mean, you know, for the greater good and all that entails.

  9. says

    What’s wrong, (c) 1212 by Edwin Kagin? If people don’t worship you and treat you with deference, it must be because you’re a man? And therefore they must hate all men, instead of… oh, I don’t know… just thinking you you, in particular, are acting in ways that don’t reflect well on you?

    People here respected you, and still respect some of the things you’ve done. You’re making a mockery of all that. Not other people making you do it or provoking you. You have autonomy, and you’re choosing to make THIS your legacy for a lot of people.

    • SecularJustice says

      I donno, I am not a huge FTB follower, but I liked many of Greta’s and Jen’s articles, but for me, their actions and the actions of the troops they incited have marred their legacy.

      And this is what I find to be true among the general consensus of atheists.

      Most of us do not agree with the idea that if you do not agree with everything in their specific and rather radical gender feminist platform you’re an evil anti woman misogynist.

      If anyone has hurt their influence and legacy, it is those two. Which is really unfortunate.

        • Concentratedwater, OM says

          “Too many lies for me to sort through”.

          Classic case of the Regretavirus, please quarantine yourself immediately.

      • says

        Yeah… you’re going to have to prove the claim that they’re gender feminists.

        I don’t know about Ophelia Benson (she’s never really talked about it, but then I haven’t been folllowing her for as long as I should have), but I can say with certainty that Greta Christina is a sex-positive feminist, and I always got that impression from Jen, as well.

        • julian says

          Jen is very sex-positive. She’s frequently blogged about adult film conventions she’s been to, talked about how she overcame her own bias against pornography and has devoted some posts (I think. can’t find them now) towards rebuking “anti-porn” positions. She’s also been open and honest about her views towards sex.

          Unfortunately, for her, she’s also made what she is and is not comfortable with clear. And telling the dudebrahs no is the clearest way to get them to label you anti-sex.

        • says

          Gender feminism (which is sloppy shorthand for extremist modern feminist philosophy that has become the Kool-Aid of FTB) has nothing to do with whether you’re sex pos or sex neg, and everything to do with your views on feminist philosophy, gender roles, and how you believe social change should be effected.

      • says

        “Gender feminists” are straw feminists invented by people who can’t handle the idea of changing the culture, and thus dislike feminism’s goals of changing the culture, but they feel uncomfortable about openly disliking feminism, so they call themselves “equity feminists” rather than “anti-feminists” and assign the label “gender feminists” to anyone who recognizes that merely changing laws is not enough to establish gender equality.

        Zero people self-identify as “gender feminists.” It’s an inflammatory invented term.

        • Panagiotes Koutelidakes [RaspK] says

          Gender feminism was really invented by anti-feminists, you say?

          Um… seriously, no. Checking it up (rather than firing back with whatever preconceived and unfounded notion on the subject) would, rather quickly, get you this piece of information:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_feminism

          Yes, people who are labeled gender feminists are not doing so as to themselves (and, most likely, anybody else), but that is not, factually speaking, because it was invented by anti-feminists or anything like that; rather, they disagree with being labeled as such (primarily for the same reasons you find the term offensive and so on and so forth) and therefore reject the label that they got attached.

          What is really funny is that people think this is really a strawman, whereas that is not true:
          1. There have been feminists like this; saying all heterosexual sex is rape, that all men are rapists, that only men brew war, and that being extremist does not make it untrue.
          2. The text is DATED through the fake copyright as dating back to 1212 CE; the fact most people who NOTICED THAT DATE act so pissed off towards the text is illustrative of what the problem I am talking about is: the text is pure satire.
          3. Here’s another issue: why can’t one point to the extreme of a movement and have a laugh about it? It doesn’t speak much of what one might think of the movement in general. In fact, what would be illustrated better yet here is the inability to get a hold of the larger picture, find what is good with the moderate and reject the extremists.

          Does that ring a bell? I’ll tell you what: accepting religious people as people; finding the good in atheists at large, but going after misogynist atheists; condemning activists who go overboard with their strategies. It should be ringing, now.

          • says

            Gender feminism was really invented by anti-feminists, you say?

            Um… seriously, no. Checking it up (rather than firing back with whatever preconceived and unfounded notion on the subject) would, rather quickly, get you this piece of information:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_feminism

            I mean, I guess it depends on your outlook. I can understand why many feminists would be insulted by what Cristina Hoff Sommers wrote, although I would argue that the main problem with Cristina’s “Gender Feminism” thing is how she uses a really, really big brush to paint with it.

            I’ve had run-ins with women who I’d say most definitely fit the mold Cristina describes, but I don’t agree that it’s the majority of feminism. I do not at all agree that Greta, Jen, Rebecca, Amy, and so on are Gender Feminists. I know for a fact that Greta is a Sex-Positive Feminist, because that’s the bent of the vast majority of her writing. I have had it confirmed for me that Jen is also a Sex-Positive Feminist. I cannot tell how Rebecca Watson and Amy Davis Roth and other feminists over at Skepchicks would identify, but I very much doubt they are Gender Feminists.

            I do not know about Ophelia Benson. I know she talks about Feminism, but I’ve no idea which part of Feminism she identifies with. I’m pretty sure Stephanie Zvan is not a Sex-Positive Feminist. But I would hesitate to call either of them a “Gender Feminist”.

            To be completely honest, I think the only feminist on FtB that could be called a Gender Feminist as described by Cristina Hoff Sommers is Taslima Nasreen. And no, I do not support Taslima. Between her very public insistence on silencing sex workers who choose to do sex work (using an entire blog post to outright deny that they exist, in fact, despite nearly every single one of them, Greta Christina including saying “HEY! I’M RIGHT HERE! I’M FUCKING REAL!”) to her screeds like the most recent one on “not needing men for reproduction”, I really don’t like her. But I’m also not stupid enough to think that she represents the overall majority of feminist thought. I see her as a fringe. Not as the norm.

            1. There have been feminists like this; saying all heterosexual sex is rape, that all men are rapists, that only men brew war, and that being extremist does not make it untrue.

            All stereotypes/strawpeople have a grain of truth to them. There are always atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, feminists, agnostics, Wiccans, pagans, men, women, people of color, white people, rednecks, liberals, leftists, conservatives, libertarians, environmentalists, New-Agers, children, adults, goth people, homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, etc who do actually fit the stereotypes. Stereotypes are never created in a void. They are always based on a grain of truth.

            This does not, however, mean they aren’t stereotypes. A stereotype/strawperson is, basically, the defining of a group by its fanatics. The “Gender Feminist” is a stereotype of all feminism based on its minority fanatics, much like the “Immoral Atheist” is a stereotype of atheism based on Neitsche and Ayn Rand, and also Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot.

            The challenge is to recognize that while stereotypes/strawpeople do not exist in a void, and are built upon a grain of truth, they never describe the whole, or even the majority, of the group/identity/ideology they are meant to be a caricature of.

            2. The text is DATED through the fake copyright as dating back to 1212 CE; the fact most people who NOTICED THAT DATE act so pissed off towards the text is illustrative of what the problem I am talking about is: the text is pure satire.

            This is why I’m wondering if it’s a Poe. Although I’m also warming to the idea that it could be a response to Nasreen’s misandrist screed. The 1212 copyright is probably the only clue that this is not a serious post.

            3. Here’s another issue: why can’t one point to the extreme of a movement and have a laugh about it? It doesn’t speak much of what one might think of the movement in general. In fact, what would be illustrated better yet here is the inability to get a hold of the larger picture, find what is good with the moderate and reject the extremists.

            Many of us are. I have spoken out against the whole “with us or against us” narrative myself (I have a major problem with it since it was literally forced on me directly just after 9/11, and I was branded “against us” after choosing “neither”… not a good time to be in school, especially when you’re already a favorite bully-target… just made shit even worse for me for three more years [9th-11th grade] before I was finally left alone in 12th grade). Richard Carrier, the main pusher of that narrative, actually did apologize for it later, and it has largely been discarded by all but a tiny, if vocal, few.

            FeministWhore is speaking out against some who seem to be taking an anti-Sex-Positive-Feminism stance in A+. I’m taking part in this discussion as well, because I think FeministWhore is right to call them out.

            I have a hypothesis (it’s probably going to be either my Masters or Doctoral dissertation in Anthropology) that fanaticism is an unavoidable part of human nature, or, more generally, social-species nature. I think it may be a more sophisticated expression of tribalism (thus, primate aggression in chimps, bonobos, orangutans, etc may very well be an expression of the roots of fanaticism). So I knew, from the start, that A+ would have its fanatics. I had been hoping we would last a lot longer before they made an appearance, but it looks like they have made themselves vocal, starting with (surprise, surprise) the A+ subreddit (gee… who woulda thunk it?… fanaticism on fucking Reddit).

            However, this does not give anyone the license to brush A+ with the paint of its fanatics. If people would actually take a moment to read through the forums, they would see that there are those of us trying to hold the fanatics back. But we will get defensive if we’re accused of being the fanatics we’re trying to keep on the fringes. The fanatics are quite far and few between so far, but painting with a big brush can create fanatics, so the “prophecy” of A+ self-imploding as a fanatic movement will become self-fulfilling if certain vocal critics continue to paint us with that big brush.

            If that’s the goal (creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in order to shut down A+), then fine. Fuck all of you.

            If not, then please… try to do more research and consider listening to what we over here in the A+ room are trying to say.

