Atheism and misogyny

In the ones I have seen you keep going on and on about how she shouldn't have used the language she did / should have known the rules / should have known about karma whoring / shouldn't have included a picture of herself. Which isn't without reservation.

However if you say that you do condemn them without reservation then that's fine. Even though you just did it again in your last post but one

But she was merely posting an innocent thread about a book she got from her mum and was only after a discussion about atheism, wasn't she?

Do you think otherwise? Do you think she had different motivations, or that all is not as it seems in some other way?

"Are either of you actually prepared to say that you think what was said to her was revolting"

Are you serious? I have condemned those comments unreservedly many times on this thread. And repeatedly, for the hard of reading.

"How was she supposed to predict what was going to happen and not post, if no-one could have predicted what was going to happen?"

Dear god. I said, right back in my first post on this thread that she wasn't being helpful in encouraging serious responses. This was in response to suggestions that she had merely posted an innocent thread about a book she got from her mum and was only after a discussion about atheism.

If she was only after a discussion of the book, then knowing how Reddit works, she went about it badly. That doesn't mean she shouldn't have posted at all, just that she should have at least held off on the anus comments (and the naked penthouse one).

NG not when no-one on the thread is making that link, no. Feel free to continue the line if you like, but you're not going to get the "discussion" that you ealrier said you wanted, as no-one disagrees with you on that point.

NG and ecclesvet you have read the comments that were posted and "liked" by so many people to that girl. Including ones about kidnap, anal rape, blood and tears being natures lubricant. And all the rest of it.

Are either of you actually prepared to say that you think what was said to her was revolting (or similar) - without qualifying it in any way?

SQ, is it not reasonable to reply to a thread and comments trying to link atheism to sexism with a comment reasoning that there is no link between not believing in God and being a misogynist?

Really? Is that really off topic?

Stop trying to tell people what they can and can't post about.

That's sadly true.

NG that doesn't make sense. How was she supposed to predict what was going to happen and not post, if no-one could have predicted what was going to happen?

You think that ecclesvet, but you have no way of knowing the motivations of every person who posted on that thread.

"Even under the usual standards of that community there was no way of predicting that was going to happen."

I know. I have said about million times that rape threats would not nor should not have been expected. But it was possible to predict that her post would invite replies about her, and be of a sexually suggestive nature rather than her book. And I am not saying that that's right, just that it was predictable given where, what and how she posted. And any regular redditor would have known that.

NG where has anyone said that all athiests are sexist monsters?

Nowhere in that exchange does it say anything approaching that.

I didn't mean it to be an excuse, and it wouldn't be odd to read all the comments on your post, no. I just think that the people making these rape 'jokes' were doing it with the intent of "I'm joking around with my white male liberal buddies", not "I'm going to direct this rape fantasy at an underage girl". Which doesn't excuse their actions, which were obviously horrible.

I don't like this "yes, but"/excuses angle you're working, Sardine. It seems to suggest that anything other than "yes, you are 100% correct" is the 'wrong' answer, and that we are not allowed to add our own thoughts onto anything anyone else has said/posted. If you want that kind of discourse, Mumsnet isn't the place for that.

"But none of us wrote the article"

Dworkin however saw fit to start a thread inviting discussion about it. And post comments such as 'It may well be the case that r/atheism section has been infiltrated by MRA's' so an explanation of how the post reached a much wider audience than r/atheism is valid.

And 'A perfectly innocent posting about the child's religious mother giving her a Carl Sagen book' so an explanation of how her posting wouldn't be seen as perfectly innocent by the Reddit community is also warranted.

Forkful posted 'I was quite surprised about it as I think like many I wrongly assumed that athiests would have more enlightened values towards women '
Dworkin posted 'I agree there is a big problem with sexism in the atheist community.'
Forkful posted 'I think that a lot of the male athiests take their cues from biologial determinism being the logical extention from evolution/natural selection.'
Dworkin posted 'and given that a lot of male atheists have a scientific background or a skeptical mind, they know exactly the cause and effect that controlling women has. They aren't that bothered because they think women are there for sexual gratification only. '

So my post about how atheism and misogyny have nothing to do with each other was entirely warranted in response to these comments.

You then replied
"noblegiraffe I am sure that no-one on here takes this as evidence that all athiests are sexist monsters. So that is a bit off topic really."

It's clearly not off topic. And clearly there are people on here suggesting a link between an atheist mindset and sexism. Please allow me to reply to them without making it all about you, hmm?

But she got rape threats.

So how does your comment make any sense.

Even under the usual standards of that community there was no way of predicting that was going to happen.

"Additionally there is your point of she did something stupid and what did she expect etc etc which to me anyway is extremely problematical for the reasons I have said so many times."

