On WB's latest video about Melodramatic Melody, commenter
whoareyoutalkingto1 suggested checking out
the FB group for
Atheist Ireland, mentioned a couple times in Michael Nugent's article.
Over there, someone posted TFoot's video and Nugent himself posted a link to his blog.
Things don't seem to be going too well for Nugent's ideas at his facebook group.
In the comments about TF's video, I didn't notice anyone who seemed to agree with him, and most of the comments are an interesting conversation between two other users with the occasional comment by Nugent that don't get a lot of attention.
And a user named Declan Lyons wrote a very nice and long comment about Nugent's post (I include the whole comment inside a spoiler tag and some short snippets outside)
Declan Lyons wrote:
Your article was well-written and comendable, (even if it ignored other forms of online hatred, such as misandry, racism, homophobia and transphobia,) but to people who raised this moronic furore read like it, "misogyny, misogyny, misogyny, hatred of women online, and they used to it support their claim that misogyny is rife within the atheist community
(About Amy)
Declan Lyons wrote:
Other atheist leaders have received hate-mail and death threats as a result of their atheism. They have attended debates where they were overwhelmingly despsised. Richard Dawkins's appearance on The Late-Late Show is one of the milder examples that spring to mind, so your argument that her feelings were hurt doesn't get any sympathy from me
(About RW)
Declan Lyons wrote:
So does TF have a point when he refers to her as a professional victim? Very much so. I also find it funny that as she recounts her persoanl ordeal of abuse, the only time her smile fades is when she states "I've also been called a liar." She quite cheerfully recollects all of the so-called harassment she's suffered, but only when she mentions her lack of crediblity does she have a negative emotional response.
(About Melody)
Declan Lyons wrote:
Melody Hensley blocked people on Twitter who had never even posted anything about her. This is not a sane and rational thing to do. This is the knee-jerk reaction of a child. And someone called her a douchebag in a video? So what? She's a big girl
So I would say Nugent doesn't fare very well even in his home turf.
[spoiler]I have some problems with this post, too, Michael.
Point 2. You know exactly what he means, Michael. You're using a straw man. You know very well what TF means when he's referring to the secular community. He means the leaders within it. He know more means the volunteers who carry out the day-to-day running of an secular organization then someone who is against American foreign policy means an American citizen when they criticize the US.
He also mentioned you as you wrote your article in response to what was happening at the time within the community, and your article was a broad attack at hatred online, (Sorry hatred at women; because hatred of men doesn't happen. You know, things like Skepchicon where the male brain was described as a female brain damaged by testosterone.) Your article was well-written and comendable, (even if it ignored other forms of online hatred, such as misandry, racism, homophobia and transphobia,) but to people who raised this moronic furore read like it, "misogyny, misogyny, misogyny, hatred of women online, and they used to it support their claim that misogyny is rife within the atheist community. Even though, in both articles, the issue of sexism at conferences wasn't addressed, and some of your examples had nothing to do with the community and one was an example of online bullying where girls were culpable. You wrote two non-answers to the issue at hand at they were used to bolster an agenda.
Point 3. "[Amy Roth Davis] is a person with the same emotional vulnerabilities as most people, and she and her mother left the conference early."
Obviously not, Michael. She suffered mockery as a result of Skepchicks' stance against their percieved misogyny at conferences. Attendance of women dropped at TAM as a result, so the fact that she sells some of her her artwork to send women to conferences is a ridiculous point to raise. Other atheist leaders have received hate-mail and death threats as a result of their atheism. They have attended debates where they were overwhelmingly despsised. Richard Dawkins's appearance on The Late-Late Show is one of the milder examples that spring to mind, so your argument that her feelings were hurt doesn't get any sympathy from me. If people want to voice their disaproval, they are free to do so. If she doesn't like it she always has the option of leaving, which she availed of. Your right about one thing, though. We should be aiming higher to make women feel welcome. Challenging the lie that women will be entering a hornets nest of slobbering men who see them, as PZ Myers puts it, as f***-toys is a start.
Point 4. You address TF's 'attack' on Rebecca Watson, quoting him saying “Well, take for instance the professional victims, who went from conference to conference telling people each time that the sexual harassment at those conferences was so bad that they were literally putting their lives on the line merely by turning up…†You then post a link to the full video, most of which I've seen before but no in its entirity. So I was shocked to see that her talk is actually called "Theocracy v. Humanism." If I had to guess the name of the address I'd still be here next year none the wiser. So does TF have a point when he refers to her as a professional victim? Very much so. I also find it funny that as she recounts her persoanl ordeal of abuse, the only time her smile fades is when she states "I've also been called a liar." She quite cheerfully recollects all of the so-called harassment she's suffered, but only when she mentions her lack of crediblity does she have a negative emotional response.
Point 5 & 6. Your right that PZ would not make those comments today. He wouldn't want to be seen as the hypocite he is. Now, compare his statements to the tweet made by the man RW had fired for threatening to "sexually harass" her. You went some way to explain and justify PZ's comments, even if you did concede that they were inapropriate. So I ask you, is this comment worth being fired for?
http://anotherfeministblog.files.wordpr ... ivator.jpg
Point 7. The word atheist means non-belief in a god or gods. Any negative connotations of immorality that were associated were due to that simple definition and people's imputations upon hearing it. I personally take exception to any alteration in the meaning of the one word that sums up my non-belief to include any new labels that I may not identify with. The debate of the definition of this word goes beyond PZ's comments, with the attempted hijacking of it by Atheism + also an issue that bothered me.
Point 8. The right to say things that offend people. Atheism + quickly decended into an echo chamber where any dissenting opinions were removed by the moderators. This is also true to a lesser extent on Pharyngula. And let's not forget, TF was promised free reign of his posts on Freethough Blogs, and was soon stifled by PZ. He then made public the discussions regarding his sacking from FtB. Maybe there isn't a problem of freedom of expression pervading the secular community, but there is definitely one with some of it's key figures. You may cite a difference in discussion in public spaces and private fora, but if we in the secular community are going to talk the talk, we sure as hell better walk the walk, or we risk being ridiculed by opposing factions, and not censor opinions simply because we don't like with them.
Point 9. Melody Hensley blocked people on Twitter who had never even posted anything about her. This is not a sane and rational thing to do. This is the knee-jerk reaction of a child. And someone called her a douchebag in a video? So what? She's a big girl. Is this enough to start a flagging campaign in order to censor her video? Defininately not, in my opinion.
This is the link to a voice for boys...
http://www.avoiceforboys.com/
It was started By The Woolly Bumble Bee in response to a lack of such facilities for boys, which was highlighted after her girls' school decided to donate their annual funds raised by a charity event to Because I am a Girl, a charity which only provides for girls in the third world, instead of Brick by Brick, their usual choice, which provides for both girls and boys in such countries. Those little African boys must have it good. If there is anything sexist about A Voice for Boys please let me know, because I've just read their webpage and there doesn't seem to be a single sexist comment on it. Also, I've been following the A Voice For Men since the Warren Ferrell incident at U of T and they certainly don't strike me as a dark misogynistic parody. I challenge you and any other member here to read their articles and challenge them on any disagreement you have. They will not censor you like Atheism + and if you want to see a dark sexist parody I'd suggest browsing Radfem hub and making a comparison. Also google Radfem Hub/Agent Orange.
You might get inspired to address hatred of men, ethnicity,homosexuals and transexuals next time you right a blog about hatred online. You know? Like when Greg Laden suggested that all men have a rape switch, which means that men like me, and you, might snap at any minute and go on a rape spree.
Or maybe hatred online really is only aimed at women?[/spoiler]