            I support A+ as a safe space. I decided to move into the different room because I was one of those made uncomfortable by all the rape jokes and casual sexism being thrown around the main room by a vocal minority who aren’t being repudiated (for the record, despite not really having a history with it myself [third-hand, yes, but not first-hand or second-hand], I can’t watch movies, or TV shows, or read books, with rape in them; the concept makes me supremely uncomfortably… oh and, for the record, neither the gender nor the personality of the victim matter). Yes, we have a couple people in our A+ room who want to storm the main room with all of you in it and tell you all how horrible you are.

            But most of us don’t. And we’ve been pretty vocal about that. We just want to stay in this different room, with the door wide open and a welcome mat on the floor for anyone who wants to join us, and do our own thing over here. The only reason we’re getting defensive is because the impression we’re getting from all of you in the main room is that us having a safe space is, apparently, too much to ask, and that’s insulting.

            We’re not trying to change anything. We’re just trying to do our own thing our own way.

            As far as the name, the + is supposed to mean “in addition to”, so that we can be atheist social justice fighters without changing the meaning of the word atheist. And I’m honestly having a shit-ton of trouble understanding why that concept is so fucking difficult to grasp.

            That said, maybe it is a stupid name. But if it’s a stupid name for the reason it’s critics say it is, then so is American Atheists, Ethical Atheism, Atheist Humanism, and just about every other group that uses the words “atheist” or “atheism” in its name.

            It’s possible that A+ could outgrow its name. It may actually become a new part of Humanism. I like the A+ because, at least as I see it, the plus is used to keep the dictionary definition of atheism intact while still allowing me to identify as an atheist social justice fighter (because atheism really is a part of who I am, and it really does inform my worldview when it comes to things like the origins of nature, death, and social justice). But the name may not last. I don’t know. I can’t see into the future.

            I hope this overly-long post helps to clarify some things for you. Like everything in existence, A+ is not black and white. Yes, we have our fanatics. But we’re dealing with them. And we don’t appreciate being defined by the fanatics, and we want it to stop. So maybe, when we get defensive, we look a little like the fanatics. Did all you critics ever stop to think that this is because you’re insisting that this is what we are, and no matter how many times we tell you “no, you’re wrong”, you refuse to listen?

          • says

            This is actually a reply to Nate: All the women he listed are gender feminists (they aren’t looking for equality, but entitlement as reparation; they don’t seek progress through legal change, but cultural change; they buy into the oppression/victimhood philosophy). Nasreen is a radical feminist and a living example of that mythical creature, the “straw feminist,” right in front of you, on FTB.

          • says

            blueharmony… you are going to have to prove your assertion that every woman I listed is a Gender Feminist. You are going to have to provide links and data.

            I do not believe your claim that they are Gender Feminists.

            Prove it.

            As far as Taslima Nasreen…

            I said this:

            All stereotypes/strawpeople have a grain of truth to them. There are always atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, feminists, agnostics, Wiccans, pagans, men, women, people of color, white people, rednecks, liberals, leftists, conservatives, libertarians, environmentalists, New-Agers, children, adults, goth people, homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, etc who do actually fit the stereotypes. Stereotypes are never created in a void. They are always based on a grain of truth.

            This does not, however, mean they aren’t stereotypes. A stereotype/strawperson is, basically, the defining of a group by its fanatics. The “Gender Feminist” is a stereotype of all feminism based on its minority fanatics, much like the “Immoral Atheist” is a stereotype of atheism based on Neitsche and Ayn Rand, and also Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot.

            The challenge is to recognize that while stereotypes/strawpeople do not exist in a void, and are built upon a grain of truth, they never describe the whole, or even the majority, of the group/identity/ideology they are meant to be a caricature of.

            Reading for comprehension is a good thing.

        • danielimms says

          I wouldn’t think that someone needs to self-identify to be labelled something by others. Insane people may not think they are insane.
          If some people use the term “gender feminist” to refer to people with certain beliefs, then the term exists and is not a straw man. Every term is an invented term.
          Those who use the term “gender feminist” would most likely consider your assertion that they ‘can’t handle the idea of changing the culture’ as being a straw man proposal. Do you think they self-identify that way?

      • Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

        I donno, I am not a huge FTB follower, but I liked many of Greta’s and Jen’s articles, but for me, their actions and the actions of the troops they incited have marred their legacy.

        And this is what I find to be true among the general consensus of atheists.

        Most of us do not agree with the idea that if you do not agree with everything in their specific and rather radical gender feminist platform you’re an evil anti woman misogynist.

        If anyone has hurt their influence and legacy, it is those two. Which is really unfortunate.

        What a pile of utter horseshit.

        What actions of Jen and Greta are you talking about?
        What actions of their followers are talking about?

        This is the problem with you people who are anti-FtB/Skepchick. You’ve created the tension because you’re resistant to the idea that sexism is a problem in the Atheist movement. Instead of dealing with that problem…instead of accepting that it is a problem…instead of believing the women who say it’s a problem, you twist things around and try to manipulate what people have said to create an argument that makes you out to be the damn victims.
        And you people call yourselves skeptics.
        Have you taken a look at the evidence?
        Have you looked at the vicious, vile, venomous email/Twitter/blog comments directed at Greta or Jen or Ophelia?
        Have you actually taken your so-called skepticism and applied it to yourselves?

        No.

        You don’t want to accept that sexism is a problem.
        You refuse to accept that your perceptions do not apply to everyone. If you haven’t been the recipient of sexism, great. Of course your blinders are on, because sexism is everywhere in our culture, and consists of more than a guy slapping a girl on the ass. But no, you want to continue along with your privilege and act like it’s not a problem and when someone comes along and has a complaint about being harassed, instead of acting like a mature adult and treating the claim seriously, you shoot the messenger!
        FFS, why is it so damned difficult to just accept that

        SEXISM IS A PROBLEM IN THE ATHEIST COMMUNITY?

        What do you have to lose?
        Do you realize that all this damn energy you’re expending denying reality (which, btw, is incredibly similar to theists who act like Yahweh/Allah/Jesus/Buddha/etc are real) is alienating people? If you turned half the energy you expend creating these damn straw men, the combined efforts of the anti-FtB crowd AND the A+ crowd could actually come together and be a united force. Think of everything that could be done if you people would stop with this ridiculous resistance!

        Yeah, I’m going over to the hallway to hold my breath waiting on you people to stop deluding yourselves.

        Oh, and it’s helpful that you mentioned ‘radical gender feminist platform’. That’s far more than most of your allies have done. This gives me a vague idea of what you’re railing against. Now if you could let me know how you define what that platform is and why you have a problem with it, maybe we can confront the issue at hand.
        Oh wait, you people don’t argue honestly.

      • says

        I agree with Secular Justice comments.

        There are also plenty of women who don’t follow this extremist and radical form of feminism nor do we agree with it. It doesn’t make us “sister-haters” and “traitors”.

        I find the male-bashing and abuse quite offensive and it makes me embarrassed to even associate myself with the term feminism in the atheistic community because of the extremely poisoned and toxic atmosphere that these extremists have been responsible for creating.

        • Brownian says

          “male bashing?”

          I’m one. I’m not getting bashed.

          You’re clearly having a hard time following along at home. Maybe you should leave these sorts of issues up to those of us who didn’t sit in the back and eat all the paste during alphabet time.

          • says

            @bluharmony. If @Brownian actually made an argument he’d have to defend it. Much easier for those who prefer freedom from thought to just make blanket assertions on behalf of their gender then it is to deal with reality.

            Male bashers and whackjobs have been polluting the women’s movement for years and frequently succeed in discrediting us by making extremist and nonsensical claims which are completely unsupportable by anyone with a rational mind.

            I fought these whackjobs in the 1970s and I’ll fight their bullshit again.

            Men are not nor have they ever been our problem.

            Our problem in the 1970s and on was systemic discrimination. That problem is gone.

            That doesn’t mean there aren’t still pockets of discrimination and that doesn’t mean there aren’t elements who want to take away all of those hard-won gains we made. There certainly are.

            However, those problems aren’t defined by idiots who can’t handle simple sexual attractions in elevators.

            They are defined by our right to control our bodies. The only gender issue that exists today. And one that is under attack.

            If you and others actually care about REAL social justice and social values and not bullshit, nonsensical whackjobbery spouted by extremists who appear to lack any ability to form rational thoughts, then you will get off your asses and get out there and defend that.

            You will also stop demeaning men who are frequently the victims of serious rapes, violence, including domestic violence and start demanding that the state take those crimes seriously, prosecute them seriously, and include them in the statistics.

            You demean them and their legitimate concerns and rights when you dismiss them for daring to even bring up this issue.

            And if you want examples just read any of the comments in any of these blogs and there are literally hundreds of them.

            You’d have to blind or stupid not to see them.

          • valeriekeefe says

            @Trancegemini

            This. (Though I do maintain there are some bi-directional systemic discriminations going on), from a utilitarian point of view the oppression a straight cis woman in three quarters of the Western world (the blue states plus all other Western countries) faces compared to a straight cis man, is pretty subjective.

            That doesn’t mean there aren’t still pockets of discrimination and that doesn’t mean there aren’t elements who want to take away all of those hard-won gains we made. There certainly are.

            However, those problems aren’t defined by idiots who can’t handle simple sexual attractions in elevators.

            They are defined by our right to control our bodies. The only gender issue that exists today. And one that is under attack.

            Which is why it’s depressing that most cis feminists, Watson included, have spilled far more ink on someone who took no for an answer than the millions of trans women (and men and genderqueer people) who are denied that basic agency.

            Where’s the last informed consent HRT clinic that NARAL funded?