Are you suggesting that people should never pay attention to the rules of the community to which they contribute? If the expected responses are clearly laid out in the style of the community to which you are contributing? If you say WOHM are uncaring or FF is shit on mumsnet and you get pissy responses, then it is entirely the fault of the message board and not yours for assessing whether your comments are in the appropriate style to get the response you seek?

(I feel the need to say once again, because you keep ignoring this, I am not saying that the expected response was the rape threats that she got, but rather not the jolly atheist discussion some seem to suggest she should have experienced).

I mean, even with this example of really appalling behaviour there are people saying, ah yes, well, but, excuse, excuse, etc

Why do people find it so hard to say what happened was wrong and disgraceful full stop.

You can post whatever you like but why are you posting the same thing over and over again in an argumentative fashion when no-one is actually disagreeing with you?

I get that you have issues with the article, you have outlined them about 150 times. But none of us wrote the article so I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve.

ecclesvet that is a terribly weak excuse for their behaviour. You seem to be implying that it would be unusual for people to read the responses to something that they posted. That;s a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

SQ, it is strange that once again you are suggesting that I am not allowed to discuss the article that was put up for discussion in the OP, nor am I allowed to post comments discussing things which have come up in this thread, merely because you don't give a shit.

Sardine, Dworkin - those comments were replies to other ones, so they weren't directed to her in the sense that she wouldn't have received 'orangereds' (notifications of replies to your comment). But yes, like I said, she would have been able to see them if she were to read through all the comments on the post.

I'm not the author of the piece NG so quite frankly I have no fucking idea.

You are trying to manufacture an argument when no-one here is disagreeing with you and it's tiresomes

noblegiraffe I don't know what you are on about. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about something that no-one on the thread is saying.

Your points seem to be

• Not all athiests are sexist arseholes and that thread can't be used as evidence that they are
• There were people on the thread who were disgusted with what happened

Yes we all know that, we all agree, so I'm not sure why you are labouring the point given that we all agree with you but never mind.

Additionally there is your point of she did something stupid and what did she expect etc etc which to me anyway is extremely problematical for the reasons I have said so many times.

"The idea seems to be that in real life and on the internet, some places are no go areas and if women are stupid enough to go there then they get what's coming to them. I think that is wrong. "

Hey, I think that it's wrong too. Why didn't Rebecca Watson write that piece? Why did she write an 'Atheists Suck' piece in its place?

"let's not talk about the legion of atheists (and others) who did not then leap on those posters and tell them to stop saying rapey shit to a 15 year old"

Did you read the thread? Did you ignore the posters telling them to stop saying rapey shit to a 15 year old?

How about these?

"Redditers tell her that they like her because she's attractive. First of all, sending the wrong message to an impressionable young girl. Second, making all of us look like creepy pervs. And, third, possibly scaring away a young female member of a movement which, let's face it, is male dominated."

"People like you are why I'm considering transferring my domains back to GoDaddy in hopes that SOPA passes and reddit gets shut down."

"lol we're just pointing out how there are a lot of creepy frustrated dudes who are commenting on your post. Reddit is kind of an ultra misogynistic place."

"I'm sorry, anonymity breeds assholes. I hope you enjoy the book greatly! You should watch cosmos if you have not yet, before Neil deGrasse Tyson makes his new one."

"Let me guess, she'd be perfect for you? How about you get a fucking life and not perv on random 15 year olds on the internet. Man, do guys really think most girls don't like talking about butts and poo just because they are girls?"

"WTF is wrong with all the sad people that feel the need to make overt sexual comments to a 15 year old girl? Fuck off to FreeOnes if you're in need of a quick wank. Call to arms to my fellow male atheists: Show the bastards talk of rape etc. is not done!"

"I think it has more to do with the emotionally crippling loneliness that can come with spending a lot of time online. It's a bit sexist, but mostly it's just an ignorance of appropriate social behavior. Not that this excuses it, of course, it's actually quite embarrassing as an r/atheism member."

"I think it's interesting this post is getting drama. "OMG, you're upvoting her because she's a girl and she's cute!" And spawning secondary threads.
When none of this drama would have happened if it was just a normal looking dude with the same story.
Stop being doucebags, reddit. Metadrama is lame."

"Don't give up. Not every male around here is a misogynistic tool bag. There are quite a few, and this is the internet -- an often male dominated land where people feel free to say or do anything they want because of the anonymity and, further, where people feel that it's okay to mercilessly make fun of people for no reason whatsoever (and then call it "trolling".)
Still, I think you should stick around. The more people we have around here who aren't misogynistic tools the better."

"anyone who is anything within the thinking world will take you seriously for the ideas and thoughts you have, not for your gender. don't worry about it, and sorry for the general sexual bent of the comments from the general community."

Shall we talk about them? There are many posts on that thread doing exactly what you just said no one did. Try not to speak from a position of ignorance, eh?

Which would still be inappropriate given that the girl is 15 etc etc