            When was there a cis feminist directed political consequence for transmisogyny among ‘feminist icons’ like Adrienne Rich, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel, Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Sheila Jeffreys and even Gloria Steinem, for goddessakes?! No, transfeminists have had to do all the heavy lifting there.

            Never mind the proposals from many of the above to put the trans community through a replay of the 80’s, the Second-wave’s Tuskegee, where they denied treatment for a condition that kills about 30% of sufferers over the course of their lives, in the hopes that the problem would just go away on its own. No, no consequences for that… the occasional ‘ally’ joining in to tut-tut, but no real muscle expended taking on some of patriarchy’s most useful idiots.

            Basically, at some point prominent cis feminists are going to have to be made to answer why ‘my body, my choice,’ has always come with the important caveat: ‘As long as you’re a cis woman.’ And just what exactly do they intend to do to change that?

          • says

            @valerie.

            There is a great deal of systemic discrimination against LGBTs.

            That’s a different issue but I agree that it’s also one that anyone who cares about REAL social justice and who has REAL social values should take a stand on.

            I also agree that my comments refer to the West and women’s rights here.

            In the East women are where we were in the 1970s and do continue to suffer to from systemic discrimination.

          • says

            And @valerie, I disagree that this is a subjective assessment. There are many markers that can and have been used to objectively assess the status of women in our society. Those markers support my claim.

  10. Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

    Following memes to their logical conclusion is always so revealing.

    Y’know I had been wondering what the logical conclusion of a paranoid, delusional view of radical feminism (interpreted here as “women want to dominate men”, rather than feminism as defined by “seeking full social, political, and economic equality for women”) would be.

    So glad that Edwin Kagin, Captain of Privilege was here to point that out to us.

    Ah well, that’s one more blogger at FtB to not read.

    • baal says

      “Captain of Privilege ”

      Could we please leave the word ‘privilege’ out of insults? The argument that it’s only use is as an insult is bolstered when that’s the fact.

      • panagiotiskoutelidakis says

        It is so much worse, considering the fact that FTB has a thread about what the consequences of lacking privilege are — which would not be that bad, I put forth, if it were actually about facing the real-life consequences the title and phrasing of posts imply, rather than any number of conditions of normal or natural foundations… basically boiling down to such instances as: “Because I am a woman, I have to wipe front-to-back.” (I am serious.)

  11. SecularJustice says

    LOL awesome.

    Yea guys, this is soooo totally like Pat Robertson and conservative babblers. Totally.

    Of course, I know you’re engaging in hyperbole when you say that.

    Which is all BB is doing.

    Except he is actually making a point.

    A+ is not about feminism. It is about radical gender feminism. There is a large and distinct difference.

      • callistacat says

        “Gender Feminists” vs “Equity Feminists” is some crap made up by MRA darling and “The War Against Boys” author Christina Hoff Sommers. Just more bullshit.

        • valeriekeefe says

          Yeah, surely that 3-2 disadvantage in university enrollees, the extra 43,000 American workplace related deaths, and the refusal of those parroting sexual assault statistics to include forced-to-penetrate in their calcuations are all manifestations of monolithic male privilege.

          A unidirectional conflict theory model between straight cis men and straight cis women doesn’t work anymore.

      • Z says

        I disagree. Edwin’s “stuff” (let’s call it that) is CLEARLY distinguishable from Coulterish tripe because it is satire.

        The problem here is, some posters here (no names) are so full of anger and hate that they see offense where none exists, and cannot see the mirror that’s held up to reflect the world.

        Please look past the surface appearances and your preconceptions.

        The world is a very funny place, and you’re part of it.

    • Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

      Once again, you fail to even know what you’re talking about.
      Atheism Plus is not *about* feminism. Feminism is a component of it, but it’s also about other social justice issues. Or do you think everyone lies like you do, so when Jen says that homophobia, transphobia, ableism and secularism are also concerns of A+, you just pretend none of that is there?

      By FSM, not only do you not define this twisted version of feminism you’re opposed to and pretend is espoused by Greta, Jen or Ophelia, you can’t even read for comprehension. If you could, you’d see that A+ seeks to deal with a variety of social justice issues.

      This repeated insistence of you people about being against equality for women has grown tiresome. Grow the fuck up.

      • Z says

        I agree with almost all of this, Tony, except for the part accusing our friends of lying. Lying requires intent to deceive, and I think our friends are merely either misguided or misinformed or speaking from anger.

        I also have to agree with the above poster (many, really) who state that sexism and misogyny are a problem within the atheist movement — from the POV that even if there is only one example and one instance, it is a problem. We will certainly be criticized for everything else, but if we fail to respect the rights (and persons) of (over) half the population, then what right do we have to demand rights for anybody? If atheists condemn society, government and the justice system for treating us like second-class citizens, if we do not respect the rights of women, how far down the ladder are we pushing them? So if some damned atheist doesn’t take women or other-sexed persons seriously, why should the greater community?

        The atheist movement is and should be focused on achieving the absolute separation of religion and government. Personally, I see the + movement and dividing that focus. I don’t think that the social issues dear to the + movement should be added to the atheist movement, but I think that a co-equal companion movement is absolutely worthwhile, and advocates can certainly work in each or not as they see fit.

        Just look at it this way — if you don’t get religion out of government, especially the paternalistic authoritarianism we see from the Rethuglicans, then issues concerning women, LGTB, and other will be further suppressed.

        I think it’s time we all kiss and make up and get to work again. Bury the hatchet, but not in each other’s back.

      • valeriekeefe says

        I’ll believe that A+ gives half-a-shit about cissexism (let’s not be ablist while being anti-oppression, shall we?) when they start a fundraiser for an informed consent transition medicine clinic somewhere that doesn’t already have an informed-consent option available.

        I will believe them when they put their money where their mouths are, otherwise, I’ll view them as kinder-gentler descendents of the second wave who don’t want the political backlash they got last time they tried to kill women like me.

        Being sex positive and anti-cissexist in rhetoric does not free you from being transmisogynistic in practice.

  12. says

    Meta note…

    Is this post by Ed an example of Poe’s Law? Is Ed illustrating Poe’s Law for us?

    I’m thinking that’s what it is. Maybe this is actually an illustration of Poe’s Law. Ed’s using Poe’s Law to make fun of MRAs and other A+ “critics” (the scare quotes are to differentiate the actual critics [and there are numerous ones] from the “critics” who are just misogynist MRA assholes, who may very well be in the minority, but are depressingly loud). in which case it’s actually rather good…

    Or maybe that’s just what I’m hoping

  13. Valindrius says

    I sincerely hope some kind of clarification is forthcoming. If this is viewed in isolation then it’s incredibly ambiguous; it could be intended as mockery of feminism, mockery of those that fail to understand feminism, or could simply be a random joke based upon a stray thought.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t exist in isolation so I’m preparing for more disappointment based on past posts.

    I know it’s likely to be a useless request but I would ask Mr Kagin to include good citation in any future submissions about this. There’s enough misrepresentation and cherry-picking hidden behind ‘righteous’ eloquence as it is. Please make any criticism innovative rather than another ‘blah blah radical feminist blah blah authoritarian arrogant bullies blah blah religious are laughing at us blah blah acting like theists blah blah picking on poor X (who actually probably inserted themselves into a debate that hadn’t even mentioned them negatively until that point) blah blah’ post.

    There are enough of those already. They’re boring and unoriginal perpetuation of nonsense. Once the façade of rhetoric is chipped away, the points are always the same and they do not become valid by dressing them in varying levels of effusiveness.

  14. callistacat says

    Not just Pat Robertson:

    “I listen to feminists and all these radical gals — most of them are failures. They’ve blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they’re mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They’re sexist. They hate men — that’s their problem.”
    – Jerry Falwell

    The feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy. … Self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness. – Phyllis Schlafly

    “Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses.”
    (No, not Paula Kirby) – Camille Paglia

    The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
    – Pat Robertson, 1992 (in a fund-raising letter)

    • julian says

      I know. I got really irate with people when they more or less lost it on Lindsay. Now though…

      Yeah I can’t say I’ll miss the atheist community. I would have stayed in the Young Republicans if I wanted to deal with this shit.

  15. julian says

    I’m actually retweeting this and bookmarking it. I want it handy in case anyone argues atheists are on board with feminism and other social justice.

    No, no they are not. Some are but quiet a few have a FOX News level understanding of it. (And I’m not using FOX news to poison the well. I’ve seen these attitudes, criticisms and strawmen presented there frequently.)

    • says

      Well… I would say quite a few THINK they are onboard with feminism and social justice. The truth is that they approve of it in a notional sense, as long as it is a hypothetical thought experiment with no relation to the real world. As soon as feminism or more general social justice concerns start requiring action and effort and potential costs to them personally or professionally, all of a sudden it becomes ‘divisive’ and needs to be suppressed as strongly and quickly as possible.

      For instance, (c) 1212 by Edwin Kagin works for and has to deal with other middle and upper-class white men for the majority of the fundraising and political hobnobbing/knob-polishing that he does professionally and personally. He wants a seat at the table of the people who have power in our society, so his basic instinct is to find people without power, find a bus, and throw the former under the latter, just like any other status-grubbing politician.

      • julian says

        I don’t think it fair or helpful to speculate about the man’s motivations. From past work he seems very much motivated by helping others (particularly a secular alternative to AA). The man’s motivations are his own and I doubt any of us will know them unless he shares.

        It’s enough for me that this post is so incredibly stupid it’s almost Poe like.

    • PG says

      So, wait. You’re retweeting it and bookmarking it as evidence that atheists are not supportive of feminism?

      First of all I still don’t see how the article has to do with feminism even marginally, but… one person. You’re bookmarking this article made by one person, to use as evidence that atheists are “not onboard with feminism” as a “Fox News understanding” of feminism, when Fox News quote-mine, takes things out of context and uses the bare minimum to make their case.

      You’re going to retweet and bookmark this article, made by one person not representative of anything or anyone, and use this as evidence, point to it and say “look! atheists are not onboard with feminism” (even though it doesn’t mention feminism anywhere) as a response to what you believe is a Fox News understanding of feminism? I… I… I think my ironymater just broke.

    • Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

      julian:
      Oh they’re on board. Until someone tells them they have to get consent to gnaw on a woman’s leg or not to be a creep by approaching a woman in the elevator in the early morning hours to ask her for ‘coffee’.
      One of their big problems is this narrow view of sexism and misogyny. When confronted with reality, they want to retreat, instead of recognizing their privilege, and seeing that they’re wrong. “Guys don’t do that” was the alarm clock going off, and they’re scared to wake up.

      • danielimms says

        Tony:
        I’d just like to jump in here and say that for someone who has accused others of dishonesty in their posts, you are not helping yourself when you characterize all those who might not “be on board” as being the sort of person who gets upset at not being able to “gnaw on a woman’s leg” or “approach a woman in the elevator in the early morning hours to ask her for ‘coffee'”. It’s simply false.
        There’s more than one rational view on (a) what constitutes sexism, and (b) what to do about it.
        Don’t assume I’m for or against anything, because I haven’t said anything one way or the other. Just try discussing the ideas instead of misrepresenting and demonizing anyone with alternative views.

      • PG says

        So what was that thing about not bringing up the elevator every chance you get? Because, correct me if I’m wrong, you did that just now. The “Not Watsonistas” didn’t bring up the elevator; you did. So who’s responsible for milking it again? But since you were so kind to bring it up on an article unrelated to feminism, atheism, Rebecca Watson or elevators, let me ask you something: isn’t it awfully privileged of her to keep bringing it up again and again and again, knowing full well it’s trivial and unimportant and, really, should just stop talking about it when elsewhere women gets really abused and mutilated, when by her own admission — and yours — it was just a simple case of saying ‘guys, don’t do that’?

        Wouldn’t it be nice if every women in the world had the kind of privilege to make a big deal about nothing, with the very real possibility of just ignoring the whole thing? Wouldn’t it be nice if every women in the world had the kind of privilege of their ‘rape threats’ simply being said by stupid teenagers over the internet, and would not really be substantiated ever? Wouldn’t it be nice if every woman in the world had the kind of privilege to consider a polite request for coffee in an elevator sexualising and harassment, and a potential rape, instead of actual sexualising, harassment and actual rape?

        Of course, Watson’s problem — and yours — is this desire to make claims whole cloth about people, like having a narrow view of sexism and misogyny. Nevermind that atheists are not a monolith, a common analogy used by feminists to disassociate themselves with horrible feminists, but here it’s appropriate. The gamer and geek culture have received the same unwarranted treatment, whole cloth determining both cultures misogynist and sexist. How tiresome it must be build up such strawmen over and over.

        No, the irony is not lost on me.

        If we’re going to assert ‘privilege’ being the prime mover here, then maybe we should recognise that ‘privilege’ goes both ways? Or maybe you’ve simply gotten used to the sound of your alarm clock.

          • says

            Right on.

            Also, I’m tired of this “No one calls themselves a gender feminist” and “It’s a term invented by conservative darling Sommers” crap. That’s an almost direct quote from a personal website that calling equity feminism anti-feminism. Yeah, anti-feminism got women the vote, birth-control, the right to run for president, sure. And it’s anti-feminism that got Sommers the voice she has today.

            Just because someone is conservative doesn’t automatically make them wrong. You still have to address the argument. Tough, right? It’s much easier to cut-n-paste something ignorant from the interwebs instead. Besides, what other label would you like to describe yourselves? Postmodern feminists? Marxist feminists? Irrational feminists? Ignorant feminists? Anti-science feminists? Because, in reality, you’re all of these things, and “gender” feminist is *the nice way to put it.*

  16. says

    Let’s review the definition of “trolling.” The classic troll says things he doesn’t believe because he wants to get a rise out of people.

    Unless you want to argue that Kagin agrees with the premise that we’d be better off if men went extinct, this is a pretty Platonic example of classic trolling.

    • says

      Honestly, I’m really starting to think this is a deliberate Poe. I’m honestly starting to think that Ed is actually lampooning MRAs.

      We can both agree that he doesn’t believe any of this. I think his target (the people’s he’s lampooning) isn’t feminists. It’s MRAs.

      Seriously.

      I think Ed is actually making fun of the straw feminist trope.

      Why?

      Because I’m hard-pressed to think someone who’s been blogging alongside actual feminists all this time is really, truly this naive about feminism.

      • Z says

        I have read some of Edwin’s other blog posts. I have also read Edwin’s serious writing, and am occasionally asked to comment on or edit before it’s published. So, yes, I’m familiar with Edwin’s work. Some of it is wonderful, some of it not so much.

        What gets me is that some folks who have supposedly spent quality time with literature beyond the 5th grade level do not recognize widely-used literary devices. The additional questioning of his decision to omit “source material” or whatever just adds to my concern that the education system may have failed “some folks.”

        Sad, really.

        It’s entirely possible that Edwin’s sense of humor is an acquired taste, and is not for everyone. I happen to “get” him, others never will, and that’s fine. If you don’t get him, move on. I don’t happen to care to read Ellmore Leonard, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to shit on his books before passing by.

    • says

      Might be might not be. What this article actually needs is a link to something tangible. Instead it’s just making a dumb argument and assuming people know what it’s referring to. It also really doesn’t help that this comes right after his posts critical of atheism + which many detractors equate with radical feminism. Unless he speaks up its anyone’s guess exactly what his intent was.

      • PG says

        Anyone’s guess is concluding he’s referring to A+ and damn what anyone else thinks?

        Because if it’s “anyone’s guess”, then maybe you (the general you) shouldn’t chide anyone that says different?

    • says

      Because maybe a true genius would have linked to that article in his blog post before commenting?

      So… you know… the association would be many times more obvious and no one would mistake this as either a Poe (like I think it is) or a disingenuous attack on A+ using the straw feminist trope.

      Just seems really fucking obvious to me, like common sense. If you’re commenting on something specific, link to it.

      Yeah.

      Sounds like a great idea.

    • says

      yeah double post I’m bad like that,

      Also if you want to take an article on future reproductive technologies as the inspiration for this article I think you have a few hurdles.

      The article and book are about future reproductive technologies and the ethical social implications there in but at least this book doesn’t seem to be addressing the idea of a world without men that’s pretty much what Kagin’s page is about. He then goes on to suggest all sorts of morally dubious practises which no one is seriously considering that I can see. In fact the reproductive technologies being discussed have equally large applications for men as for women. If you have artificial wombs, chromosomes and sex cells you could just as easily make a world of all men. Or hell go a step further you’re well on your way to bioroids, new genders, morphological freedom and other crazy biotech speculations.

      Also off topic that article has a terrible terrible title, who ever was in charge of that should get a frowny face email or something.

    • strange gods before me ॐ says

      Your hypothesis, that he is commenting on a month-old story, does not account for this trolling:

      Males now living can be cut and tied. They should have this done immediately. The government must pay for the procedures.

      It matters little if the person being neutered identifies as a male or as something else. If the human has testicles, that human must be cut and tied. Better safe than sorry.

  17. julian says

    wait, why am I correcting and offering information on here?

    I’m part of the Approved Male Chorus! I’m definitely not wanted here.

    Bye, all

  18. Stevarious says

    I find myself greatly missing camels with hammers right now… At least if Dan Finke started posting weird stuff like this, we’d get an explanation as to why!

    Come on Kagin. You can’t post just the ridiculous strawman. We need some context so we know if you’re making a fool of the idiot MRA’s or just yourself.

    I sincerely hope its the former but I fear the latter greatly here.

  19. joeschoeler says

    Ed’s convinced me. I’ve realized that thinking women shouldn’t be threatened with rape or violence is the same as thinking men should be completely eliminated.

    • PG says

      See what I mean?

      What are you supposed to say to something like this? I’m pretty sure Kagin never said anything of the sort, never implied it and never even hinted at it, yet here we are. It’s ridiculous.

      • joeschoeler says

        So why don’t you tell me what Kagin means by this? Based on his previous posts about how atheism should not be involved in social issues, and comparing disliking misogyny to a preference for chocolate chip ice cream, and how this post starts with a sarcastic comment that females are superior to males, I don’t see what other conclusion to draw.

        And yes, in the New Atheism post, Kagin is comparing misogyny to ice cream preference. A+ is a response to the misogyny that has become apparent in the atheist community. By comparing the “divisive phenomenon” to ice cream preference, he is disparaging the need to fight misogyny.

        • PG says

          So why don’t you tell me what Kagin means by this? Based on his previous posts about how atheism should not be involved in social issues, and comparing disliking misogyny to a preference for chocolate chip ice cream, and how this post starts with a sarcastic comment that females are superior to males, I don’t see what other conclusion to draw.

          And yes, in the New Atheism post, Kagin is comparing misogyny to ice cream preference. A+ is a response to the misogyny that has become apparent in the atheist community. By comparing the “divisive phenomenon” to ice cream preference, he is disparaging the need to fight misogyny.

          So here we are again. In the A+ post, he never says anything about misogyny, sexism, abuse against women, none of that. However, because he saw fit to criticise A+, Ophelia Benson and Greta Christina made their own conclusions and projected he was comparing misogyny to what flavour ice-cream you like. (Because that is among the social justice concerns of A+.) Which is, of course, silly as hell. And it’s still silly as hell because you’re assuming what he meant when he didn’t even make that kind of comparison, so one has to wonder why it’s misogyny specifically and not one of the other social justice concerns A+ supposedly cares about?

          Another reason why it’s silly as hell (really, I can’t stress this enough) is because he’s obviously talking about the ingroup/outgroup mentality within A+, and not specifically the concerns that A+ is … concerned … about. Not that most other atheists are not concerned about them, too, they just don’t have a clique that they belong to. They also don’t conflate atheism with social justice issues, when clearly a lack of belief in a god does not hinge on condemning racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny and sexism, etc.

          As for what other conclusion to draw, joe, is maybe to use your brain that’s mostly functioning (hopefully) and not rush to conclusions? Because you kind of look like a douche when you do. I mean, I realise this is the thing to do here at FTB nowadays, but you don’t have to make it so apparent.

          • joeschoeler says

            Another reason why it’s silly as hell (really, I can’t stress this enough) is because he’s obviously talking about the ingroup/outgroup mentality within A+, and not specifically the concerns that A+ is … concerned … about.

            And what is wrong with this mentality, exactly? I think that threatening women with violence is wrong. I don’t want these people in the movement, and I don’t want to associate with them. I really hope that you aren’t trying to argue that we should be more inclusive to people threatening women.

            This is really all that A+ is: a recognition that some women receive misogynistic harassment from others in the atheist community, and that this is a bad thing.

  20. PG says

    Hahaha, this is brilliant. A post that ridicules the idea of parthenogenesis, but because the author previously had made a post about Atheism+ they’re obviously related. The Pharyngulites come running and rush to conclusions, judging, accusations of trolling, etc, etc. It’s a phenonomenon to behold. Ironic, perhaps, to ask this, but aren’t you people taking this too personal? Do you feel targeted in any way? Moreover, don’t you have a safe space where you don’t have to see posts like these? (Even though it has nothing to do with A+ or feminists, but projection is a powerful thing.)

    It’s clear to anyone but the willfully ignorant what the subject of this post was. He doesn’t have to justify the baseless accusations being levelled here when it’s not warranted, just because he disagrees with you on another unrelated matter.

    Then again, on the A+ post, you accused him of comparing the abuse of women to ice-cream preference (even though he said anything about abuse of women being a reason to criticise A+), so I suppose you’re not strangers to injecting your own narrative.

    • Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

      Neither are you cupcake.
      Get back to us when you fully understand the problem in the Atheist movement, as well as what Jen & Greta & Ophelia believe (rather than the strawman arguments you people trot out), and when you actually take the time to read for comprehension what A+ actually means.
      Y’know, instead of projecting.

      • PG says

        Yes, what do they mean?

        When Jen says that atheists are nothing but a bunch of privileged white guys, in a “boy’s club” community devoted to condoning the practice of misogyny, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism, what does she mean? When Sikivu Hutchinson says that Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens are ‘super-star, white male atheists’ who’ve ‘institutionalised a very narrow, prescriptive, white supremacist, patriarchal version of atheism’, what does she mean?

        When Greta Christina says that atheists have only been represented by ‘old white guys’, and feels, like Jen, that atheism is a ‘boy’s club’, what does she mean? When PZ Myers says that A+ is not divisive and then makes a post saying he’s ready to be divisive, which is terribly contradictory, what does he mean? I’m assuming it has to do with their position within this new clique, A+, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what they mean. Particularly Greta Christina making articles about A+ and its aversion to divisiness, then in the same vein tell people to go fuck themselves asking for proof and PZ Myers writing articles about hatred while his blog frequently features people telling others to fuck off and die (without moderation).

        Yeah, it’s difficult to figure out their message with this muddled narrative.

        • Brownian says

          but for the life of me I can’t figure out what they mean.

          It’s okay to admit you don’t understand and ask for help. It’s how people learn.

  21. jmmac says

    The first paragraph is sexist bigotry propagated by a simple male (ie not intelligent enough) instinctively looking to thwart competition from better men, pure and simple.

  22. clamboy says

    Mr. Kagin, thank you (and all the other bloggers here at FTB) for the free content, it is greatly appreciated. But I was wondering if you might do lurking readers such as myself an eensy teensy favor. Could you post a list of all the straw men you intend to erect and knock over, and roughly how much longer it will take to complete, so folks such as myself can have an idea of when you may again write something of actual substance – like, say, addressing an actual argument? You know how it is: so many blogs to read, so little time to waste being bored by stale tropes! Thanks!!!

  23. says

    … and you can see that (c) 1212 by Edwin Kagin. has created a comfortable landing spot for the same tired misogynist trolls who attack every other blog here. Of course, since (c) 1212 by Edwin Kagin. has no respect for his fellow bloggers, he’ll ignore the history of those trolls because they support his obvious superiority as a designated leader/priest in “the movement”.

    • PG says

      And what is wrong with this mentality, exactly? I think that threatening women with violence is wrong. I don’t want these people in the movement, and I don’t want to associate with them. I really hope that you aren’t trying to argue that we should be more inclusive to people threatening women.

      This is really all that A+ is: a recognition that some women receive misogynistic harassment from others in the atheist community, and that this is a bad thing.

      Misogyny which, again, Kagin is not specifically mentioning, implying or even hinting at. You’re projecting that’s what he meant and then conclude that’s what he meant. The ingroup/outgroup mentality is being challenged since atheism is not an ingroup/outgroup trait, and A+ proponents touts atheism as something it’s not, and shuns anyone who feels differently. However, once more, he never mentions feminists or misogyny in the A+ article or in this article nor does he mention feminists and misogyny as reasons to criticise. There is literally nowhere you can draw that conclusion. Yet it’s being made anyway, without evidence. Sound familiar?

      And in fact, you should be challenged. You are the ones claiming whole cloth that atheists condone misogyny, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism. You are the ones claiming whole cloth that atheists are nothing but a bunch of privileged white guys. You are the ones claiming whole cloth that atheists consider atheism to be a “boy’s club” (a ridiculous assertion), hence the reason for A+ since it would combat the things atheists not in A+ have not, and would not. Anyone not challenging this proposition is a misogynist, sexist, rape enabler, et al? Either with us or against us? What is wrong with that mentality exactly? Gee.

    • Z says

      Has anyone considered the Improbable idea that “(c) 1212″ might be a typo, and left there because the author found it amusing in and of itself? Occam’s Razor, by Dog. Anyone for a shave?

  24. says

    My hat is off to Mr Kagin. Whether by design or not, by posting this and not offering anything further, he has provided for some telling comments. Kudos!

    And btw, julian, you flounced twice in this thread.

    • Steersman says

      Yes indeedy, anyone buying into A† should at least be obliged to “stick the flounce”, although he joins the “illustrious” ranks of those not doing so …. ;-)

  25. quantheory says

    Is there a point to this? It’s obviously a parody. It’s not clear what it’s a parody of, though. If it’s a parody of feminists, it’s too crude to hit the mark, because it just doesn’t resemble the sorts of things feminists say. (Excepting some of the real edge cases, but you don’t see a lot of those, and they run afoul of Poe’s law easily enough that they don’t need to be parodied, just quoted from/linked to.) If it’s a parody of, say, MRAs parodying feminists, it is more on the mark, but really, you’re not communicating very well if you engage in multiple layers of parody without a more explicit hint about what you’re doing.

    Actually, what this really reminds me of is the Homosexual Manifesto, a combination of a parody of a parody with a hint of a genuine, neurotic, inappropriate longing. But that’s probably not what this is; it certainly seems not to arise out of a secret guilty longing to have women dominate men.

    So whatever this is, I really don’t think it’s well done. Either it’s a very poor parody of feminists, or the author is totally unclear about who he’s targeting.

    2/10 for style
    0/10 for effective communication
    2/10 for content (explaining what parthenogenesis is is educational, at least)

  26. mildlymagnificent says

    I’m afraid I have no idea of the W,W,W,W,W and H in this piece that my English teacher always told me should be dealt with in an essay. (who, what, when, where, why, how for those who never met Miss J Smith.)

    She also insisted we should decide on an appropriate tone or emotion for the topic. Joyless was never mentioned as a good option. But joyless is all I get from this.

  27. PG says

    Not sure why it turned out that way, but the response to #37 was meant for joeschoeler.

    Just in case I’ll double it here.

    joeschoeler wrote:

    And what is wrong with this mentality, exactly? I think that threatening women with violence is wrong. I don’t want these people in the movement, and I don’t want to associate with them. I really hope that you aren’t trying to argue that we should be more inclusive to people threatening women.

    This is really all that A+ is: a recognition that some women receive misogynistic harassment from others in the atheist community, and that this is a bad thing.

    Misogyny which, again, Kagin is not specifically mentioning, implying or even hinting at. You’re projecting that’s what he meant and then conclude that’s what he meant. The ingroup/outgroup mentality is being challenged since atheism is not an ingroup/outgroup trait, and A+ proponents touts atheism as something it’s not, and shuns anyone who feels differently. However, once more, he never mentions feminists or misogyny in the A+ article or in this article nor does he mention feminists and misogyny as reasons to criticise. There is literally nowhere you can draw that conclusion. Yet it’s being made anyway, without evidence. Sound familiar?

    And in fact, you should be challenged. You are the ones claiming whole cloth that atheists condone misogyny, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism. You are the ones claiming whole cloth that atheists are nothing but a bunch of privileged white guys. You are the ones claiming whole cloth that atheists consider atheism to be a “boy’s club” (a ridiculous assertion), hence the reason for A+ since it would combat the things atheists not in A+ have not, and would not. Anyone not challenging this proposition is a misogynist, sexist, rape enabler, et al? Either with us or against us? What is wrong with that mentality exactly? Gee.

  28. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    You’re both silly and pathetic, Kagin. Don’t you know that burning that much straw produces significant amounts of greenhouse gases? Still, I admit it’s garnered you more comments than your last few dozen posts combined, so presumably you’re satisfied.

  29. khms says

    Obviously, I cannot read Ed’s mind.

    And I can see why people hope he is ridiculing the haters.

    But I suspect it is rather more likely he is talking about this:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/09/13/a-male-is-not-needed-to-be-pregnant/

    Humans are mammals and sexual vertebrates. Will human females be able to reproduce with no male or no sex? Parthenogenetic reproduction can happen in human females. But do we have to produce only females because we do not have Y choromosome? Not necessarily if someone is a genetic mosaic whose body is built of a mixture of cells of two or more different genotypes! Yes, then we may even reproduce a male without a male.

    Frankly, I found both Ed’s and Taslima’s posts a bit strange.

    • says

      Taslima looks a lot like that “straw feminist” that allegedly doesn’t exist. In fact, I don’t think that straw feminist is made of straw at all, because even the proud Radical Feminists don’t go as far as she’s going in that piece (and inaccurately, too).

      Kagin is brilliant, BTW.

  30. hannanibal says

    After reading this I asked my wife (I mean my co-habital, differently- gendered, life partner) to slice my bollocks and cock off immediately. Our only problem is the knife we intended to use is much too phallic-shaped and we will have to wait until a suitable substitute can be found. Like a pizza cutter.
    Down with the patriarchy!

  31. says

    This is the most insane, bigoted, eugenics-loving, sexist piece of separatist crap I’ve ever seen on an atheist blog, and that’s even compared to PZ and Skepchick. Sexist not only in eliminating males, but also against heterosexual women. Denying every hetero woman in the future, the chance to have sex ever. Do you figure that women can just turn lesbian by choice?

    Do you even realize how utterly murderous and bigoted the above is? Your excuses for it, your reasons why males should be eliminated, would not be fixed by this. Women are not immune from what positions of power can do. Corruption, wars, killing, and yes, even sexual assaults, will not go away.

    Are you an evolutionary psychologist? I ask because you are certain that specific (bad) personality traits are biological and occurring only in those with XY chromosomes.

    • says

      Which piece, Kagin’s? If you think he’s being sexist or radical, I think you’re misreading him. He’s merely making a long-overdue point in response to Nasreen’s ridiculous post.

      The time will come when men (and rational women) will get tired of the feminist histrionics and finally put their foot down. And frankly, I’ll be glad to see it, because the feminist faction on FTB has made me look at feminism in a whole new light. I’ve always considered myself a “dictionary” feminist and a women’s rights advocate, but I’ve never realized how toxic and vile that philosophy could be until they showed me. Now I know. So thank you, FTBers, with an extra special thanks to the Pharyngulites.

      Regardless of the above, I still believe that everyone deserves equal rights, equal opportunities, proportional representation, and fair, civil treatment. Including “old rich white straight men.” Although that has nothing to do with atheism, ya know?

      • says

        I don’t think this article is funny, even if Kagin’s poeing. The separatist feminists really do feel exactly as Kagin posted. For real. This is not a caricature of stereotyped feminists, but a portrayal of the most extreme branch of radfems, the separatists.

        If anyone wants more info on them, just let me know. Also, during almost the entire 1980s, I was a radical feminist, and a good chunk of that time as a radical SEPARATIST feminist.

        Knowing that this mindset and belief system is real, has probably gotten in the way of my ability to see any intended humour here.

        However, Kagin says now that this was a Rorschach test. That makes me wonder, can we see a breakdown of the reactions? Any conclusions drawn? Also, separate from the stats, I am very curious as to what Kagin’s real opinions regarding the separatists are.

        • PG says

          Conclusions drawn is that people here are willing, and able, to judge others prematurely and not necessarily for the content of which they post. Some of it is projected, like Kagin’s apparent support for abusing women in the so-called atheist “community.” Which is unfounded and cannot be linked to anything he says. Another conclusion to be drawn is that people here are willing, and able, to poison the well and ad hom Kagin for another unrelated article he wrote which they disagreed with and incorrectly connected the two.

          The final conclusion to be made is these judgments would not have come to pass if people here did not rush to conclude what they thought the intent of the author was.

          As for your reaction, it’s more understandable now knowing your history. Although it’s a character study to see how articles like these, which I figured to be clearly hyperbolic, be taken without an ounce of humour and realise that there’s people who actually think like this. I don’t think I ever want to be on the receiving end of these seperatists.

          • says

            I’d still like to hear Kagin’s conclusions, being that it was his test. Yours sound a little nutty to be frank with you.

            And it might be a good idea if Kagin makes his actual opinions of separatists known. Without that, I have to conclude that like Laden, he is trying out some separatist ideas to take on as his own. It’s also irresponsible spreading these ideas of gendercide portrayed as though it were a positive thing.

            Or, maybe he doesn’t really give a shit, and he’s just all about trying to catch up to the other bloggers in page hits, a mindset that I think occurs on blogs that try to make money from ads and page hits.

  32. flueedo says

    Is this a poke at Talisma’s plausibly deniable provocation? :–) I don’t know.. Well, regardless of the possible aims or motives of this post, I must say I liked it.

    Parthenogenesis is a possibility, but so is artificial wombs(only a somewhat more complicated one at this stage). Assuming we lived in a world where the genders actually hated each other(which isn’t the case), then in the future maybe males and females will part ways. Men with their artificial wombs will leave to explore the space, and women will inherit the Earth(if they so desire to stay behind). Now, imagine that.. :–)

  33. says

    Not really sure what the thrust of this blog is about – clearly either way it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

    Certainly, it has given plenty of respondents something to QQ about, which is made all the more amusing since not one of them seems to be certain what the intent behind it really is.

    Jim (noelplum99)

    • hannanibal says

      I think this specific post is a dig at Taslima’s FTB blogpost about how women don’t need men for reproduction. That’s what I’m getting from it anyway and I think it’s pretty hilarious. Good on Ed for not staying with the rest of the sheep.

    • Egbert says

      People should check out some of Noelplum99’s excellent videos on youtube. Atheists have various opinions, some less heard than others.

      • Brownian says

        I’d watched part of one where he decried slinging mud not five minutes before he had a little tantrum and cried “This THIS is why FtB leads the way in total fucktards.” in the very thread in which he was promoting himself.

        I presume he’s some sort of performance artist? Those videos clearly can’t be straightforward tut-tutting on his part. Why, the levels of self-delusion on his part would be staggering if that were the case.

    • markneil says

      What I find particularly amusing is how many of the posters are equating the article to feminism when not a mention of feminism is made in the article. They make that correlation all on their own. And most seem to be objecting to the correlation to feminism that was never made, and not to the actual ideas presented in the article.

      • says

        You do realize that the idea of males being “eliminated” from the Human Genome is actually part of the straw feminist trope, right?

        In other words… when certain people (the “certain” used to denote what, quite frankly, should be really fucking obvious: I’m NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERYONE) want to criticize Feminist Person, they use this concept of the straw feminist, attacking Feminist Person of being a misandrist who just wants to kill every male in the world (among other things).

        Like all stereotypes, there are a few misandrists who call themselves feminists who fit it. But they are neither the majority nor the most vocal feminists, nor do they represent mainstream feminist thought. And most people would know this if they bothered to do a little fucking research (but, as usual, they never do).

        So yeah, it’s no surprise that this looks like an anti-feminism screed. It relies on the straw feminist stereotype.

        For the record, I still think it’s a Poe. Or a response to Taslima Nasreen’s rather misandrist screed. But Edwin posted this in a void, without context, leaving people to guess and get angry and so on.

        Only Edwin can end the debate as to what the hell he was talking about.

          • says

            I’ve already discussed this in another comment. Stereotypes/strawpeople are always based on a grain of truth.

            In this case, Taslima Nasreen represents that grain of truth. That doesn’t make the straw feminist any less of a straw feminist, however, because Taslima Nasreen does NOT represent the majority of feminist thought.

        • markneil says

          “So yeah, it’s no surprise that this looks like an anti-feminism screed. It relies on the straw feminist stereotype.”

          Then debate against his points. Show us that feminists don’t believe these ideas and will challenge them just like any other ideas they disagree with. Because right now, it looks more like a government trying to disavow that black opps team (read radicals and straw feminists) they sent in for whatever mission. IE, You don’t have a problem with what was said, just with it being associated to you.

          And this was my point to being with. A point you only reinforced in your reply to me, which was just an attempt to justify or explain why it shouldn’t be associated to you. but remember, those straw feminists (the new buzzword to replace the overused “radical feminist” for distancing misandric views) are still feminists, while true egalitarians, who identify as feminists, like warren Farrel, Camille Paglia and a number of others, have been excised into the realms of “anti-feminism”. You’d think if mainstream feminism really shared the views you claim it has, the radicals would be put out and the egalitarians would be kept, don’t you think?

          • valeriekeefe says

            Well, Paglia’s disqualified herself because she’s a raging cissexist. But yeah, I remain mystified at Warren Farrel’s invisiblity. He doesn’t defend the wage gap but he does analyze what causes it. (Death, Dirt, and Distress)

          • markneil says

            “Paglia’s disqualified herself because she’s a raging cissexist.”

            See, this is what I’m talking about. You dismiss Paglia because you call her cissexist, but dworkin, who is herself clearly sexist and outright misandrist, plus all her supporters who hold her up, champion her ideals and bought her books (posters saying dead men don’t rape is pretty fucking hostile to men) goes unmentioned, and thus, remains “qualified”… And we’re expected to believe the mainstream is closer to paglia (in that it addresses both sexes) and nothing like Dworkin? Your choice on who to excise and who not to is far more telling then your claims.

            “But yeah, I remain mystified at Warren Farrel’s invisiblity. He doesn’t defend the wage gap but he does analyze what causes it.”

            Not invisibility, his exclusion. And you can remain mystified all you want, but you know full well the answer. You just refuse to accept it. You resist the truth with faith.

          • valeriekeefe says

            Oh, I think Dworkin’s terrible too. I find her idea that as sexism disappears, trans people will just majestically fade away, like some artifact of patriarchy or something to that effect absolutely laughable. Based on what’s happened in terms of sexism in the last 38 years, since she wrote that, and what’s happened in terms of transition prevalence in the last 38 years, it would appear that the ‘transition-as-response-to-rigid-sexism’ hypothesis has been disproven by about two orders of magnitude.

            I’ve been yelling at cis feminists all day to recognize that they venerate some terrible people, but Paglia’s too blatant and too recent in her transmisogyny to get much of a pass, though she might have if she toed the unidirectional feminist party line on other issues.

            Unidirectional* feminists love them some ad hominem argument. So the question on elevatorgate wasn’t: “Why are we publicly shaming someone who understood No Means No and moved on?” and rather it became, “Why won’t you condemn the rape threats Rebecca has received after simply stating her boundaries?!”

            None of these people, of course, rushed forward to condemn the rape threats I received in the course of my criticism of Watson, and I’m a survivor of sexual assault. So well done there unidirectional feminists.

            *Unidirectional feminism: The position that in the Western world (though the developing world will frequently be invoked), cis straight men are unidirectionally privileged over cis straight women.

          • says

            None of these people, of course, rushed forward to condemn the rape threats I received in the course of my criticism of Watson, and I’m a survivor of sexual assault. So well done there unidirectional feminists.

            WHAT?!?!?!?

            What the fucking what?

            No one… at all… spoke out against the threats you were receiving?

            Wow…

            I’m sorry. I know it means nothing, but I’m sorry. That’s fucked up. I’ve been a supporter of Watson since stumbling onto Elevatorgate myself about two months after she posted the video, but NO ONE should get threats of any kind… even those I disagree with.

            People should have defended you against them, and I’m sorry they didn’t. I’m sorry that you got any, and I’m sorry no one spoke up against them. That really is fucked up.

          • markneil says

            @valeriekeefe

            Thank you for proving my point. Dworkin was a horrible women, to you, because of her opinions on trans people, just as Paglia is a horrible person to you, because of her views on trans people, but beyond this point, Paglia believes in true equality, while Dworkin is clearly a man-hater. Yet it is Paglia who is deemed anti-feminist, and would need to tow the feminist line on other issues in order to get a pass… Does that then mean Dworkin does tow that line? Would this not tell us that what she believed in, ie man-hating, is the feminist line that needs be towed for a pass? Because this is now the third time I’ve mentioned Dworkin, and the 4th time I’ve mentioned opposing ideas that don’t mesh with the claim that feminism is about equality, not man-hating, and yet, none of you who have responded have been able to condemn the man-hatred of Dworkin or this article. You just don’t want it associated to you. If paglia can’t be a feminist because she is “transmisogynistic” (seriously?), despite being egalitarian otherwise, but Dworkin can be a feminist despite being “transmisogynistic” and highly misandric, that tells you a great deal on feminisms priorities. And all of your failures to address the misandry in this post is further evidence of that.

  34. says

    This is called hyperbole. It’s taking the “feminist” position mandated by this network to its logical conclusions. It’s the expression of frustration at the utter lack of reasoning within the so-called “rationalist” community. If you can’t see that, then point proven. Many of us saw it an realized its tremendous impact on atheism/skepticism over a year ago.

    And it has nothing to do with social justice. We all want that. It has to do with people who believe, in earnest, that their way is the only way.

    • ChasCPeterson says

      So, what, do you not believe that your way is the only way? Or you believe but not earnestly? I mean, if somebody else has a better way than yours then why is it still your way? Or you think there is no only way but all ways are OK? Obviously not, because you’re here whining about other peoples’s ways. So…there’s more than one way that’s OK but not all of them and one of the OK ones is yours? Or not?

      • says

        No, I most certainly don’t believe that my way is the only way. I’d love to have a friendly discussion about the various complex topics involved in social justice and present various studies, etc. But that’s not possible here. Further, I believe different points are view are of infinite value when trying to determine a proper course of action. So do most rational people. You can’t just shut out dissent with threats and bullying and pretend that you’re right. Nothing positive comes from doing that.

    • Tony •King of the Hellmouth• says

      Please tell me how you know that feminism is mandated here at FtB. Have you read some members manual that states this? Have you read every bloggers’ “About” page to see the topics they wish to discuss? Are you psychic?
      Once again, you people make blanket statements about this community for the purpose of smearing everyone.

  35. grainosalt says

    Edwin this sounds like a Glen Beck wink-wink-nudge-nudge type comment. I’m not saying it is, I mean this would clearly be the outcome if we start treating wimmin as people. Also wimmin are all a totalitarian divisive ideology religion. amirite

  36. Brownian says

    You know, this is all the fault of those fuckers who chant “Hivemind!” and “Echo chamber!” as they were meaningful claims.

    It’s for the appearance of diversity that this site has to include dead weight like Taslima Nasreen and Ed Kagin.

    • baal says

      I don’t get this. Both Ed and Taslima represent a number of other folks who agree with them. Should those segments of audience not get to read authors who are atheists that they agree with? You’re saying that you find both so vapid and short on affirmative positions or thought provoking content that they should be canned?

      I’m not in agreement – with Ed, Taslima or you. I still read them (and you) from time to time if only for the diversity.

  37. besomyka says

    What this is, I don’t know. At first I thought he was serious (there are some books out on the topic of ‘The End of Man’ which isn’t about what you probably think it is), and I was going to say something along the lines of ‘well, that wouldn’t be very healthy for our genome, would it? What about future adaptability?’

    Now, however, I think Kagin is tolling his own blog. Weird.

    Anyway, I’m all for the breaking down of social genders. I think the natural state of the social aspects in how we relate to one another are considerably more fluid than our current culture allows.

    If medical advances got to the point in which male or female-bodied people could carry a baby to term – or an artificial womb that would free everyone from that obligation – I think that’d be a huge step in the right direction towards that social fluidity.

    The abolition of sex, however, is nutty, counter-productive, and longer-term dangerous for the survival of the species.

    The abolition of sexual differences isn’t the same thing at all, though.

  38. Nice Ogress says

    Huh. Verbal pareidolia. Everyone’s seeing a different ‘message’ in the same text.

    What does that remind me of? Geeze, it’s on the tip of my tongue…

  39. says

    Again… if this was a comment on the news article about the future of reproduction, or a response to Taslima Nasreen’s screed (and yes, it was a screed… a deplorable screed), then why didn’t Kagin link to it? Why is this left in a void, looking a lot like a deliberate straw-feminist, so that anyone is free to come up with any interpretation they want?

    I think it’s a Poe. Others think it’s just another anti-feminist screed. Some others think it’s a response to an article about the future of reproduction. Still more think it’s a response to Taslima Nasreen. Who knows… maybe some lurkers think Ed’s blog has been hacked.

    Only Edwin Kagin knows the answer, and so far we’ve seen nothing from him.

    Edwin?

    What is this about?

    • valeriekeefe says

      It’s hard to refer to something as being written by a straw-feminist when the same CAMAB-exterminationist views have been advanced by many of the leading lights of the second wave, who, amazingly, are still employed.

      Read Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, and Sheila Jeffreys, and then tell me that these paragons of the second-wave aren’t calling for genocide… first trans women, because we’re a bit easier to marginalize and deny medicine to and such, and then after that, the cis men.

      • says

        This is the last time I’m posting this on this thread:

        All stereotypes/strawpeople have a grain of truth to them. There are always atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, feminists, agnostics, Wiccans, pagans, men, women, people of color, white people, rednecks, liberals, leftists, conservatives, libertarians, environmentalists, New-Agers, children, adults, goth people, homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, etc who do actually fit the stereotypes. Stereotypes are never created in a void. They are always based on a grain of truth.

        This does not, however, mean they aren’t stereotypes. A stereotype/strawperson is, basically, the defining of a group by its fanatics. The “Gender Feminist” is a stereotype of all feminism based on its minority fanatics, much like the “Immoral Atheist” is a stereotype of atheism based on Neitsche and Ayn Rand, and also Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot.

        The challenge is to recognize that while stereotypes/strawpeople do not exist in a void, and are built upon a grain of truth, they never describe the whole, or even the majority, of the group/identity/ideology they are meant to be a caricature of.

    • says

      This I largely agree with. One thing I wonder about, why are most of the people who edit Wiki male? I think the last article I saw on the subject said that women accounted for only 10% of the edits. I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, so don’t quote me. I do know that you can’t use IP blockers of any sort to participate, so that might have something to do with it. Any ideas? (Also, sorry for the derail.)

      • Aratina Cage says

        I’m just glad I passed this dad-gurned Rorschach test of his!

        But anyway, good questions. I do know that the few times I tried to edit Wikipedia, I was met with stiff resistance by people who I think were men. Some people seem to camp out on different topics and act as strict gatekeepers. Who wants to deal with that to add a few things or rearrange things?

        It is quite noticable how many articles on women are usually very brief, whatever the underlying reasons. It’s good that something is being done to change a small part of the problem.

  40. julian says

    I can’t believe I actually clicked on this thread again. Jesus, Kagin’s group’s willing to lie about everything and anything Watson, Jen and the others have said and support.

    It looks like I interpreted this post wrong but my criticism stands. This really is just another local for Kagin and his buddies to attack Jen and the rest.

    I’m sorry I said even two words in Kagin’s favor in this thread. More than he deserves.

    • PG says

      Julian, you deliberately misinterpreted the article and rushed to conclusions on its intent. Your delusions, however, does not stop there apparently, because now you’ve invented in your head this “Kagin’s group” which doesn’t exist. You’ve invented in your head that Kagin’s blog is a “local to attack Jen and the rest.” You also don’t seem averse to make baseless claims about people lying, and not backing up your baseless claims with evidence to support them. Maybe you should take a break. The mental gymnastics are clearly taking its toll on you.

  41. Johnfoster says

    Its quite telling about the intellectual level of a “movement” when its followers feel they can glibly invoke or applaud every bit of reprehensible nonsense from the more poisonous forms of 2nd wave feminism (SCUM Manifesto anyone?), but whenever someone says “I think that sentiment is repugnant and in complete contradiction with your stated goals” they think “fuck you” is an adequate response.

    Yes guys – there is a lot of feminism that looks *exactly and unironically* identical to the post Kagin just made. Taslima glibly invoked it in her post. Please, glib, pseudo-intellectual e-feminists, own your own shit before you start criticizing others.

    2nd wave feminism, despite its frequent fetishization by the new breed of internet feminists, does indeed come loaded with a long history of shit like this. If you glibly throw out terms and concepts borrowed from people who *actually believe this nonsense* or are sympathetic to it, there are other people who are going to be repulsed by it (and rightfully so). They’re going to be even more repulsed if you draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say “either you indulge us with our dehumanizing nonsense or you don’t care about women.”

    And to that I think the *appropriate* response *should* be “fuck you.”

    Further, if you think that you can’t or shouldn’t criticize reprehensible sentiments from your side because it might give “aid and comfort” to the alleged misogynist hordes, then the response should be a double “fuck you.” Its your inability to criticize your own that does far more than anything else to reinforce the perception that most of you are full of shit on this topic.

  42. Ed Buckner says

    And, speaking of fine segues (you were, weren’t you?), I assume everyone reading Edwin’s blog (he’s Edwin, I’m Ed–please try to keep up) is aware that, under the Constitution of the United States, something less than a majority of women voters could amend the US Constitution to eliminate the rights of all males to vote or hold office. Any who doubt this can read the US Constitution and then advise if you don’t follow. (I admit that it could not be done overnight–but I do solemnly affirm that it actually could happen.) Regards to all,

    Ed B. (former President, American Atheists)

  43. vaginas-are-beautiful says

    I would like to see this happen, but good luck lifting heavy objects. The female body is mostly fat and there is very little muscle. Don’t underestimate the role lifting heavy objects plays in creating and maintaining civilization.

    Also, men might actually be generally better and math and science. But who needs that right?

    • says

      Too early to tell about math and science, probably, and there are exceptions to the rule, but spacial reasoning? There’s no comparison (with a few exceptions, of course). And you know what? There are probably evolutionary reasons for this. Denying inconvenient or politically incorrect facts won’t make them vanish.

  44. stoferb says

    I kinda like the idea that should the technology come available, women can impregnate themselves. But as a gay man I don’t wish to see the end of the male gender…

  45. JanaTheVeganPiranha says

    Haha, males everywhere are holding their genitals.

    So I guess nobody can have a bit of fun anymore? I think everyone pretty well understands we are coming to an end of an era, and that the balancing of genders and role expectations are shifting- no reason why we should expect men to be joyful about it. They won’t be, and they’re not. If Edwin is willing to kick up some long-assumed settled dust for us to look at, why not have a look-see?

    Literalism- always the resort of those who would not see.

        • Panagiotes Koutelidakes [RaspK] says

          Plainly put: cis-gendered feminists identify the entirety of the feminist movement with cis-gendered females; i.e. to Hell with a movement that fights andrarchy, it’s all about women (which is a very, very different thing), thereby it all boils down to ****s.

          Insert “cock/dick/junk/cunt/twat” according to your preferences.

  46. valeriekeefe says

    It’s a shame, if radical feminists weren’t so transmisogynistic, they’d realize they could get a lesbian utopia without genocide simply by taking advantage of neurological organization and dosing with anti-androgens starting at about week 10 and ending at about week 21 of pregnancy.

    Ed’s solution to the utility problem of maleness (and I ask you ladies, would you really like to face the violent, brutish, and short, existence of a man? I think not, but we can continue to ignore bidirectional sexism so long as it suits our political purposes), unfortunately, will leave a great many straight cis women, far greater than the 23% of trans women who are straight, given that one can infer via organization theory that transfemininity is likely to result in an atypically anti-androgenic gestational environment. The solution to this is obviously not homonormativity, since that doesn’t work when it comes to heteronormativity, rather, let us have the lesbian population rise in a direct relationship with the female population.

    But for that to happen, radfems would actually have to accept the science of gestational midbrain organization, and cisfeminists like Rebecca Watson would have to stop being so utterly femmephobic when it comes to CAMAB people. (Oh yes, they have a token trans girl… well done oppression solved then?)

    Sadly, yet fittingly, ironic that Second-wave+ cis feminists, and their political sycophants are the major stumbling block to an all-womon society.

    Sincerely,

    A cultural transfeminist with a bi-directional analysis of cis-hetero gender power relations.

  47. says

    Edwin,

    You just aren’t taking this seriously enough. If we want to rid the planet of males, there is no need to wait until parthenogenesis is achieved, nor until the patriarchal governments are convinced of the need to have the males “cut and tied.” All you really need is to convince women (who exclusively control the means of reproduction) to stop giving birth to male children. The technology is already available to perform preimplantation genetic diagnosis or (failing that) sex-selective abortion, so all that remains is to create the public health infrastructure which works to facilitate women’s choices. Once women collectively choose to stop giving birth to male offspring, we’ll be only two generations away from a more peaceful and productive planet for everyone.

    Of course, a few male specimens should be preserved in order to keep the sperm banks stocked. Probably this can be achieved by designating areas for men to live alone, as hunter-gatherers, preferably isolated areas such as Tasmania, the Andaman Islands, and North Sentinel Island. Such an arrangement will allow men to thrive in a natural environment, and the best specimens will be periodically selected for sperm donation.

    The only real obstacle to the immediate implementation of this plan is neither technological nor political, it is cultural. A number of women still exist who love and nurture their male offspring and seem to believe that they will grow up to make the world a better place. Once these gender traitors and sister punishers come to see these male children not as innocent bundles of joy but as potential rapists and murderers, then the revolution will finally begin. Women of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your patriarchal chains.

  48. JanaTheVeganPiranha says

    As sad as I am to see that so few people get simple hyperbole, here’s a question it does raise- why DO men do this heinous shit? Who keeps stirring the pot of our hatred?

    But it’s a pretty nice outline of what patriarchy unchecked has brought us. As in all things, we have checks and balances for a reason. Perhaps this was an allegory about righting a wrong- a STORY, a tale- not a literal suggestion.

    Edwin’s a writer ffs.

    • valeriekeefe says

      Edwin didn’t do anything but put together a precis of the CAMAB-exterminationists of the Second-Wave. People who are either still employed as professional transmisogynistis, or who died revered (“she really made it okay for me to be a feminist!” gushes cis girl after cis girl, and of course they’re totes against transmisogyny… except in practice) wrote this shit. Solanas, Daly, Raymond, Jeffreys… not an idea or a sentiment changed. There’s some feminists here who’ve been not so happy about this little bit of genocidal past the movement doesn’t want to recognize. If a character is written who believes what those feminists wrote and articulates it, she’s called a Straw Feminist, a parody of feminism… only in feminism are widely popular, economically successful views dismissed as ‘outside the mainstream’.

      Sadly, for the roughly 60,000 American trans women who died when the feminist movement set transition medicine back 15 years by handing the appropriate policy papers over to the Reagan administration, it’s not hyperbole, it’s not a bad joke…

      It’s deadly serious.

    • Z says

      “why DO men do this heinous shit?”

      It’s that Y-chromosome defect. Plus, testosterone makes men stupid. That, and when the brain is temporarily starved for oxygen-rich blood, the inevitable occurs.

      It’s never just one thing – it’s the dominant culture, it’s biology, it’s psychology, it’s stupidity. You can’t change some of them, so you have to concentrate on what you can.

  49. wuvpack says

    This is hilarious!!! I mean the article alone was worth a giggle or two but the comment section was PURE COMEDIC GOLD. Thank you friend who linked me here.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply